Why should I re-join the NRA?

[Ignition Override]

I know of two guys who don't see any need for semi-auto "AK-47 clones" to be legal.

One of them has the TN CCW, carries a concealed .45. For what it is worth, he is from Nashville, flew
(West Coast: NAS Moffat) Navy P-3s in the 70s, but sees no reason for every country boy to have a gun.

The other guy is a coworker, lives near Dallas and is a duck hunter. I won't mention their political party, because apparently millions of gun owners in both major parties benefit from those who decided to Take Action, instead of reaping the harvest from others' membership dues.

It is doubtful that those two guys give any dues to the NRA, but they both probably benefit from its lobbyists, which cost huge heaps of cash.
If there is a perfect, flawless gun lobby with serious influence in Congress, I'll switch over.

Maybe none of us actually need to belong to the NRA.... Let's be clones of the Aussies and British citizens, and like the German sports shooters, we document how many rds. of ammo we have, and keep it locked up at the shooting clubs (the gun class takes several weeks, and is pricey). A single .223 bolt-action rifle holding a max. of three rds. should suffice.

Instead of Taking Action, we just keep our money, and allow Pelosi, Feinstein, Chuckie Schumer, etc the Senate/White House to tell us what we should own, and which guns to turn in.
I almost forget...Attorney General Eric Holder will also do a fine job telling us what we need.

 

[Stevie-Ray]

As for Obama: my wife studied law under him when he was a teacher at the University of Chicago. He's a lawyer, and an expert on constitutional law. She heard, in class, Obama declare that the 2nd amendment grants the right of gun ownership to American citizens.

Then Obama was completely wrong, as usual. The Second Amendment does not "grant" anything. That right is God-given. The Second Amendment merely points this out and says that right won't be infringed.

Rights are not granted by the government. That's a dangerous assumption.

 

[gym]

I also donate to my local sherriff

 

[Ben86]

"We do not, however, take a position on gun control itself. In our view, neither the possession of guns nor the regulation of guns raises a civil liberties issue."

I read that as meaning they do not consider the owning of guns to be a valid civil liberty worth protecting and that they would not be distraught if gun bans are put into effect. While that's not exactly anti-gun, it makes them more of a selective civil liberties union instead of one that protects the entire Bill of Rights.

 

[oneounceload]

Why should I re-join the NRA?

If you really have to ask, perhaps you shouldn't.....................

 

[1stmarine]

Join the NRA and every other association that fights for any constitutional rights.
It is not about the guns only but government control at all levels. Schumer should know better and ask the people of Israel the consequences of disarming the law abidding population and then come back and stop all the non-sense he is doing with all the other anti-constitution politicians.

 

[blue_ridge]

CCW_Steve:

The fact that the NRA uses the government (which eventually leads to people in uniform using force) is enough in my mind to show that they are trying to 'force' gun rights. If the NRA lobbies for the gov't to pass a law, then the gov't will use force (i.e. police, military) to enforce that law. I have a huge moral issue with that.

Maybe I'm missing your point. It sounds like you intend to just go stick your head in the sand.

You live in a country which is governed. Yeah, it might be nice if we went back to loin cloths and roamed the country side freely, but we have evolved. (albeit corruptly in some ways) Our society has rules and laws which are governed by elected officials.

So, yes, if you break a law, murder someone, steal something, traffic illegal guns/drugs etc. you will go to trial and then jail by force. So are you opposed to sending people to prison for murder too?

The NRA is fighting against allowing this "forceful government" from gaining even more power than they already have. By removing private ownership of guns from the equation, the government would easily be able to use "force" for just about any reason it wanted to. I think support of the NRA is in everyone's best interest.

 

[Bigseven]

I would like to say that I am a former member and would be a lifer if I could afford it. I am like many that I have heard on here in stating that the NRA is not all good but it is the front line driving force that allows us to enjoy our 2A rights.

