orionengnr
New member
I am
Why aren't you a member of the NRA?
- Thread starter rbrgs
- Start date
I am
cold dead hands
Moderator
Two words.
Full auto.
Until the NRA backs up my right to own these without restriction they don't get my money.
I'll stick with contacting politicians via letter, phone and e-mail. Concerned politicians listen to their constituants and folks from all around the nation. Writing a letter to an out of state congress person may just get a better response than one written to an in state official.
Unfortunately, I also realize that they will vote how they want to regardless of wether or not the ''people'' favor or oppose their position.
Just because I don't support the NRA doesn't mean I am not doing my part.
Besides, if we got all of our rights back lots of NRA folks would be out of jobs and the NRA would simply exist to be educators and we can't have that in this day and age.
Full auto.
Until the NRA backs up my right to own these without restriction they don't get my money.
I'll stick with contacting politicians via letter, phone and e-mail. Concerned politicians listen to their constituants and folks from all around the nation. Writing a letter to an out of state congress person may just get a better response than one written to an in state official.
Unfortunately, I also realize that they will vote how they want to regardless of wether or not the ''people'' favor or oppose their position.
Just because I don't support the NRA doesn't mean I am not doing my part.
Besides, if we got all of our rights back lots of NRA folks would be out of jobs and the NRA would simply exist to be educators and we can't have that in this day and age.
"Full auto.
Until the NRA backs up my right to own these without restriction they don't get my money."
Do you really expect the NRA to back repeal of the law requiring a NICS background check to purchase full auto?
Get serious, "without restriction" is a pipe dream.
John
Member www.vcdl.org
NRA Patron Life Member
Until the NRA backs up my right to own these without restriction they don't get my money."
Do you really expect the NRA to back repeal of the law requiring a NICS background check to purchase full auto?
Get serious, "without restriction" is a pipe dream.
John
Member www.vcdl.org
NRA Patron Life Member
Northern Sod Breaker
New member
Arrogance is the reason I don't join. The same arrogance that is the base of these threads. The whole attitude that anyone who doesn't give money to a DC organiaztion is freeloader. If such is true than I submit that anyone who here who does not belong to a computer club is a free loader.
But that's different I suppose. Anyone who questions the almighty authority of the NRA is a bad person. (/sarcasm)
But that's different I suppose. Anyone who questions the almighty authority of the NRA is a bad person. (/sarcasm)
cold dead hands
Moderator
Only because the NRA isn't doing their job. The NRA believes that the 2A includes the words ''except for certain rates of fire and accessories''.
Until they completely back the 2A no money will part from my hands to theirs.
By the way, just how much of a fat cat salary do the leaders of the NRA get? I am willing to bet it takes lots of memberships to pay them.
I am not in the buisness of supporting a buisness that pretends to support education and gun rights when they are actually just another monster industry with a bottom line and a desire to get as much of my money as they can get hold of.
Because nra is the largest gun control group in the country.
1. nra supported the ending of the 2nd amendment with F.D.R.'s massive gun ban and registration abomination. Most nra members aren't even aware that the president of the nra testified before congress in 1934 and gave all sorts of support to proposals that effectively ended the 2nd amendment. http://keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=3247
2. nra supported the massive 1968 ban, mostly because nra was helping domestic manufacturers. Daddy bush voted for this awful ban and nra didn't even count it as an anti gun vote (sad but true).
3. nra had absolutely no problem with it's bill in 1986 AFTER a massive gun ban was added to it. Nra could have and SHOULD have pulled support for the poisoned bill, but nra didn't because it doesn't care about full auto owners OR the true meaning of the 2nd amendment. The most amazing knife in our backs: nra's bill was called the "firearm owners PROTECTION act" :barf: We were "protected" from being able to exercise that 2nd amendment that nra doesn't support. It is jaw dropping to hear nra members rationalize and say that "it was worth it because we got rid of some ammo restrictions". Many of these people ACTUALLY believe that getting a massive gun ban, entirely banning new full autos, in exchange for a few regulatory relaxations was a good trade! Absolutely incredible. Some people will rationalize anything to make themselves feel better. The nra thinks that was a good trade, and that makes nra a blatant enemy of the 2nd amendment.
