Where is the NRA?
- Thread starter Maxb49
- Start date
- Status
.
Become a Life Member of the NRA and you can vote for the members of the NRA Board of Directors.
In 2012 only seven percent of eligible NRA members voted in the annual Board of Directors election.
http://www.netgunsmith.com/2012/04/the-nra-election-and-the-nra-board-of-directors/
Pointshoot
New member
coachteet said: "The NRA-ILA has done the job quite well, I think. The meeting with Biden was a farce, he had no interest in hearing anything but which guns should be outlawed and how small "clip" capacity needs to be to make the world safer."
IMO we must always keep the antis agenda in mind - to disarm the American people.
They would like, at minimum, to have the kind of restrictions that other countries have. Many kinds of guns completely outlawed. Some guns 'allowed' but under very restrictive conditions - locked up in a gun club, special licensing, etc, etc. 'Proof' of 'need' before a gun could be owned & 'psychological evaluation'. Registration.
In the past, that's why many of us have been displeased with the NRA. There has been 'compromise' which seems to be "they give nothing, we give as much as they can get from us . . . till the next time around" - then we 'compromise' some more. The former Assault Weapons Ban ended. It was obvious that various external 'scary' features on rifles had no impact on violent crime, and it went away.
But what many seem to forget is that 'they' don't grant us the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. This God given inherent right of all men to be able to defend themselves is one recognized in the US Constitution.
IMO we must always keep the antis agenda in mind - to disarm the American people.
They would like, at minimum, to have the kind of restrictions that other countries have. Many kinds of guns completely outlawed. Some guns 'allowed' but under very restrictive conditions - locked up in a gun club, special licensing, etc, etc. 'Proof' of 'need' before a gun could be owned & 'psychological evaluation'. Registration.
In the past, that's why many of us have been displeased with the NRA. There has been 'compromise' which seems to be "they give nothing, we give as much as they can get from us . . . till the next time around" - then we 'compromise' some more. The former Assault Weapons Ban ended. It was obvious that various external 'scary' features on rifles had no impact on violent crime, and it went away.
But what many seem to forget is that 'they' don't grant us the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. This God given inherent right of all men to be able to defend themselves is one recognized in the US Constitution.
Last edited:
I think the NRA comes across much better when someone other than La Pierre speaks for them. The other representative I've seen on the media come across with the same message but in a less confrontational manner. Just my opinion.
Agree the Biden meeting was a farce. Just an excuse for him to say he reached out to hear all parties before he does whatever he planned in the first place.
Agree the Biden meeting was a farce. Just an excuse for him to say he reached out to hear all parties before he does whatever he planned in the first place.
vranasaurus
New member
Would you have thrown out all of the good that the FOPA accomplished over that provision?
The FOPA did the following:
1. Limited BATFE inspection of dealers to once per year
2. Prohibited a firearm registry (other than the NFA)
3. Safe Passage Provision
4. Relaxed record keeping requirements on the sale of ammunition
5. Clarified that pardons, expungements, set asides, etc.. removed any disability under the GCA.
The Hughes Amendment wasn't about so much about banning machine guns as it was an attempt to kill the bill.
Wasn't it Reagan that signed the FOPA?
FOPA should not have required the ban, in order to pass.
I have issues with LEOSA, as I find it hypocritical to argue that private citizens should have the RKBA, but we will support authorizing the RKBA to retired or former LEOs even while private citizens still have nothing comparable.
Sometimes compromises are a good thing, but sometimes they help cement the status quo and are ultimately not good.
Meanwhile, you'll notice that my point on Bush was that he was not a 100% pro-gun guy, but that did not make him a bad president.
Gun rights are a major issue to me, but they are not the only issue.
Still, they are right up there.
I have issues with LEOSA, as I find it hypocritical to argue that private citizens should have the RKBA, but we will support authorizing the RKBA to retired or former LEOs even while private citizens still have nothing comparable.
Sometimes compromises are a good thing, but sometimes they help cement the status quo and are ultimately not good.
Meanwhile, you'll notice that my point on Bush was that he was not a 100% pro-gun guy, but that did not make him a bad president.
Gun rights are a major issue to me, but they are not the only issue.
Still, they are right up there.
Key points
- In negotiation (with the populace, not Biden), talking first isn't an advantage, if anything it's a disadvantage - "let the other guy talk first, find out what *he* wants".
- We *are* reacting, we'd be just as happy for nothing to get done. This isn't like the debt ceiling stuff or some mutually beneficial exchange.
