NRA is getting on my nerves

"My point was that the glass would be completely full if the NRA hadn't made plenty of mistakes along the way."

You're kidding right? Completely full? Nothing in life works out that perfectly.

John
Member www.vcdl.org
NRA Endowment Member
 
I have been an on again of again member of the NRA since I was 18, back in 88. Almost a month ago though I sent in my first quarterly life membership payment. I did that as a result of the stance they took in New Orleans and the realization that, while there are other groups that may be more vocal on the Second Amendment no other organization has the horsepower to bring about real change.

Does this mean leave the other groups alone, no. Join those that you can. I am now also a member of SAFE, www.nysafe.org It is primarily a New York 2A group and works with the NRA. In fact at the SAFE Right to Carry conference in NY last weekend they had two speakers from the NRA, one of them Wayne LaPierre.

I never had an opportunity to hear Mr. LaPierre in person and had the added benifit of speaking with him one on one for a short time.

Across the country the NRA is THE gun lobby in the eyes of most Americans. When discussing the New Orleans confiscations I was surprised to learn of how they took action. The NRA and SAF heard about the problem but it was because the NRA was contacted directly by officers and soldiers who took part in the confiscations with the names and addresses of where they took weapons from. Only with actual names and addresses could the order be fought in court. As of Sunday they were after FEMA over the ban of firearms in the refugee housing. As Mr. LaPierre told me FEMA was at this point stating there was no order and trying to hide its existence but the NRA would not let up. With the most recent Protection of Arms Manufacturers legislation the Pentagon has worked directly with the NRA to get the bill through.

Living in New York, what Mr. LaPierre called "behind enemy lines", can give you a very jaded view of how the fight is going. One thing he did though was outline what was accomplished by the NRA, and with the help of other organizations, over the past 15 years.

38 sates are now Shall Issue / Right to Carry
FL has the Stand Your Ground Law
The Lawfull Protection of Arms in Commerce act Will Pass.
Range Protection laws are being passed state by state.

Moving forward Mr. LaPierre vowed the NRA would push forward for

The FL law to be enacted across the nation, state by state
Modifications to all state's laws prohibiting the disarmament of lawful citizens in times of emergency.
Right to Carry in the remaining states.
Further Range Protections
Fighting the banning of firearms in private vehicles on private property (imagine every parking lot in the USA posted!)

Get it straight that it is only the NRA that has the national attention to push these items forward. It can only do so based on the strength of its membership. Loud mouthed 2A supoprters who preach to the choir at the local gun store but refuse to ante up as members and be counted or provide any other support are useless to the cause. You bring about no change and prevent no further infringement. If you want to change the NRA join and work from within. Belong to other groups as well which may be more to your exact view. Those other groups, and the numbers they have, show the NRA exactly where their membership's stances are.

Let me state I am a Libertarian. Of all the political groups they are the one I associate myself with. Let me also state they are completely innefective. Their independence and inflexibility is their own downfall as a national party. The insist on wasting money on Presidential campaigns when they should really be focussing on state assemblies and senates first. How many of the moves forward in the past 10 - 15 years with gun rights have the Libertarians been responsible for... none that I know of. The NRA will certainly back a Libertarian if they have a chance of winning but the bottom line is most of them have a snowballs chance in hell. Even when they do make it they are so outside the machine that they are practically ineffective. The NRA must work with who they can when they can. As outlined at the meeting there may even be an opportunity for them to get some legislation past Pataki in NY. He is the worst sort of Republican but is worlds better than Spitzer who would ban everything. Pataki wants national office and needs to convince the real read states he is one of them. This opens the door to another incremental step forward.

The NRA are realists. There is only so much money and it must be spent where it can do the most good. 99% of the time that is not on the Libertarian candidate. Perhaps if the party would get their own act in gear and figure out how to appeal this would change.

I may draw fire but I have to say it, if you are a gun owner or espose any support for the Second Amendment yet do not belong to the NRA you are an uncounted empty suit in the eyes of elected officials. You do not matter one bit in their decision making.
 
If the NRA gets on YOUR nerves....

