NRA membership

I strongly agree with both sides of the NRA issue's here...

I rejoined yesterday on the 3 year plan, but pondered "doing it" for a couple of years since my previous membership expired.

My rational was so that when a dumba$$ liberal states as Klinton did... "The NRA gained a victory today, and the citizens of AmeriKa won't stand for it!" I can reply that "I am a citizen and the NRA is made up of other voting, taxpaying, homeowning, business owning, citizens just like me!"

It was King Klintons speech that actually changed mind mind, because I am a citizen and thus feel that he wrongly spoke for me... yet again!

I have in the past tried (to no avail) to convince the NRA that their senseless and expensive mailings could be better handled via email. IT'S FREE! The response is we know what were doing so mind your own business... Now, if all of you were to make the same claims to the NRA, maybe they would listen and could save millions on postage that could be better spent on buying off politicians.
 
Many people have problems with some of the NRA positions. But the people who think "we" just need to never compromise and if we babble enough about our "Second Amendment Rights" the whole world will join us are not living in the real world.

If you want to go hide in the hills and shoot anyone who comes near, have fun. But I prefer a reasonably civilized society where I get food at the grocery store not out of traps.

Yes, we are always expected to compromise. The real deal would be to get the anti-gun gang to compromise. (I'll go for checks at gun shows in return for a nationwide "shall issue" CCW. How's that for compromise?) I note that the antis voted to kill their own bill before they would support a compromise. That was duly noted by both the NRA and many, many Representatives. It is the antis who came across as fanatic and unreasonable.

When you write a letter to a Congressman or Senator, or a State rep., you are one person. Your letter may get trashed if you aren't on the voting register for the district.

(NOTE: The letter will certainly get trashed if it looks like some of the semi-literate rantings on this site.)

When an NRA lobbyist testifies before Congress or talks to members of Congress in their offices, he or she represents nearly 3 million people. That is what counts, and it won't count for anything if we don't register and vote.

Jim
 
i am an NRA & a GOA member

it is the least i can do to protect my rights

but i know the NRA is a huge corporation with an extremly expensive new office building

they spent a ton of money on their gun museum

i used to work for a wash DC lobby group,
i feel that the NRA is not going to do anything to directly threaten their payscales and leather office furniture

the NRA website is an expensive joke
compare these 2 sites: http://www.nraila.org / http://www.gunowners.org /

which 20 dollars gives you the most bang for your buck?

hard to say
i get more data from the GOA
but the NRA prolly buys more congressmen dinners.

dZ
 
Hmmm.......Ok so some of you are upset about the policies at the NRA. You think they sold us out....you think they compromise too much. Well, where do you think we would be without the NRA ??

I don't usually gamble but I'm willing to bet that if the NRA wasn't there we would have lost a whole lot more than we already have. JPFO, GOA and others are great organizations, but they simply lack the numbers to be very effective at the lobbying game. When the NRA's MILLIONS of members get mobilized we make a helluva force to be dealt with. When a Senators or Congressmans phone/faxes/E-mails are overloaded, you better believe that they pay attention.

Now I will say that I definately do not agree with all of the NRA's policies, but the bottom line is they are the ONLY game in town. So I would plead with all of you who are upset with the NRA to reconsider and join. It is a numbers (money) game and those organizations with high memberships get listened too.

Regards,
Rob
Very Proud NRA Life Member
 
I am concerned with bradleyt's post. I fear that he represents many in his views. We need to bring this out and expound on it, and get to the bottom of this so we can either bring y'all back into the fold OR bail out with you, depending on the consensus and the strength of the arguments. We need to be united, not divided, in any event, but we ought to figure out whether we will be united in NRA, or united in GOA, or none of the above. I think you have valid concerns, but we need to take a hard look at "what really was the NRA's alternative?" Perhaps they fouled up by letting the camel's nose under the tent; perhaps (more likely) the think tank members up there have thoroughly analyzed every conceivable course of action, and come to the conlusions they did regarding "compromise". I suspect that the powers that be at NRA stand side-by-side in their heartfelt beliefs with bradleyt and his constiutency, but have nevertheless been forced into a lesser-of-two-evils situation by the converging social and political forces.... What think?