- Waiting out the clock - delay is good. Every day emotion subsides. CNN keeps trying to crank up guns but attention span on the subject dissipates. Note the silence from the republicans any legislation would need to have approve it.
The NRA will have further opportunity to impress or disappoint over the following few weeks. But so far, they're ramping up to do what they do, and at an appropriate pace.
- In negotiation (with the populace, not Biden), talking first isn't an advantage, if anything it's a disadvantage - "let the other guy talk first, find out what *he* wants".
- We *are* reacting, we'd be just as happy for nothing to get done. This isn't like the debt ceiling stuff or some mutually beneficial exchange.
- Waiting out the clock - delay is good. Every day emotion subsides. CNN keeps trying to crank up guns but attention span on the subject dissipates. Note the silence from the republicans any legislation would need to have approve it.
The NRA will have further opportunity to impress or disappoint over the following few weeks. But so far, they're ramping up to do what they do, and at an appropriate pace.
vranasaurus
New member
The FOPA didn't require the Hughes Amendment to pass. The amendment was passed with the intent that it would kill the bill.
Once the amendment was added the options were to scrap the entire thing or accept it as is. We got far more than we gave on the FOPA.
Once the amendment was added the options were to scrap the entire thing or accept it as is. We got far more than we gave on the FOPA.
Pointshoot
New member
NRA Quits Working With Whitehouse After Meeting . . .
I find this very encouraging. You don't 'work' with those who are coming after you:
http://www.mediaite.com/online/nra-...nts-their-agenda-to-attack-the-2nd-amendment/
I find this very encouraging. You don't 'work' with those who are coming after you:
http://www.mediaite.com/online/nra-...nts-their-agenda-to-attack-the-2nd-amendment/
The FOPA was also poorly written.
The duration of a protected en route stop was not defined, and this has proven a nightmare for various victims of the NY and NJ anti-gun regimes.
The lesson I would draw from 1986 was that divide and conquer works, and we should be ready to resist it this time around. Gun manufacturers should be held accountable if they promote import bans; hunter groups should realize they will become irrelevant over time if they alienate younger shooters, who do care about evil black rifles; those of us who have all the guns we might want should protect the rights of our younger brethren to eventually obtain the guns they want.
On a related note, I have been an NRA member for a while (Golden Eagle, Life Member, etc). But, while I have morally supported the SAF for quite some time, I had not been a member. I corrected that deficiency a few minutes ago.
The NRA has functions it performs (right now, the NRA ILA being the most on point), but SAF is also worth supporting.
We need to stand together; we also need to put our money where our interests are best guarded.
The duration of a protected en route stop was not defined, and this has proven a nightmare for various victims of the NY and NJ anti-gun regimes.
The lesson I would draw from 1986 was that divide and conquer works, and we should be ready to resist it this time around. Gun manufacturers should be held accountable if they promote import bans; hunter groups should realize they will become irrelevant over time if they alienate younger shooters, who do care about evil black rifles; those of us who have all the guns we might want should protect the rights of our younger brethren to eventually obtain the guns they want.
On a related note, I have been an NRA member for a while (Golden Eagle, Life Member, etc). But, while I have morally supported the SAF for quite some time, I had not been a member. I corrected that deficiency a few minutes ago.
The NRA has functions it performs (right now, the NRA ILA being the most on point), but SAF is also worth supporting.
We need to stand together; we also need to put our money where our interests are best guarded.
vranasaurus
New member
I'm not saying I think we should compromise on the issues currently being discussed. That being said the FOPA did far more good than bad. Do you want to go back to the pre FOPA days?
You can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. In our system you will rarely get everything you want. We need to take what we can get when we can get it. The incremental approach works for us as well as it does for the other side.
You can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. In our system you will rarely get everything you want. We need to take what we can get when we can get it. The incremental approach works for us as well as it does for the other side.
CNN is reporting that the NRA is readying a print and television campaign to begin shortly. They also list the various other things the NRA is up to much of which relies on folks like us getting involved.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/01/10/national-rifle-association-gearing-up-for-a-flight/
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/01/10/national-rifle-association-gearing-up-for-a-flight/
Mike Irwin
Staff
"I think something more nefarious is going on here, like weapons dealers using the run on guns to drive up an artificial premium on firearms and ammunition, knowing that true bans and confiscation will never pass the Supreme Court."
Yes, yes, you're on to the plot. It was actually a gun dealer who killed those 26 people in Connecticut.