I owe no explanation as to what political party I belong to and no one has the right to tell me or anyone else what we should believe. I would also like to say that I am a registered Democrat. Now that does not mean I always vote for a Democrat (I vote for the guy that I feel will do the most good), what that means is that my way of thinking leans more to the central left side of the political spectrum. I love hunting, and shooting. I also feel that people have more rights then some people want to allow them. My family is of democratic roots that stems from the more honorable Dems such as FDR and JFK (who was a life member of NRA).

Back to the subject at hand. I say if you enjoy your 2A rights then yes join and put up with the garbage they send you or plan on handing over your guns and your children's rights to bear arms as well.

My kids love shooting. My daughter had a bad experience with a 40 SW (the recoil of the gun caused the gun to hit her in the fore head causing a gash which is now scarred; She was taught to hold the gun correctly and instead tried pulling the gun closer to her body to shoot) this did not sway her from shooting any longer in fact with dried blood on her face she was back out there shooting within 20 minutes.

This year she is being mentored by myself, she will have an opportunity to kill her first deer at the age of 10. My son is only 4 and badly wants to hunt. He enjoys the hunting games on the computer. I instill in my children the difference between right and wrong. Our right to bear arms is just that, our right. The NRA makes it possible for my children to enjoy hunting and shooting.

So yeah I feel the NRA isn't all good but they do good for gun owners. They are our first line of defense in this modern day.

Believe what you will but when I can I will be rejoining.

 

[Neverwinter]

Sorry, but the ACLU did take a position. I have shown you how the ACLU in its own words and on its own website states that they believe American citizens should not have the right to own firearms.

Simply stating that being against the Second Amendment of our Bill of Rights "does not raise a civil liberties issue" does not make it so. By analogy, it would be rather convenient for a killer to escape prosecution simply by stating that murder does not raise a criminal issue. The ACLU can whine all they want about the Second Amendment not being a "civil liberty." The fact is that the freedom to own firearms is guaranteed us in the Bill of Rights by our founding fathers, and the ACLU stands against it.

That the ACLU opposes the civilian ownership of firearms is an immutable truth. With all due respect, it is you, not I, that needs to "do your homework."

In their valiant fight against the 2nd amendment, the ACLU's greatest achievement is a post on their website and press releases. Their statements are just words and have not diminished our 2nd amendment rights.

The ACLU has not gotten involved in activity which would have a substantive effect on the 2nd amendment. If you have contrary evidence of assistance in court cases or drafting of legislation, post it. We're waiting.

 

[Black Butte]

In their valiant fight against the 2nd amendment

Stop trying to deflect and sensationalize, it doesn't earn you any points. I have accurately put forth that the ACLU opposes the civilian ownership of firearms and provided supporting evidence confirming the same. You, on the other hand, have been quite unable to counter my assertion or contribute anything constructive. If you have nothing to say, it's best to say nothing.

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Basic Principles

There are some basic principles at work here.

First, organization trumps ability. I have been witness in my life to dozens of people of surpassing ability who have nonetheless been steamrollered by better organization.

Organization doesn't have to be "excellent" or some other choice of superlative. Organization only has to make it possible for drones to act as force multipliers for people of "adequate" ability. Against an outfit capable of bringing to bear the efforts of hundreds (or thousands) of people, working three shifts, doing nothing more than continually submitting new briefs and bills, releasing yet another press piece, drafting even more distortions of the truth, a small band of determined patriots can get their butts handed to them as a matter of routine.

To push back the tide of lies and relentless subterfuge against the freedoms of gun ownership requires an equally relentless persistence undistracted by an unrelated daily grind, and that in turn requires funding and logistics and at least a minimal organization of effective research, wordcraft, and a finely tuned grasp of the vectors at work. If your opponent can put more hands on the oars, you had better have a superior hull and sails or they will simply overwhelm you with main force.

The NRA, SAF, and other organizations have some of the brightest and most effective minds that can be brought to bear, but to keep them in the rigging and at the rudder and manning the volleys vital to our success means keeping them well stocked with victuals and grog. And that takes funding. And, if there is to be any meaningful focus, undistracted by empty larders, empty tummies, and empty gas tanks, then that funding has to come from people who willingly spend the shillings to keep the campaign afloat.

