NRA Finally On Right Track

J

jmortimer

Moderator
It appears the NRA has figured the main threat to the Second Amendment is SCOTUS and is now saying exactly what I have been saying - we need prayer (and now action) for the health of the five "good" SCOTUS Justices because one more nomination by liberals and we are toast. http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/nra-guns-obama-holder/2011/05/01/id/394734 The article from Newmax dated 5-1-2011 has quotes from Executive Director Christopher Cox at this past weekend's NRA Legislative Action Convention “What if he appoints just one more anti-gun justice to the U.S. Supreme Court and we go from one-vote victories to one-vote defeats for generations to come?” he told one audience. “My friends, praying for the health of five Supreme Court justices is not a strategy you want to stake your freedom on.” and from incomming President David Keene “In Barack Obama, we have a president who is more opposed to gun ownership than any in our history and who still believes he’ll prevail,” said conservative activist David Keene, the NRA’s incoming president.
“Make no mistake about it: Barack Obama, his minions in the Justice Department, his allies in the Congress, and his friends in the media would take our guns if they could and they will if they can.”
Thank God the NRA is finally on the right track. Time to renew my membership and will still support GOA as well.
 
Before you renew look at what the NRA did to us in Florida over the supposed "open carry" issue.

We're going to start to burn their hats soon.

for them it's all about money. They're learning from AARP

AFS
 
Did not know about Marion Hammer. I read her 5-1-11 blog and see what you mean "But lets be clear. Neither NRA nor USF are opposed to open carry, it is just not a priority right now and that is not what this bill is about." We have it so bad here in Kalifornia I would gladly exchange gun laws with Florida but the NRA has been "soft" politically like the sell-out on the First Amendment so I thought they may be headed in the "right" direction. You may be right.
 
I have read the stuff on Florida... I wouldn't burn the hats just yet.

There was a time when Florida had no concealed carry law. Now the bill is to let folks with permits do open carry.

If the NRA backed open carry for everybody and it did not pass would you be any happier?

I can understand your frustration.

In 2008 a NRA backed law was signed into effect in Florida which affirmed the right of self defense by letting people carry firearms in their autos to and from work.

The NRA also helped to pass two laws in Florida that were signed into law last week. One that keeps local governments from enacting stricter laws on firearms from state law and another one that says that ifirearms are not a Doctors business when inquiring about health problems.

You still want to burn your hat?
 
Clout?

But how are they using their clout?
In Florida their agenda does not sync with the people of Florida. :mad:
 
jmortimer said:
It appears the NRA has figured the main threat to the Second Amendment is SCOTUS and is now saying exactly what I have been saying - we need prayer (and now action) for the health of the five "good" SCOTUS Justices because one more nomination by liberals and we are toast.
Click to expand...

NRA has been pointing that since before President Obama was even elected - at least to those who were listening anyway.

But yes, you should renew, because regardless of whether the NRA is your idea of the perfect 2nd Amendment political organization (and its rare that a 4.3 million member organization won't have disagreement on that point), the NRA does much-needed valuable work in teaching gun safety and helping build safe places where we can shoot - and those are fundamental to gun rights.
 
There seems to be two schools of thought in the pro gun community

Make some progress if we can't get everything we want at one time.

or

Come back with your shield or on it.
 
In Florida their agenda does not sync with the people of Florida.
Click to expand...
What you seem to mean is that it doesn't sync with a few guys on the internet. You and AirForceShooter have been claiming for the last few days that the NRA "sold out" Florida, but you've not provided any elaboration.

As I pointed out in another thread, you wouldn't have concealed carry at all in Florida if it wasn't for the NRA. Specifically, because of Marion Hammer's efforts.

I lived in Florida, and I know many people in the gun lobby there. The first priority was removing the penalty for inadvertent exposure. That was a real and present problem. Open carry would be nice, but we take what we can, when we can get it. The NRA understands how to pick fights it can back and win, and open carry wasn't a winning fight this year.

I'm sorry you're not getting everything you want handed to you on a silver platter right now, but perhaps you'd like to share with us how you'd have gotten these reforms passed without the NRA.
 
let's get one thing straight here. NOT being a member of NRA is not going to help anything.

Yes, the NRA gets a lot wrong. The fact that they exist at all with even a pretense at what we wish they would focus on, is better than not having it.

Go ahead and join the smaller organizations, they do a good job, but don't get out of the one group that can, if it would just try, get things done.

Hijack the dam thing and make it what it should be, don't throw it away. That makes as much sense as a third party political candidate, it not only throws away a mostly good structure that took generations to build, but you would be trying to defeat the real enemy AND the habit voters who will vote for the republican whoever it is.
 