And, I have it on the BEST authority that no one actually died -- those kids and adults were spirited away and are being held in the same super secret facility where all of the people from the supposedly hijacked 9-11 jets are being held.
That manufactured a high profile "incident" that the EBRSSSSS (Evil Black Rifle Sellers Super Secret Squirrel Society) used to jam up prices.
"Would you have thrown out all of the good that the FOPA accomplished over that provision?"
Quite a few people would, actually. A lot.
Because it wasn't hard line enough, because it wasn't PURE enough, because if there's ONE IOTA of something with which someone disagrees in that act it means that NRA SOLD OUT AND THEY SHOULD NEVER EVER BE FORGIVEN! TAKE UP ARMS! TAKE UP ARMS!
Yeah.
"The FOPA was also poorly written."
Wow. A piece of legislation that is "poorly written" and has unintended consequences.
That certainly had never happened before in Congress.
Here's a very simple truth that far too many people either can't, or won't, understand...
NO piece of legislation ever passed is free from the ability of some other politician or political entity to bastardize it, twist it, and loophole it in ways that no one could have conceived.
A PERFECT example is the 1994 Assault Weapons law...
By defining an assault weapon in terms of cosmetics, such as a pistol grip and a bayonet lug, it was easy for the firearms industry to obey the letter of the law while continuing to manufacture the exact same firearms, except with out certain cosmetic features such as bayonet lugs.
It took the people who supported that boondoggle a bit to catch on to what was happening, and then it was all crocodile tears about how the gun makers were violating the spirit of the law.
Right.
The salient fact remains that as long as you have politicians quibbling over terminology - I'll remind you of the most famous instance, in which Bill Clinton quibbled over the definition of the word IS - a perfectly clear law CAN NEVER be passed.
Yes, yes, you're on to the plot. It was actually a gun dealer who killed those 26 people in Connecticut.
And, I have it on the BEST authority that no one actually died -- those kids and adults were spirited away and are being held in the same super secret facility where all of the people from the supposedly hijacked 9-11 jets are being held.
That manufactured a high profile "incident" that the EBRSSSSS (Evil Black Rifle Sellers Super Secret Squirrel Society) used to jam up prices.
"Would you have thrown out all of the good that the FOPA accomplished over that provision?"
Quite a few people would, actually. A lot.
Because it wasn't hard line enough, because it wasn't PURE enough, because if there's ONE IOTA of something with which someone disagrees in that act it means that NRA SOLD OUT AND THEY SHOULD NEVER EVER BE FORGIVEN! TAKE UP ARMS! TAKE UP ARMS!
Yeah.
"The FOPA was also poorly written."
Wow. A piece of legislation that is "poorly written" and has unintended consequences.
That certainly had never happened before in Congress.
Here's a very simple truth that far too many people either can't, or won't, understand...
NO piece of legislation ever passed is free from the ability of some other politician or political entity to bastardize it, twist it, and loophole it in ways that no one could have conceived.
A PERFECT example is the 1994 Assault Weapons law...
By defining an assault weapon in terms of cosmetics, such as a pistol grip and a bayonet lug, it was easy for the firearms industry to obey the letter of the law while continuing to manufacture the exact same firearms, except with out certain cosmetic features such as bayonet lugs.
It took the people who supported that boondoggle a bit to catch on to what was happening, and then it was all crocodile tears about how the gun makers were violating the spirit of the law.
Right.
The salient fact remains that as long as you have politicians quibbling over terminology - I'll remind you of the most famous instance, in which Bill Clinton quibbled over the definition of the word IS - a perfectly clear law CAN NEVER be passed.
Last edited:
Alabama Shooter
New member
I guess they are trying to cover all the bases now.
Doesn't every gun owner in the country already know?Funny thing about probability. With 100,000,000 rifles in the country and about 100 of them being used in murders every year the odds are about 1 in a million one will be used in a murder. Strange that.
Last edited:
Mike Irwin
Staff
" Doesn't every gun owner in the country already know?"
Knowing, and doing, are two COMPLETELY different things.
NRA figures that pretty much every gunowner already knows.
They want gunowners to DO, not just sit back and wait for someone else to take care of it for them.
Knowing, and doing, are two COMPLETELY different things.
NRA figures that pretty much every gunowner already knows.
They want gunowners to DO, not just sit back and wait for someone else to take care of it for them.
Mike Irwin, nice to see you are wearing your sarcasm hat today. It suits you, though there are days when I do miss WildAlaska's hello kitty thong...
But as to FOPA being poorly written, one of my points was that if we want legislative victories, we have to pay attention to details - such as lack of definition of terms, such as en route stops.
