Where is the NRA when you need them?

And while we're on the subject, I'd like to point out that there is also a California Rifle and Pistol Association, which also does a very good job. If you live in California, please consider joining; membership numbers count.

http://www.crpa.org/

Tim
 
Have been a Life Member of the NRA since 1968, were I not, I would do it all over again. Any organization like ours that is so hated by the red leftists who
would turn us into mere subjects rather than citizens by ripping the 2nd Amendment must be grand !!!!

There are other Pro-Gun groups and they are likewise grand in protecting our God given rights...........I am the NRA !!!!!
 
I was the NRA. Anyone can join and vote, and it changes nothing. Even if an incumbent board member was defeated nothing changed. I think the only reason they even ran for the job was to get a better seat at the meetings.

I used to get tons of solicitations, they needed my money. Well if I don't respond to the first one, quit asking. It was nothing but a waste of their resources to mail all that junk out every week, that needed to be stopped. They promised they would buy magazine ad space to get to more people and let them know what their goals were, the ads were full page membership drives in gun magazines. What about Time, People, Money etc.? Let the uninformed voters who don't know one side or the other about guns what is really going on. They hear the gun-grabbers and go to the polls to stop the evil hordes who own guns. They are blatantly against the lawful ownership of class III weapons and "assault weapons" even though many of their members pay their dues because they feel the NRA will protect their rights to do so.

And still with all this they still send me offers to join, and I still toss them in the trash. Why? If you sent someone offer after offer and they won't join, whouldn't you at least like to know why? Apparently they don't care and only want more dues to throw away on frivolous ignorance. And they can stuff their worthless hats too.

I know there is a membership drive going on here, so I'll leave you nice people alone now.
 
Rimrod,

I don't know about all the candidates running for NRA office, but if you see James Dark on the list, he's worth a vote. He's executive director of the TSRA, and if he can do nationally what he's done for TX, we'd be in pretty good shape.

These guys come from somewhere. The bios are sketchy, admittedly, but they give enough information to find out more. ;)

Jart,

Believe it or not, there are only around 36,000 TSRA members.
 
Rimrod

This may be an over-simplification, but if it weren't for the NRA, you wouldn't have the guns you have today.

Feinstein, Kennedy, Schumer, Dodd, Boxer, Murray, and the rest would have taken every one of them away.

Just my 2¢.
 
Sasquatch,

Also if it weren't for the NRA I might have more than I have today. (Glock 18 and MP10)

John,

I remember after Clinton passed his assault weapon ban there was a board member from Texas, I don't remember his name, that wrote a letter to one of the gun magazines telling how he was glad they were banned because nobody needed to own one anyway. I don't care one way or another but there are many people who like them and own several that still pay their dues. He made it sound like the only guns worth having were his.

I own class III weapons, assault rifles, high capacity magazines etc, etc. The NRA has shown me where they stand on those weapons, they may throw them away at anytime if they want to get something else. Now that the Democrats are gaining strength they may push all the anti-gun legislation through that they want. Will I pick up a Newsweek magazine and find an ad telling the non-gun owners of this country why firearm ownership is good for them and their country? Will it tell them that concealed carry laws are important because the police can't always protect them? In areas where the police are against concealed carry will they inform them that it will not take their jobs away from them? I would gladly donate the free hat that is reserved just for me so they can help pay for these ads. Maybe they can air some T.V. commercials during times other than when gun shows are on, like theirs. When I see they are willing to look out for every gun owners interest and not just their own, I'll be glad to join. But I won't be holding my breath.
 
Rimrod said:
They are blatantly against the lawful ownership of class III weapons and "assault weapons"
Click to expand...
I'm calling "bull" on that statement. Care to back it up with some facts? If they are "blatantly" against it it shouldn't be too hard for you to do.

If it is just your opinion, that's fine; you're entitled to it, but please phrase it as such.

-Dave
 
I remember after Clinton passed his assault weapon ban there was a board member from Texas, I don't remember his name, that wrote a letter to one of the gun magazines telling how he was glad they were banned because nobody needed to own one anyway. I don't care one way or another but there are many people who like them and own several that still pay their dues. He made it sound like the only guns worth having were his.
Click to expand...


One Board member doesn't Constitute the whole NRA. After that bill was passed the NRA took a no holds barred approach and the House and Senate went from Democratic to Republican for the first time in many years. Bill Clinton gave the NRA the credit for helping to do that. There were some folks whom had a good record of supporting gun rights turned their back on the NRA when the Dems offered a little cheese for them. The NRA refused to endorse Bill Richardson after he voted for the ban. Jack Brooks a very powerful guy in Congress also was shown the road.
 
I remember after Clinton passed his assault weapon ban there was a board member from Texas, I don't remember his name, that wrote a letter to one of the gun magazines telling how he was glad they were banned because nobody needed to own one anyway.
Click to expand...
I wasn't recommending Mr. Dark simply because he's from TX, it was on the basis of his service in the TSRA.
 
Jart,

Believe it or not, there are only around 36,000 TSRA members.
Click to expand...

I've gone from sometimes annual to life to endowment to patron (NRA) since I moved to TX.

TSRA: better late than never.
...looking forward to the newsletter.

Glad I stopped by this thread. Picked up some voting tips in the bargain.
 
I got a phone call the other night. Caller ID said it was: NRA.

OK, I took the call. Lady comes on and starts telling me about how Hillary Clinton is going to run for President. Wasn't I concerned about that? I let her go on for a couple of minutes, until she started her pitch for a renewal of my membership, so that Wayne would have the funds to get the message out...