Just think what they are doing to the gun grabbers out there, especially TODAY!!!!!!
A little news from the front lines in the fight for RTKBA........Quoting from the daily news from our Virginia Neighbors, the NRA itself:

Historic Victory For NRA
U.S. House Of Representatives Passes
The "Protection Of Lawful Commerce In Arms Act"
(Fairfax, VA) - Today the United States House of Representatives passed the "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act" (S. 397) by a bipartisan vote of 283-144. The legislation now moves to President Bush's desk for his expected signature.
Commenting on the passage of this landmark legislation, NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre said, "This is an historic victory for the NRA. Freedom, truth and justice prevailed, and today S. 397 is one step closer to becoming the law of the land. No other industry is forced to defend themselves when a violent criminal they do not know, have never met and cannot control, misuses a legal non-defective product. American firearms manufacturers will now receive the same fair treatment."

The "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act" seeks to end predatory and baseless lawsuits initiated nationwide by the gun control lobby. These lawsuits sought to bankrupt a lawful, highly regulated industry by holding the manufacturers and retailers responsible for the unforeseeable acts of criminals. S. 397 passed the Senate in late July with a bipartisan vote of 65-31.

Joining LaPierre in commenting on this victory, NRA Chief Lobbyist Chris W. Cox added, "Our judicial system has been exploited for politics and Congress put a stop to that. Passage of the 'Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act' would not have been possible without the support of the 257 House co-sponsors from both sides of the aisle. We appreciate the tireless efforts of Rep. Cliff Stearns and Rep. Rick Boucher and the Republican members of House leadership who worked to move the bill in this chamber.

"We are a safer country today because Congress passed this critical legislation and acted to save American icons like Remington, Ruger, Winchester and Smith & Wesson from politically motivated lawsuits. Our men and women in uniform abroad and at home now will not have to rely on France, China or Germany to supply their firearms," Cox added.

During Senate debate earlier this year, the Pentagon stated its concern over the consequences if the American firearms industry was litigated into extinction. The Department of Defense stated that it "strongly supports" S. 397 citing, "that passage of S. 397 would help safeguard our national security by limiting unnecessary lawsuits against an industry that plays a critical role in meeting the procurement needs of our men and women in uniform."

"I would like to thank our members who played a pivotal role in making this bill a reality. Together, we have saved the American firearms industry and protected the sanctity of the Second Amendment," concluded LaPierre.


National Rifle Association of America
Institute for Legislative Action

Anybody out there want to whine about the waste of dues and contributions to NRA TODAY?

Just picture Wayne LaPierre and the boys calling up Chuck Schumer, and Tubby Teddy and the Fabulous Miss Feinstein today and saying one more time "Who's your Daddy Now, Hah?! NRA Kicked Your Arses REEEEEAAAL GOOOOOD Today!!!" :D :D :D :D
 
This is a symbolic victory, if that, and I am concerned about thte purchasers of firearms beings saddled with paying for a trigger lock they don't want to buy or use.
 
[quotee]Moving forward Mr. LaPierre vowed the NRA would push forward for

The FL law to be enacted across the nation, state by state
Modifications to all state's laws prohibiting the disarmament of lawful citizens in times of emergency.
Right to Carry in the remaining states.
Further Range Protections
Fighting the banning of firearms in private vehicles on private property (imagine every parking lot in the USA posted!)
[/quote]

So what about the Federal level?

What about reversing 922[o]?

What about repealing the Brady Bill?

What about making suppressors legal again?
 
So what about the Federal level?

What about reversing 922[o]?

What about repealing the Brady Bill?

What about making suppressors legal again?
Click to expand...

Very simply the best bang for the NRA's buck comes from actions on a state by state level. You win in FL, OK, and other states one at a time. As successes mount they give credible evidence to your point of view. If not for the success of the FL shall issue permit system do you think CCW would be shall issue in 38 states today?

This does not mean ignoring the Federal level entirely. Without this protection bill you would have no new firearms to buy within a couple years. That was an issue that needed to be settled immediately. The AWB also expired in large part due to the lobbying the NRA did with Congress.

The chances of removing background checks are nill. Sorry but that is the fact. Taking that one to the Supreme Court would give you a loss as very very few jurists, even strong constitutionalists, are going to say an instant check to confirm your record is an infringement of your right. Suppressors are also far down on the list of things to pursue as an argument can be made that they are not the types of arms that would be related to an effective militia so they may be regulated. I am not saying I agree, but that is how it would play out.

Trust me, living in NY I have more cause than almost anyone to complain that the NRA is not doing enough. As Mr. LaPierre said when he spoke here "you are behind enemy lines" and he made a point of explaining that things are on the upswing across the nation.