P5 Guy said:
Ah the lesser of two evils argument.
Click to expand...

Since I was the only post prior to your previous post, I can only assume that comment was directed my way. However, since I didn't make a "lesser of two evils" argument or anything that could even be construed that way, I have no idea what point you were trying to make.

But again, the NRA is basically the only nationwide group that promotes firearms safety, range construction, etc. Even if the NRA did nothing politically, that would still be worth the $30 for membership because the right to openly carry a firearm is pretty useless if you don't have any place to learn how to do it safely.
 
I belong to a number of organizations including the American Legion. I can make the same argument with the Legion because I don't agree with some of their positions. But, I would never quit because they are the largest and most effective voice for Veterans.

The NRA is the largest and most effective voice for gun owners. Keep your membership up and recruit others. To do otherwise is sheer folly. I don't agree with everything they do either, but they helped turn Iowa into a "Shall Issue" state. We'd been trying for years until they came long and helped. Then we succeeded.
 
"Ah the lesser of two evils argument."

Spoken like a member of GOA who never gets ANYTHING accomplished. Making absolute demands and then holding your breath until the other side magically agrees with you is pointless.
 
Making absolute demands and then holding your breath until the other side magically agrees with you is pointless.
Click to expand...
It does make one look like a Hard Core True Believer to their friends, though. And really, that's more important to some than rolling up their sleeves and doing the dirty work nobody sees on the evening news.
 
You know, I belong to a few different organizations including the NRA and I've yet to find one that I agree with 100% of the time. Similarly, I've yet to find a politician that I agree with 100% of his or her positions, a church that I agree with 100% of their practices, or a company that I agree with 100% of their policies. Because of this, I'm forced to choose the organization/politician/church/company that I agree with the most.

Now, I suppose you could interpret that as "choosing the lesser of two evils" since I'm supporting something I don't agree with 100%. The way I see it, however, is that life is full of compromises and this happens to be one of them. I find myself in agreement with the NRA 99% of the time so that doesn't seem like such a bad compromise to me.

My biggest problem with many of the other gun rights organizations is that many of them seem to spend a lot more time and energy on chest thumping and NRA bashing than anything else and they seem to like to claim achievement when all they're really done is ride the coat tails of the NRA. I do note that in the roughly 6 years that I've been an NRA member, I've only seen them attack another supposedly pro-gun organization once. That particular instance was directed at the American Hunters' and Shooter's Association which is nothing more than a disguised anti-gun organization.

I will note that the Second Amendment Foundation does not fit into the above-described category as they do have some pretty significant accomplishments in their own right.
 
I do not agree with every position that the NRA takes, but I do agree with the vast majority of them. I also know, that if not for the NRA, gun ownership would be illegal by now in this country. I also know, that despite what all of the detractors rant about, when it comes to gun ownership protection, the NRA is "the 800lb gorilla in the room".
 
Without me, personally, being a member of the NRA, my rights will not only disappear, but I will not deserve to have them. The NRA is not perfect, but they are the largest and most effective rights organization of any kind in the country. They are our only voice before the United Nations under this administration. Those who don't take a membership for whatever reason they may have, are doing their grandchildren a disservice. It's about FREEDOM, not ego. There are issues that are larger than ourselves. If we lose an important court case, or a congressional vote, our way of life and our country are doomed to servility and servitude. Picture an Orwellian boot stamping on an American face, forever.
 
One big issue I'll take with some of these responses, is that to claim you have to stick with the one you agree most with, even though "You don't agree with 100%", needs to not mean you will tolerate the one you agree with 35% because you agree with the others less than 5%. That's what got us John McCain and therefore, got us Zero. When the choice is that stinking bad, you are wrong to go with the "lesser evil", you need different choices.
 
One big issue I'll take with some of these responses, is that to claim you have to stick with the one you agree most with, even though "You don't agree with 100%", needs to not mean you will tolerate the one you agree with 35% because you agree with the others less than 5%. That's what got us John McCain and therefore, got us Zero. When the choice is that stinking bad, you are wrong to go with the "lesser evil", you need different choices.
Click to expand...

The counter-argument to that is that by getting involved with the one you agree with 35%, you now have a say in how things are run and can change the organization to be more in line with your views. If you don't like the way the NRA does things, wouldn't joining and voting for a different board of directors be more productive than simply complaining about the NRA? To parallel your analogy to the 2008 election, I wonder how many people who whine about what a poor candidate John McCain was actually bothered to go vote for someone else in the primary. Writing in Willie Nelson on your ballot may make you feel better, but its not going to accomplish much else.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top