We all have to understand that in the game of long-term protection of rights, NRA is the EXPERT - they have been doing this for decades, and they know what they're doing. I used to think, too, that a lot of NRA money is wasted. To me, at that time in my life, if the money was not spent to either (a) bankroll court challenges on RKBA cases, or (b) lobby congressmen, then it was wasted. But what I think NRA has come to realize (and reflected with Eddie Eagle, gun museums, PVF, ILA, shooting competitions,and the like, is that we have to influence the whole "social conscience" about gun ownership - the reasoning being as follows: In protecting gun rights, the "rubber meets the road" in two places: the legislatures and the courts. Of course, legislators respond (generally) to the prevailing (usually superficial) social hue and cry of the day - that's their job, and respond by constantly introducing bills, day in and day out, year in and year out, to restrict gun rights. The NRA does a great job in comating this crap with ILA and PVF - No one doubts the ILA's power. Now, as to the other extremely important area, court battles, one would think that the social pressures of the day shouldn't matter (they shouldn't, in theory, because courts are bound only to the law/precedent, and not to social pressure, right?). Well, as you may have guessed, courts/judges are extremely influenced (incorrectly I might add) by the social conscience/social pressure of the day. Most importantly, we need to realize that the one body which holds the plenary power regarding our rights (the U.S. Supreme Court) is the court MOST influenced by social pressure, in my opinion. This is contrary to what I believed before I attended law school. I thought that those wise old judges obeyed the letter of the precedent. Nothing is further from the truth. So, since the Supremes are influenced by the social conscience (if you doubt this, study Roe v. Wade), then we must act long-term; subtly; socially - not just in the halls of the legislatures and courts -which is why I am proud when my NRA money goes to Eddie Eagle, getting kids & adults involved in shoooting competitions, and all the other stuff - It's a grand scale war of thought, not just a technical battle in the government.

[This message has been edited by Futo Inu (edited June 30, 1999).]
 
As a sometime semi-literate ranter, I have to agree with Jim Keenan's post. It's fortunate that we have some level-headed members here! ;)
------------------
Yankee Doodle




[This message has been edited by BigG (edited July 02, 1999).]
 
Ok guys, if you want to belong to GOA, JFPO, The 2nd Amendment Foundation, or Uncle Harry's Militia I don't care; whatever turns you on. The one thing I do know is this. Big corporate media regards all of the above groups MARGINAL at best! The media elite know where the power lies among gun owners and it aint those groups, it's the NRA plain and simple. It's the NRA that's attacked, vilified, libeled, slandered, trashed, and otherwise meanly discredited. Why? 'Cause its got MONEY AND MEMBERS! Get with the political reality here. Carping about it's big new office building, or museum, or leather chairs is something we may all want to discuss internally, i.e., how can we budget effectively. But get a load of what the enemy regards as a threat. It's a united group of gun owners with political clout. For God's sake put the juvenile nit picking of the grand daddy of gun orgs in a kit bag and stuff it way back in your safe somewhere. Then join or renew now. United we will prevail; strident, ill advised separatist dogmatists will fail period. (Whew, got a little carried away there).

------------------
Safe shooting - PKAY
 
PKAY makes some good points. The one I like is "It's got the money and the members." What would happen if all our pro-gun organizations got together in a coalition for the common end? That is pooled their resources,and proceeded to kick butt.
NAAAAH! Won't happen, because each group would want to take the credit for winning the war, if we did win.
But wouldn't it be nice if they did?
Paul B.
 
Good discussion guys. I'm going to make this really simple.

For those who do not like the NRA, either get off your duff and tell them or maybe better yet - join the GOA ( or both). PaulB made some good points - the GOA has their act together and unlike the NRA that have a simple motto and goal:

"Absolutely NO gun control at all!"

No compromising, no deals - just "no gun control". What kind of a voice would the GOA have if it had millions of members???

Today it has less than 250,000 last I heard. Again, where the hell are the other 79.75 million *gun owners* in this counrty.

Join them both, and any others you can find. How much is your gun really worth?

Man, do we have a lot of work to do...

CMOS
 
I have a problem with calling someone a freeloader because he will not join the organization you like best.

For the record, I am an NRA life member, was a "lesser" member since the '60s.
---------
Just for a second, take a calm, analytical look at the biggest civil rights effort of the last fifty years - the fight for racial equality by such diverse spokespersons as Barbara Jordan, Rev. King Sr., Rev. King, Jr., Malcolm X, H. Rap Brown, etc.

Note they were supported by many whites - some of whom perished in the struggle. Remember "Freedom Riders"? Bet we might even have some on TFL.

My point is that we should look to successful efforts for guidance rather than losing efforts. Gen. Colin Powell noted that during the Civil Rights Movement, the blacks in the military felt uneasy with the inflammatory rhetoric of the more militant and vocal blacks. Only later did Powell recognize that "it takes many voices" to bring about change.