The "vectors at work" that I mention above are a relatively small, selected set of directional forces that affect the outcomes -- the ultimate vector sums -- of all the efforts of all the players (see here for context). The vectors discussion of this topic -- why you can't make your efforts into some kind of portmanteau of issues -- is a separate writeup. With any luck, I won't have to post it.

 

[Neverwinter]

Stop trying to deflect and sensationalize, it doesn't earn you any points. I have accurately put forth that the ACLU opposes the civilian ownership of firearms and provided supporting evidence confirming the same. You, on the other hand, have been quite unable to counter my assertion or contribute anything constructive. If you have nothing to say, it's best to say nothing.

Your assertion is that the ACLU is harmful to the 2nd amendment. The summation of your argument is that having an opinion on the 2nd amendment is sufficient to harm our liberties. "Sorry, but the ACLU did take a position. I have shown you how the ACLU in its own words and on its own website states that they believe American citizens should not have the right to own firearms." That argument is laughable on it's face.
You have not provided sufficient evidence for advocacy by the ACLU against RKBA. Two posts by others which point this out have been ignored or deflected. You still have a chance to cite the legislative and judicial history which illustrates the harm that the ACLU have attempted against the 2nd amendment.

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Enumerated

Stop trying to deflect and sensationalize, it doesn't earn you any points. I have accurately put forth that the ACLU opposes the civilian ownership of firearms and provided supporting evidence confirming the same. You, on the other hand, have been quite unable to counter my assertion or contribute anything constructive. If you have nothing to say, it's best to say nothing.

Your assertion is that the ACLU is harmful to the 2nd amendment. The summation of your argument is that having an opinion on the 2nd amendment is sufficient to harm our liberties. "Sorry, but the ACLU did take a position. I have shown you how the ACLU in its own words and on its own website states that they believe American citizens should not have the right to own firearms." That argument is laughable on it's face.

You have not provided sufficient evidence for advocacy by the ACLU against RKBA. Two posts by others which point this out have been ignored or deflected. You still have a chance to cite the legislative and judicial history which illustrates the harm that the ACLU have attempted against the 2nd amendment.

For a moment, let us overlook the character of the ACLU's founding, and examine only what its presumed purpose is.

The ACLU is supposed to be that organization that protects the little guy from big bad government oppression.

When big bad government interferes with free speech, the ACLU is all over it. Why? Because free speech is a Constitutional guarantee. When big bad government steps over the line with a 4th Amendment search & seizure breach, the ACLU wades in. Why? Freedom from unwarranted search & seizure is a Constitutional guarantee.

The ACLU is (supposedly) all about protecting the rights -- especially those enumerated in the BoR -- of those who would otherwise suffer infringement of those rights at the hands of big bad gov.

When the ACLU stands idly by while encroachment after abridgment of the Second Amendment transpires before their noses, they encourage and embolden those who seek to nullify gun rights.

In the same way that a cop who stands by with his hands in his pockets while a couple of good ole boys beat another guy to a pulp because he talks with a lisp (I didn't see no crime) is, in fact, providing encouragement and tacit approval for the beat down, so too is the ACLU providing its tacit endorsement of attacks on the 2nd Amendment when it stands there with its hands in its pockets, saying, "I don't see no rights violation."

If you're the 800-pound rights-defending gorilla, and you stand there whistling and shuffling your feet at a clear infringement of rights, because you "don't see it as a rights issue," you have given green light to people who would otherwise stop short and say, "no, we ain't doin' that, the ACLU would be all over us, and we just can't afford that."

Part of their function is to act as a deterrent, simply by wearing a mean look when people think out loud about abridging someone's rights.

When they make it clear that they have no inclination to deter anyone, they are aiding and abetting.

If the Transit Authority takes no action, it is of no consequence: transit =/= civil liberties. If the school board takes no action, again, so what? Education =/= civil liberties. When the ACLU takes no action, it's tantamount to endorsement. Civil liberties is their beat.

Gun ownership is a civil liberty.