4. nra did not oppose the horrible Lautenberg ban. In fact, it appears that nra gave quiet approval. Have any of you ever seen ANY opposition to the lautenberg ban from the nra?
5. As further proof that nra does not actually support the 2nd amendment, they seem to quietly oppose "Vermont/Alaska" carry. NRA won't even mildly support the idea, even though there are a half dozen states where it would pass if they only tried (NH, WY, ID, ND, SD, MT and maybe others). Of course it wouldn't pass instantly but a few more states would be "FREE carry" states in a few years if nra only supported the idea.
6. Current nra board members have been caught voicing support for full auto bans, magazine restrictions, and semi auto bans. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSGySNLyACE
7. NRA tried to kill the parker case because it doesn't want a supreme court ruling. NRA has never wanted a supreme court ruling because that could end some gun control and then nra's reason for existence would be severely diminished (not to mention fund raising).
8. It is a well known and long standing fact that nra spends over 90 cents in harassment mailings for every dollar it brings in from donations.
9. Nra's top executives make obscene amounts of money. Wayne pulls in almost a million a year.
Some people will get very emotional (angry) simply because I said these things. I've met many many nra members, and I have relatives who are life members. I've heard many times the way many nra members rationalize all of the things I just listed. They rationalize in ways that make themselves feel better about those things. When that doesn't work, they go into denial mode. The more skillful rationalizers will tell you that "all that stuff happened in the past," with the implication that nra wouldn't do those things today. Lautenberg was recent though. They also try to imply that nra's long running support for gun bans/control/registration was "accidental" because they say "nra wasn't politically savvy back then." That is a weak rationalization and they know it.
I may get personally insulted for saying this, but it is my observation and opinion that the establishment LONG ago infiltrated the nra so as to control the "pro gun" side (based on nra's endless support for gun control). It is also my opinion that 99% of the anti gun groups were started BY establishment sources with establishment money, and are controlled by the establishment. Let's see if certain individuals who love to insult people who believe in conspiracy will allow me to have this opinion WITHOUT insulting me in some fashion.
I believe that nra is as dangerous as brady or vpc. Some people will sidestep everything I just said and say "so what gun group IS perfect enough for you?" I believe that GOA and JPFO are our only hope of saving the 2nd amendment and RESTORING it. I believe that we need to be a little angry and a LOT "extreme" (being extreme has been demonized as much as being "racist") in restoring the 2nd amendment. I believe GOA/JPFO keep nra from totally selling us out (the recent "veteran disarmament act" proved that one). I didn't say that it was possible to restore the 2nd amendment and repeal all the illegal gun bans, I only said that our only hope is educating people about history and getting them active enough to support groups like GOA/JPFO that I believe are NOT corrupted by the establishment.
1. nra supported the ending of the 2nd amendment with F.D.R.'s massive gun ban and registration abomination. Most nra members aren't even aware that the president of the nra testified before congress in 1934 and gave all sorts of support to proposals that effectively ended the 2nd amendment. http://keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=3247
2. nra supported the massive 1968 ban, mostly because nra was helping domestic manufacturers. Daddy bush voted for this awful ban and nra didn't even count it as an anti gun vote (sad but true).
3. nra had absolutely no problem with it's bill in 1986 AFTER a massive gun ban was added to it. Nra could have and SHOULD have pulled support for the poisoned bill, but nra didn't because it doesn't care about full auto owners OR the true meaning of the 2nd amendment. The most amazing knife in our backs: nra's bill was called the "firearm owners PROTECTION act" :barf: We were "protected" from being able to exercise that 2nd amendment that nra doesn't support. It is jaw dropping to hear nra members rationalize and say that "it was worth it because we got rid of some ammo restrictions"
. Many of these people ACTUALLY believe that getting a massive gun ban, entirely banning new full autos, in exchange for a few regulatory relaxations was a good trade! Absolutely incredible. Some people will rationalize anything to make themselves feel better. The nra thinks that was a good trade, and that makes nra a blatant enemy of the 2nd amendment.4. nra did not oppose the horrible Lautenberg ban. In fact, it appears that nra gave quiet approval. Have any of you ever seen ANY opposition to the lautenberg ban from the nra?