I support the NRA as best I can - but there is nothing holy about them.

I'm a life member of the LEAA and recommend them highly. LEAA is a great union of LEOs and civilians working together.

I'm a member of JFPO - trying them out. I think they are a voice proving "We must never forget".

If I had the moolah, I'd join GOA, SAF, and others.

When you speak of unity, remember it is the MOVEMENT that we must unite behind - not necessarily any one single organization. Let's leave room for those who want to achieve the same goal WE want to achieve - even if their voice is a bit different, OK?

[This message has been edited by Dennis (edited July 05, 1999).]
 
I think the situation at this point in time is analoguos to going into the 11th round of a 12 round heavyweight title fight knowing you have just dropped the previous 10 rounds. The situation is coming down to the wire and getting desperate. You have to start winging some punches at this point if you want to have any hope at victory.

Spending millions on shooting ranges in Arizona and Museums around Washington etc. etc. this late in the game is just an absolutely unmitigated waste of money (these are the things you do after you've won the battle, not while your being pummeled). Something has to be done to massively alter the conciousness of the American people towards guns and the 2nd Ammendment if you want to have any hope of being able to own a personal firearm well into the next century. There is definitely a need to assemble the experts, articulate the best message, and spend whatever needs to be spent in hiring the best PR firms to get that message accross to the widest audience possible in a very DRAMATIC fashion. Along with this the NRA need to become much more confrontational from the streets to the courtrooms and stop rolling over every time oposition against them mounts. I think we all know that this is not what is being done, nor is it probably what will ever be done unless there is a change in leadership.
 
My $.02. I joined the NRA. I"m glad I did. Someone has to keep a constant watch on the BS proposals in congress. The pro crime movement is constantly introducing nusiance bills, banning 9mm ammo,25 cal ammo and such. These thingsseldom if ever go anywhere, but if no one is there to catch them, ya never know. I consider it $35.00 well spent. Plus I get a nifty hat that I know would PO Sarah, and a decent magazine.

------------------
(!)
 
I realize that I am late into this thread, but nothing that has been posted has changed my opinions on this issue.

Has anyone seen the video from the NRA titled "Banned"? It has footage from England and Australia showing "gun dumps" and "chop shops" and interviews with citizens about why their firearms were outlawed. They come right out with the reason for losing their right to firearm ownership - SILENCE!

The NRA is the most visible, most vocal, has the most disposable income, and has the most contacts in place. With the ILA, they are always in place to watch for "infringements". They are not perfect, but they are the best we have on our side.

The GOA is the most commited to a single purpose, and they are getting louder and more visible, but they need more members to be effective.

The JPFO has one of the best arguements for firearm ownership based on history, but again they have a small membership and small voice.

There are many other organizations, and their size does not make them less important, just less visible.

IMO, the best scenario would be for ALL ORGANIZATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS to join forces and fight for our collective rights provided by our Constitution and Bill of Rights. After we have repealed all the restrictions on firearm ownership and returned some order to our central government, we can pick apart the seperate organizations to decide which ones we like best. For now, join the NRA, and every other organization that you can financially support.

Personally, I am a member of NRA, ILA, GOA, The Plainsman Society (Nebraska) and Pheasants Forever, and I make extra donations to these groups through the year. Besides these, I fall into the "fincially stressed" category. I also call and e-mail my state and federal reps. I have not renewed my other wildlife memberships, reasoning that without firearms, hunting will be gone, too.

BTW, Dennis, about the former FED employee that wants to remain "anonymous", what would he do with his guns if every other gun in the country would get confiscated? He definately has a valid fear, and he must know some things that he is not passing along, but IMO, he is doing us more harm than good.

------------------
"The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left."
Ecclesiastes 10:2

[This message has been edited by BigFang (edited July 07, 1999).]
 
Mind if I chime in?

I am a NRA member. I believe that NRA and the GOA are our best bet to keep our second amendment rights. If we all agreed with the NRA on everything, I would would be concerned. Becuase we should not as thinking human beings. As far as the NRA become "DC fatcats" well they sort of had to. When President Bush quit the NRA over the irresponsible comments made by Wayne LaPierre, he opened the flood gates for mass membership resignations. As membership roles fell, the actual clout the the NRA, therefore US, fell. I also believe that the anti-gun lobby is throwing a good deal of cash and votes around DC. And my friends is how you get things done in DC anymore...money and a known quantity of the public vote. At five or eight million members the NRA is something to be paid attention to, at five million okay I'll listen, but the other guy is bigger and at one million it becomes "get out of my office!"