Yet the "civil liberties" gorilla says, "I didn't see no crime."

(Then again, a closer examination of their founding charter will explain much of this apparent inconsistency. But that's beyond the scope of this discussion, as it's a political thing.)

 

[Ignition Override]

ArfinGreebly:

That is a superb presentation, and the more subtle arguements are more difficult for people to grasp.

We are used to clear, short sound-bytes with no subtleties. Americans are a very impatient people, and want to see visible actions now, in clear black and white.

Pardon my ignorance, but is the SAF the Second Amend. F.?
Maybe it's the one which has the detailed statistics on the relationships between gun ownership and crime trends in various countries.
Despite my age, I never knew about Any of this until a few years ago. Maybe most Americans never will, and hasn't moist of the mass media groomed people to be skeptical of anything that the NRA says?

 

[Black Butte]

Your assertion is that the ACLU is harmful to the 2nd amendment. The summation of your argument is that having an opinion on the 2nd amendment is sufficient to harm our liberties.

Nope, I never made this assertion. Your straw man argument has failed. Reread my original post, or in the alternative, have someone explain it to you. What I said is that the ACLU has taken the position that individual American citizens do not have a constitutionally protected right to own firearms. The summation of my argument is that people who cherish their Second Amendment freedoms might want to reevaluate donating to an organization that does not believe in that particular freedom. Clear now?

You have not provided sufficient evidence for advocacy by the ACLU against RKBA.

Sorry, I never used the word "advocacy." Aren't you just super-clever for trying to win an argument by making up assertions I never made? Again, reread my post above. My statement is factual and accurate, that the ACLU has taken the position that individual American citizens do not have a constitutionally protected right to own firearms. This position is clearly documented on the ACLU's own website, by none other than the ACLU for anyone who can read. No matter how much you complain, this immutable truth will not change.

 

[Black Butte]

ArfinGreebly makes a well-reasoned and compelling argument. I suggest that the ACLU even goes beyond remaining silent while others try to transgress our Second Amendment right. The ACLU openly declares on their website that they do not believe the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to own a firearm. With this statement, the ACLU is actually encouraging others to challenge our freedom. A shameful position to take for a so-called "civil liberties organization."

 

[azmjs]

Then Obama was completely wrong, as usual. The Second Amendment does not "grant" anything. That right is God-given. The Second Amendment merely points this out and says that right won't be infringed.

Rights are not granted by the government. That's a dangerous assumption.

A more accurate statement is that it is a nitpicking semantic distraction.

Unless the point of his lecture was that the constitution grants rights, which is to say, unless he meant to assert that position, then your reaction is in fact an entirely unreasonable overreaction, and a straw-man attack.

 

[azmjs]

The ACLU is the nation's preeminent defender of the rights of the individual against government overreach.

An easily dismissed criticism of the ACLU is that they don't do anything to defend gun ownership.

The simplest explanation is that the ACLU practices a form of triage, which is a process of determining how to use limited resources to do the most good.

In the real world, the NRA is a potent and very effective pro-gun-rights organization which is well funded and supported. The ACLU would be wasting its limited resources if it expended them to do work already done by the NRA.

On the other hand, no organization is in the position to take up the slack of the ACLU's work on the rest of our hallowed freedoms.

The ACLU would be doing a disservice to every American, and every American who will come after us, if it willingly squandered its limited resources to mollify hurt feelings and accomplish nothing.

Every adult is capable of understanding that in order to use his own resources effectively to defend his freedoms, he must donate to more than one organization.

Withholding support from the ACLU undermines American liberty, in the same way that withholding support from the NRA undermines gun rights. We all have a duty, as free men and women, to do what we can to support and defend our own freedom. It is a high expectation, but who says that free men and women should be held to a low standard?


Part of wisdom is the understanding that someone who does a very good job- a better job than anyone else, and a great deal of good for a lot of people, should not be punished because he wasn't *perfect*.

No one is perfect.

A wise man, a pragmatic man, and a good man eventually understands that he can not let the perfect become the enemy of the good.