We need to pick our battles. Our rights did not go away all at once and they will not be regained that way either. We also must be very careful about taking a case to the Supreme Court until we are certain what we have sitting on the bench. Fo that reason alone we should be ticked at Bush for putting a real unkown into the running. A bad loss for us at the Supreme Court level could eliminate every gain in the past 20 years.

The most important thing, as Mr. LaPierre is to stand to gether and be counted, Shotgunner with Rifleman with Handgunner. The duck hunters can no longer write off the hand gun guys as something different than themselves and the handgunners cannot take backhanded glee when the bird hunters see their semi auto shotguns hit with regulations. If we do not stand together we will be knocked down individually.
 
MicroBalrog said:
Remember HR-800!
Click to expand...
HR 800 was unworkable from the start. If you don't understand that political reality, then you don't get politics in general.
This is a symbolic victory, if that, and I am concerned about thte purchasers of firearms beings saddled with paying for a trigger lock they don't want to buy or use.
Click to expand...
About the trigger locks. Every handgun manufacturer supplies these voluntarily now. All this particular section does is to make it mandatory for all handguns, new or used... AND, it provides the local FFL holder with a certain amount of liability from lawsuits. Shall we add that just because you might have to pay $1-$2 extra for that lock, nothing says you have to use it? Last years trigger lock amendment said you had to use it. This is not a good thing? How exactly?

Sorry to disappoint you, Micro. But this was more than just a symbolic victory. It was a real and bonifide victory. It will help to keep costs down. It will help to keep the manufacturers in business. It will provide incentives to bring new guns to market. Those are not tangible benefits?

When I bought my Kel-Tec P11 a few years ago, I paid less than $200 for it. Today, that same little 9mm will cost just short of $300. That's not a price adjustment due to inflation. That's a price adjustment due to litigation. Symbolic? Hardly.
 
ok..one last time....The NRA supports gun control...period. If this were not the case then there would be no lautenberg amendment, no GCA of 68, no NFA of 34, etc.

The NRA has done nothing to RESTORE our rights. And, in an attempt to "slow down" the erosion of our rights, they have done apparently irreversable harm by compromising away many of our rights in order to "save" some others. If they truly represented freedom then they would do NOTHING to compromise it away.

It would be better in the long run for our enemy to take away the second amendment all at once than for them to do it piecemeal with the HELP of a group which makes the claim that they support our right to keep and bear arms. At least then the antgun zealots could not make any sort of claim that they had the backing of the a "pro gun" organization when their anti freedom acts are passed into law.

I would rather a group try but fail at supporting our rights than one that continually cedes our rights away under the guise of protecting them. At least the former group has not HARMED our cause.
 
ok..one last time....The NRA supports gun control...period. If this were not the case then there would be no lautenberg amendment, no GCA of 68, no NFA of 34, etc.

The NRA has done nothing to RESTORE our rights. And, in an attempt to "slow down" the erosion of our rights, they have done apparently irreversable harm by compromising away many of our rights in order to "save" some others. If they truly represented freedom then they would do NOTHING to compromise it away.
Click to expand...

What do you call "Right to Carry" in 38 states? That is a right which had been lost as long ago as the 1870s, remember the OK coral was about firearms carried in violation of town ordinance and I do not recal the NRA endorsing that rule. At the same time while bills that are certainly less than ideal have gone forward if it weren't for the work of the NRA the ground needed to regain would be twice as far.

You have issues with the group, fine. I wonder though what you can accomplish alone on the sidelines though as opposed to being a part of a nationwide organization that, like it or not, is THE recignized 2A organization. That is not going to change no matter how many people cry about the things they disagree with from the past.

The SAF does good work also but the NRA had the muscle to really push the NO confiscation issue. It is the NRA fighting for the right to keep a firearm in your vehicle in OK. It is the NRA pushing Right to Carry across the country state by state. You may want it pushed Federally but that jsut won't work. I live in NY and would LOVE to see the Feds mandate a national right to carry but know it will not happen that way.

Understand this, unless you are an NRA member you just are not counted as a 2A supporter no matter how much you preech to the choir on an internet forum. If you have problems with the organization work from within rather than standing on the sidelines and blowing rasberries.

It is inflexibility and unrealistic idealism that dooms the die hard 2A groups and folks like the libertarian party to being forever classified as fringe elements and discounted by the mainstream.
 