Me: Hold on a minute Missy!

NRA: Um, yes Mr. Norris?

Me: Are you aware that it is 2 years before the election? And you are already trying to scare me into donating money this soon? Are you aware of who the Republicans may be fielding?

NRA: We don't need to be worried about the Republicans at this point in time...

Me: Excuse me? With Guilliani, Romney and McCain in the forefront, gun grabbers all, you say I need to be more worried about Hillery? How about Obama? He''s as much a threat as Hillery and Guilliani and he's running also!

NRA: Does this mean you're not going to extend your membership?

Me: My membership currently expires in '09, a full year after the elections...

NRA: ...well then, can you at least donate $15 so that Wayne can get his message out?

Me: Miss! If I donate to the NRA, they can't legally use that money for political lobbying. Against our charter and against 903(c)(3) rules, IIRC. You did say you were from the NRA and not the NRA-ILA, correct?

NRA: Yes, I'm calling on behalf of the NRA...

Me: Good. Then when the tree shakes out just who the political candidates are going to be, you can call me back. Good evening. [click]

A couple of minutes of my time. Enjoyed it actually. Poor thing didn't expect to get a knowledgeable member, probably.

Doesn't mean I dislike the NRA. Doesn't mean I won't extend my membership for another five years when it becomes due. I like the 800 lb gorilla. It's the only gorilla around.
 
TheBluesMan, when they saved us all from having to sign for handgun ammunition they gave up the future manufacture of machine guns for individual sale, their reasoning was that no one needs to own a machine gun anyway. I don't remember the publication that was in but I think it was 'Firearms Industry'.

As for the assault weapons. After the above board member made his statement in the magazine there were no denials or retractions on the part of any other board member or the NRA as an organization. If the NRA didn't feel that way, maybe they should have said something.

I'm sure this isn't proof enough for you so I will rephrase that statement to help you sleep better.

In my opinion the NRA is blatantly against the lawful ownership of class III weapons and "assault weapons".

And was Bill Clinton giving the NRA the credit or trying to blame someone other than himself?

And John, I wasn't trying to say anything about Mr. Dark although it may have sounded that way. If you say he is a good man, I'll take your word for it since I know nothing about him.
 
...subtle and not so subtle hints reveal a pattern of policy making which marginalizes hunting and shooting sports while emphasizing other outdoor activities that do not involve firearms.
Click to expand...
What! Is there actually a real conspiracy that can be seen behind it's vail? :eek:

I believe in conspiracy... and the fact so many people refuse to recognize conspiracy doesn't make it go away...

I believe in infiltration... and the fact so many people refuse to recognize infiltration doesn't make it go away...


As to where is the NRA...?
Click to expand...
Did you contact the NRA and ILA and inform them of this?

Did you ask the NRA what you could do to help? :rolleyes:

I'm an Endowment member... what kind of a member are you? :cool:
 
"I'm sure this isn't proof enough for you so I will rephrase that statement to help you sleep better."

It isn't proof at all, of anything. You haven't told us what the statement was, or who made it. You don't even remember where the statement was published. You are not presenting a very convincing argument.

Tim
 
Tim,

I did tell you what the statements were. I'm sorry I didn't keep notes over the last 25 years as to who, what, where and when these things happened, but it doesn't matter since I'm not trying to "convince" you of anything. I'm stating my position on why I don't belong to the NRA anymore, and the only thing the members of the NRA here can do is turn me against it more. Instead of trying to discuss the issue, they attack my statements as "bull" and give me a bunch of double talk and sheer ignorance, like your post. You have totally sidestepped the whole issue on the premise that it didn't happen. If you get robbed but can't describe the robber does that mean it never happened? We just had a guy charged with 30 counts of raping a 6 year old girl, if she can't remember the dates when it happened are you saying we should drop the charges? You have done a fine job of telling me why I should avoid the NRA. I guess I should write all this down for future reference.:D

You gentlemen were right about one thing though, you definately are the NRA.
 
"Instead of trying to discuss the issue, they attack my statements as "bull" and give me a bunch of double talk and sheer ignorance, like your post. You have totally sidestepped the whole issue on the premise that it didn't happen."

Because I want you to identify the speaker, tell us exactly what he said (I mean a quote; I don't trust your interpretation of his statement), and where he said it , I am an ignorant double-talker? Oooookay.

Tim
 
TBM said, "I'm calling "bull" on that statement. Care to back it up with some facts? If they are "blatantly" against it it shouldn't be too hard for you to do."

OK, here's a fact. When they passed the Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986, the NRA let slide an amendment that no new full auto firearms be allowed to the general public that got snuck in at the last minute. Some of us also feel they supported parts of the Gun Control Act of 1968 with all it's background check BS among other things.


I feel that they do compromise way too much, but i also understand that if they ever do get a full andf total win and all our Constitutionally guaranteed gun rights are restored, then they'll be out of a job.

Am I anti-NRA? Hell no! I've been a life memeber for years and recently upgraded to Patron. The NRA really does have the clout. My gripe si I wish they'd get off the stick and use it.
Paul B.
 
I can't refute your assertions, Paul. Good post.

The NRA has certainly made compromises in the past. That is just a part of the political process, unfortunately. In my mind, some things are too important to leave in the hands of politicians and lobbyists - the Bill of Rights for one.

FOPA '86 was simply a political trade-off. It gave a little and took away a little.

GCA '68 could have been much worse given the attitude toward guns at the time.

The NRA isn't the invincible defender of our freedom, but neither are they appeasers who are "blatantly against the lawful ownership of class III weapons and 'assault weapons'"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top