 

[Usmc-1]

@ArfinGreebly, thank you for giving an excellent reason why the executors of the NRA need to be paid and in order to keep the talent , I love that , thats one point , too bad nobody else can give a reason , just the "research yourself " watch the video and you'll see why" First off watching the video doesnt prove anything , the Sheep that turned in there weapons would have been the same sheep here (including NRA members) !

How many of you life members will gladly stand in line and turn in your weapons after the NRA loses its battle with the government? You dont know your breaking the law, if you dont turn them in!

After 20 years in law enforcement , I can tell you right now I will be the first person who WONT stand in line and turn over my weapons (to the DHS censors reading this) write down my IP immediatley , Oh thats right Im already on that list ,US Marine ,Law Enforcement ,Gun nut!

I dont need the NRA , but the NRA NEEDS ME and they got me ! yes I did research the NRA on my own ,its sad that I couldnt go to gun enthusiasts for simple info and all I get was inuendo andd scripts like credit card companies on the phone! But thats all right , I know the real deal !

Also sense you got me rolling I was a Republican for years because of the conservatism , but they are the same as the other party, useless , Im independent now , Ive seen everything that both thinks you shouldnt know or you wouldnt understand ,like young women who have abortions , the reliegeous nuts of the republicans dont believe in abortion (hmmm,wonder why there so many welfare rejects in this country) !

The ACLU keeps popping up on this discussion , Im sorry but they have nothing to do with gun rights , at the very least they are agaisnt you and I !

Do you believe for one minute the ACLU WOULD REPRESENT THE NRA?


end of discussion with the aclu!

 

[rellascout]

Gun ownership is a civil liberty.

That might be your and my opinion but is is far from a universal opinion. There are many legal scholars who make reasonable arguements against the 2nd as a civil liberty and a even greater number who argue even if you grant that it is a liberty reasonable restriction applies.

Not everyone agrees on what a "civil liberty" is. I believe along with my civil liberty of freedom of religion I also have a civil liberty which entitles me freedom from religion but many would disagree with me on that one.

For example:

Then Obama was completely wrong, as usual. The Second Amendment does not "grant" anything. That right is God-given. The Second Amendment merely points this out and says that right won't be infringed.

The statement above holds no truth value for me. I cannot have something given to me by a fictious being. Its all a matter of prospective.

If you want to support the NRA have at it. If you don't that is fine to. The beauty of this country is we get to make these types of choices. What I do take issue with those who think that choosing not to support the NRA makes you a lesser gun owner and try to prove that with insults, fear tactics and threats.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I love that , thats one point , too bad nobody else can give a reason , just the "research yourself "

This may come as a shock to you; but discussions of whether NRA membership is a good investment are neither unusual or uncommon on gunboards - and since this one has been around since 2002, there are literally hundreds of those discussions with very many detailed responses both for and against.

Accordingly, many members are probably not interested in having the discussion yet one more time. If you are truly interested in reasons to join the NRA, then the "Search" function would likely give you hours of reading. Asking members to retype well-reasoned arguments they have already made in the past simply because you don't want to search for them is wasteful of their time.

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Pre-Existing Rights

Gun ownership is a civil liberty.

That might be your and my opinion but is is far from a universal opinion.

And so we are in agreement.

There are many legal scholars who make reasonable arguments against the 2nd as a civil liberty and a even greater number who argue even if you grant that it is a liberty reasonable restriction applies.

And they are wrong. And, being wrong, it matters not how many of them there are. Wrong with the "knobs turned to eleven" is simply a very loud version of wrong.

"Reasonable" is simply a structured attack on the truth. Reasonableness is the business of observing the truth and, deciding one would prefer it were not so, constructing plausible explanations why it's not.

Not everyone agrees on what a "civil liberty" is.

Universal agreement is not required. Tyrants believe that liberties and rights are "conferred." The country's founders disagreed. In constituting the nation they made a point of declaring that rights exist before kings and rights do not need their permission. Liberty is a derivative of those rights.

I believe along with my civil liberty of freedom of religion I also have a civil liberty which entitles me freedom from religion but many would disagree with me on that one.