“What do you call "Right to Carry" in 38 states?”

A myth.

I know only two states where the right to carry is truly recognised, Alaska and Vermont.
 
So I guess you think things would have been better if there were no major nationally group like the NRA. Do you really think things would be better?

Your zeal is admirable but we have to all live in the real world. All sorts of Constitutional rights are infringed for various reasons such as age, and criminal record. The requirement of a background check to allow only citizens in good standing to have a right to carry will never be seen as an infringment of the 2A by the vast majority of justices out there. It can even be argued that such a requirement is not an infringment as the law abiding are still allowed the right should they decide to exercise it through a permit process. You have a right to vote but remember, you need to register to do so.

Personally I love the Vermont and Alaska systems but I am not naive enough to believe the rest of the nation will follow it or that the majority of justices out there will interpret the permit process as an infringment.

The bottom line is that, as a nation, the gun owners cause is on the upswing now and is much better off than 10 years ago. If one wants to stand outside the parade and point out chips in the paints floats they are more than welcome to but it would be better off if they joined and thried to fix what they percieved as flaws from the inside. Nobody listens to outsiders and that is what those who refuse to entertain other views and work with a realistic set of goals become.

I would be happy to have you in the NRA. Another voice screaming internally for hard line 2A adherance within the group is great! The thing is be a part of the group. Standing alone you are not counted...
 
So I guess you think things would have been better if there were no major nationally group like the NRA. Do you really think things would be better?
Click to expand...

Please avoid the strawman’s argument. I do not believe ‘things would have been better’ if there were no gun rights advocacy groups, but I do believe things would have been way better if the NRA actually opposed more gun laws.

If one wants to stand outside the parade
Click to expand...

Criticizing the NRA while being active in other groups or otherwise contributing to the process [I donated to the NRA, for the record, as well as writing dozens of articles, letters to editors, etc., some of which were published, and some I even got paid for writing, on the subjects of Second Amendment and gun rights]

Personally I love the Vermont and Alaska systems but I am not naive enough to believe the rest of the nation will follow
Click to expand...

Only fifteen years ago shall-issue was a pipe dream. Four years ago, even a second Vermont state was a pipe dream. And remember,

"There's as much chance of repealing the 18th Amendment as there is for a humming bird to fly to Mars with the Washington Monument tied to its tail."

Sen. Moris Sheppard, speaking in 1929.
 
Micro, you and others may gainsay the NRA all you want. But by doing so from the outside (looking in) you will not affect the policies whatsoever. That's no strawman, it's plain unadulterated fact.

Nor is it a strawman to argue things would have been different had the NRA not been here. History would have been different. The '34 NFA and the '37 FFA would have been way different. When one reads the history, you might not like what was done, but it is evident that worse would have occurred had not the NRA been here.

As for Right to carry... Idaho, Arizona, Vermont, Wyoming and I believe Alaska have always been open carry states. Are there more? I don't know, I haven't looked it up. Before you diss these states, you might do a little research.

The right to carry was, up until recent times, always the mode of carry. Concealed carry was always the mode of the bad guys and therefore unlawful. Getting concealed carry licenses is a big deal. It fights against the history and tradition of lawful carry. Even back in the days of the founding of this country, it was the crooks that concealed their weapons. The upstanding citizen openly carried his arms.

So, before you consign the right to carry to the status of myth, do us all a favor. Research the subject.
 
"I know only two states where the right to carry is truly recognised, Alaska and Vermont."

Concealed carry maybe, but you can carry exposed in Virginia without a permit of any sort. You can also drive with a loaded handgun in plain view without a carry permit.

John
 
So, before you consign the right to carry to the status of myth, do us all a favor. Research the subject.
Click to expand...

You assume I haven’t researched it. Concealed carry has become possible, with a permit of variable availability, only in recent years. Only in two states has there been achieved a recognition of the right to carry concealed weapons – that is, as opposed to a permit-contingent privilege.

Nor is it a strawman to argue things would have been different had the NRA not been here.
Click to expand...

It is because one is not arguing that the NRA should not have been there.

But would things have been better had the NRA not endorsed the GCA-68 when it was being debated?

Would it have been better if they had a less-compromising testimony on the NFA-34?

Would it have been better if there were NRA lobbyists burning up Congressional phone lines now and trying to get HR-1703 or a like bill through?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top