There also was a comment that the NRA was wasting millions to save a gun range in Arizona?!!?? Let me tell you about that range. It was a public range established at least twenty years ago in the National Forest. It was managed by a rod and gun club and was a EXCEPTIONAL range. It was safe and clean. The Forest Service in a sweet heart deal with out of state developers put subdivions within 1/8 mile from the range. These people who bought these houses were fully informed by the range that they were there and come on by to join the fun (so I've been told and reported in the press). But the developer and hand picked home owners cried to the Forest Service that the noise was upsetting thier lifestyles. The range was closed by the Forest Service. This matter was petioned to the courts and it was only through the intervention of the NRA that the range people were able to keep fighting. The situation is still not settled, the developer wants to build more houses on the property where the range was located. But it looks like the Forest Service is concidering another landswap with the range. If anyone out there has an update on Sabino, let us know.

Joe Portale
Tucson, Arizona Territory
 
All,

I understand your position about my friend but, as DC advised elsewhere, there are times when discretion is called for. (?ME? talking about discretion?)

This thread shows we TFLers, a group with fairly similar goals, strongly disagree on many points, so let my friend disagree a bit also. I understand his hesitation to "come out of the closet" as a Second Amendment advocate is based on his personal opinions which I believe are similar to this:

1) In spite of our best efforts, the American government has ignored, circumvented, and violated the Constitution and Bill of Rights to such an extent that any recourse other than civil war will fail.

2) Rather than "mark" himself as a gun owner, he is waiting for the inevitable when (trust me) he will be a freedom fighter that would put the Afghani's to shame.

3) He already seems to have an operational plan in mind to cope with the confiscation of private firearms. He is wise enough NOT to share his intentions with other people.

4) In his own subtle way, he is doing more for the Second Amendment than many of us. While we beat our breasts among ourselves, he goes out "among the enemy" and forces them to re-think their anti-gun agenda. I'm sorry I can't explain more about his efforts but I assure you I am very, very proud of this man.

Whether he "knows something" or not probably is not the point. He is watching the rest of us gun owners foolishly fight among ourselves, stupidly rely upon our political enemies to fight for our Rights, and idiotically proclaim victory as we slowly drag out our defeats as gun owners.

He believes the addition of his voice would add little to our current efforts and would detract from his effectiveness in the possible, indeed in the foreseeable future.

Whether he currently is doing us more harm than good could be determined only if we knew the full extent of his current activities, his preparation for possible future needs, and his determination as a believer in the America created by our Founding Fathers.

To give you an idea of the trust I put in this man: If I am hurt or die in any manner, it is he whom my wife and/or daughters are to seek out for help.

Let me turn the tables on you.

All you vociferous Sons of Liberty, have you maintained our American Rights? Or have you been losing them - bit by bit? As you loudly and verbosely expound upon your brave intentions in case of this or that occurence, have you been winning or losing American Rights?

More to the point. Is it easier to buy a firearm now in 1999 than it was in 1949? Can you go shooting on federal or state lands without fearing your friend, the Peace Officer? Are we more or less controlled than we were fifty years ago? Are you as free now as you were then?

Shouting and making threatening gestures make us feel big and strong. But are we winning? Or are we losing?

Before you call my friend ineffective, a coward, and brand him the enemy, I respectfully ask you to explain how your efforts have won anything but a slower defeat.

[This message has been edited by Dennis (edited July 07, 1999).]
 
A later thought:

To those suggesting (or even thinking) that my friend is a coward: Have you completed the TFL profile, including your real name, e-mail address, and all the other information?

No? Why not? Discretion or cowardice?

Frequently, like beauty, it is in the eye of the beholder.

Me? I filled mine in before I "knew better". :D

[This message has been edited by Dennis (edited July 07, 1999).]
 
Guess what? I gota letter today from Mr Heston inviting me to rejoin the NRA.If I had a scanner Id post it for you. One quote:
"If you cant join today, then please let me know why. If you have a problem with the NRA, I want to fix it. If you have a problem with me, then I need to know what it is."

I believe I will write to him. It cant hurt. He didnt give an email address but I think it is on the NRA website.

I would love to fix it. We really cant wait.

------------------
Better days to be,

Ed
 
I re-joined...but not another dime til I am satisfied.
GOA/GOC is my primary

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top