You are free not to have a religion. You are not free to deprive others of theirs simply because you find them objectionable.

For example:

Then Obama was completely wrong, as usual. The Second Amendment does not "grant" anything. That right is God-given. The Second Amendment merely points this out and says that right won't be infringed.

The statement above holds no truth value for me. I cannot have something given to me by a fictitious being. Its all a matter of prospective.

A) You find no truth in the statement "The Second Amendment does not 'grant' anything?" Or is it only that you object to its being "God-given?"
B) It would seem that you do, in fact, have a religion. Atheism is not the absence of religion, it's just the religious (and unprovable) belief that there is no God/god/gods. No problem. You observe your beliefs in your way. Go in peace. I have my own convictions, born of my own studies, experience, and understanding. I don't discuss them here because they are explicitly off topic.

If you want to support the NRA have at it. If you don't that is fine to. The beauty of this country is we get to make these types of choices. What I do take issue with those who think that choosing not to support the NRA makes you a lesser gun owner and try to prove that with insults, fear tactics and threats.

Yes, I agree, insults have no place here. If you choose not to belong to the NRA, that -- as with everything else in life -- is your choice. I cannot agree that this is a wise choice, but nonetheless you are free to make it.

Fear tactics? A decision of any importance requires as complete a dataset as can be obtained. If the data contains indications that a certain condition will result from inaction, that needs to be known, else the decision will be faulty. There's no real need to be afraid of the possible outcome in order to decide that action is required.

There are powerful men working to negate our gun rights, and they have a variety of organizations which they either fund directly or arrange such funding. They are pleased when we squabble. They are pleased when we turn away from the NRA. Remember, these are men who care not a whit about "original intent" or about the propriety of the Constitution. These are men who want power and control, and for whom the ends justify the means. And they are at considerable pains to be "reasonable" about their positions.

Fear it or don't fear it, but ignore it at your peril.

 

[rellascout]

And they are wrong. And, being wrong, it matters not how many of them there are. Wrong with the "knobs turned to eleven" is simply a very loud version of wrong.

"Reasonable" is simply a structured attack on the truth. Reasonableness is the business of observing the truth and, deciding one would prefer it were not so, constructing plausible explanations why it's not.

Right and wrong is based soley on what you can demonstrate, prove & convince a judge or panel of judges of in a court of law when it comes to the this topic. You declaring I am right and they are wrong holds no water with me even though I agree with you. Your arguement here is circular and once you undermine your concept of "truth" the rest crumbles. It would still be illogical based on its structure. Your statements make for a wonderful sound bite but does not hold up. IMHO

Universal agreement is not required. Tyrants believe that liberties and rights are "conferred." The country's founders disagreed. In constituting the nation they made a point of declaring that rights exist before kings and rights do not need their permission. Liberty is a derivative of those rights.

Revisionist history.... Those rights only applied to some not all. The courts and the point of a gun had to grant those rights to a large group of people.

A) You find no truth in the statement "The Second Amendment does not 'grant' anything?" Or is it only that you object to its being "God-given?"
B) It would seem that you do, in fact, have a religion. Atheism is not the absence of religion, it's just the religious (and unprovable) belief that there is no God/god/gods. No problem. You observe your beliefs in your way. Go in peace. I have my own convictions, born of my own studies, experience, and understanding. I don't discuss them here because they are explicitly off topic.

Rights are not God given. You are also wrong in stating I have a religion. That is what most religous people attempt to do to atheist. They attempt to level the field. Religion is based on doctrine atheism has none but this is not the time or the place to correct you.

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Wait . . . What?

I'm confused.

You believe that the only reason we have rights is because the government says so?

That rights do not pre-exist?

That there is no such thing as "natural" rights?

Have I misunderstood your position?

 

[rellascout]

I'm confused.

You believe that the only reason we have rights is because the government says so?

That rights do not pre-exist?

That there is no such thing as "natural" rights?

Have I misunderstood your position?

Rights as we know it are a human construct. The maker or designer of that construct does not have to be a govt.