Or, for that matter, "sporting purposes."
While politicians can twist words around with the best of them, these are specific examples that we have already seen used against us. We have to be on guard for such.
Please notice also that while I may criticize certain NRA positions, I'm a pro-active member, and I frequently call on TFLers to join, make contact, send advice or opinions. So, while I do not like the Hughes Amendment, and do not think we should look at it as a trade that obtained FOPA (as it wasn't, strictly speaking, it was a small silk purse tacked onto a sow's ear) please don't tie my direct comment in with NRA bashing.
Please note also that I am one of many on TFL who keep trying to cajole others into:
1) Not just assuming we are going to have to give up hard-earned gains, in order to appease or compromise with antis who ultimately do not want compromise;
2) Not throwing other rights under the bus in the attempt to guard RKBA;
and
3) Not just moaning or wringing hands, but actually engaging representatives, antis in their social circles, even the media.
(Edit: I've written my senators and congressman, already, and I regularly engage the public editor of the nearest big city newspaper via email.)
Frankly, I am sick of some of the defeatists around here, but disgusted with the ones who want to toss some other victim in, to distract and divert the frenzy.
Bitching is easy. Taking effective action requires some effort. People have to decide if RKBA justifies their effort. For me, it justifies effort, time, and cash expenditures.
Ok, end of serious post. You can go back to sarcasm mode.
But as to FOPA being poorly written, one of my points was that if we want legislative victories, we have to pay attention to details - such as lack of definition of terms, such as en route stops.
Or, for that matter, "sporting purposes."
While politicians can twist words around with the best of them, these are specific examples that we have already seen used against us. We have to be on guard for such.
Please notice also that while I may criticize certain NRA positions, I'm a pro-active member, and I frequently call on TFLers to join, make contact, send advice or opinions. So, while I do not like the Hughes Amendment, and do not think we should look at it as a trade that obtained FOPA (as it wasn't, strictly speaking, it was a small silk purse tacked onto a sow's ear) please don't tie my direct comment in with NRA bashing.
Please note also that I am one of many on TFL who keep trying to cajole others into:
1) Not just assuming we are going to have to give up hard-earned gains, in order to appease or compromise with antis who ultimately do not want compromise;
2) Not throwing other rights under the bus in the attempt to guard RKBA;
and
3) Not just moaning or wringing hands, but actually engaging representatives, antis in their social circles, even the media.
(Edit: I've written my senators and congressman, already, and I regularly engage the public editor of the nearest big city newspaper via email.)
Frankly, I am sick of some of the defeatists around here, but disgusted with the ones who want to toss some other victim in, to distract and divert the frenzy.
Bitching is easy. Taking effective action requires some effort. People have to decide if RKBA justifies their effort. For me, it justifies effort, time, and cash expenditures.
Ok, end of serious post. You can go back to sarcasm mode.
Last edited:
Alabama Shooter
New member
Our guys are pretty solid on the congressional side down here. The executive won't listen and does not care what I think. That brings us to the guys on the fence. The NRA identify those guys freezing up in the door?
ChasingWhitetail91
New member
I follow the NRA like I follow squirrel tracks when im deer hunting. I wrote them for an opinion on laws in my state pertaining to the 2A and never heard back. As far as im concerned if they don't have time for me, I don't have time for them.
Pointshoot
New member
Just heard an interview with David Keene from the NRA. He was questioned on NPR (National Public Radio) - which is hardcore 'progressive' (that is leftist) in outlook. The interviewer used their usual talking points - raw stats without giving context - and he dealt with them each with great good sense and the facts. The guy also has a great voice for radio - deep and exudes calm authority. Great job !
BTW - I must warn you to limit your exposure to NPR Radio. I can't listen too long without getting ticked off. If I go beyond a certain 'exposure time' I usally get a headache.
- NRA Life Member
- Gun Owners of America Member
- Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership member - I'm not Jewish, but you don't have to be to join
if you don't like one - pick another or some other pro 2A organization, and also be active on your own
"The enemy of my enemy, is my friend."
BTW - I must warn you to limit your exposure to NPR Radio. I can't listen too long without getting ticked off. If I go beyond a certain 'exposure time' I usally get a headache.
- NRA Life Member
- Gun Owners of America Member
- Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership member - I'm not Jewish, but you don't have to be to join
if you don't like one - pick another or some other pro 2A organization, and also be active on your own
"The enemy of my enemy, is my friend."
Last edited:
- Status