5. As further proof that nra does not actually support the 2nd amendment, they seem to quietly oppose "Vermont/Alaska" carry. NRA won't even mildly support the idea, even though there are a half dozen states where it would pass if they only tried (NH, WY, ID, ND, SD, MT and maybe others). Of course it wouldn't pass instantly but a few more states would be "FREE carry" states in a few years if nra only supported the idea.
6. Current nra board members have been caught voicing support for full auto bans, magazine restrictions, and semi auto bans. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSGySNLyACE
7. NRA tried to kill the parker case because it doesn't want a supreme court ruling. NRA has never wanted a supreme court ruling because that could end some gun control and then nra's reason for existence would be severely diminished (not to mention fund raising).
8. It is a well known and long standing fact that nra spends over 90 cents in harassment mailings for every dollar it brings in from donations.
9. Nra's top executives make obscene amounts of money. Wayne pulls in almost a million a year.
Some people will get very emotional (angry) simply because I said these things. I've met many many nra members, and I have relatives who are life members. I've heard many times the way many nra members rationalize all of the things I just listed. They rationalize in ways that make themselves feel better about those things. When that doesn't work, they go into denial mode. The more skillful rationalizers will tell you that "all that stuff happened in the past," with the implication that nra wouldn't do those things today. Lautenberg was recent though. They also try to imply that nra's long running support for gun bans/control/registration was "accidental" because they say "nra wasn't politically savvy back then." That is a weak rationalization and they know it.
I may get personally insulted for saying this, but it is my observation and opinion that the establishment LONG ago infiltrated the nra so as to control the "pro gun" side (based on nra's endless support for gun control). It is also my opinion that 99% of the anti gun groups were started BY establishment sources with establishment money, and are controlled by the establishment. Let's see if certain individuals who love to insult people who believe in conspiracy will allow me to have this opinion WITHOUT insulting me in some fashion.
I believe that nra is as dangerous as brady or vpc. Some people will sidestep everything I just said and say "so what gun group IS perfect enough for you?" I believe that GOA and JPFO are our only hope of saving the 2nd amendment and RESTORING it. I believe that we need to be a little angry and a LOT "extreme" (being extreme has been demonized as much as being "racist") in restoring the 2nd amendment. I believe GOA/JPFO keep nra from totally selling us out (the recent "veteran disarmament act" proved that one). I didn't say that it was possible to restore the 2nd amendment and repeal all the illegal gun bans, I only said that our only hope is educating people about history and getting them active enough to support groups like GOA/JPFO that I believe are NOT corrupted by the establishment.
NRA.
I am a member.
I admit they have problems.
I admit they are corrupted.
I THOROUGHLY SUPPORT any other organization that goes to bat on self-defense and 2A issues.
I absolutely believe that Wayne LaPierre is the keystone of the current NRA corruption, and that after he more or less permanently installed himself a lot of things went down hill.
I believe that current president Sandy Froman needs to stand up for what SHE thinks is best, and what the MEMBERS tell her they want, not the free-loading board of directors.
There's lots of fixing needs done in the NRA.
It will take gun-owners to do it. I wish it was as easy as just sending your $$ and reading yoru magazine, but it ain't.
We've got to stay on the board's and the president's arse to made them realize that the views of the mombers trump their own agenda, and that their paychecks are member driven.
AND GET LAPIERRE THE HELL OUT!!!
I am a member.
I admit they have problems.
I admit they are corrupted.
I THOROUGHLY SUPPORT any other organization that goes to bat on self-defense and 2A issues.
I absolutely believe that Wayne LaPierre is the keystone of the current NRA corruption, and that after he more or less permanently installed himself a lot of things went down hill.
I believe that current president Sandy Froman needs to stand up for what SHE thinks is best, and what the MEMBERS tell her they want, not the free-loading board of directors.
There's lots of fixing needs done in the NRA.
It will take gun-owners to do it. I wish it was as easy as just sending your $$ and reading yoru magazine, but it ain't.
We've got to stay on the board's and the president's arse to made them realize that the views of the mombers trump their own agenda, and that their paychecks are member driven.
AND GET LAPIERRE THE HELL OUT!!!
TheCaretaker
New member
Tooltimey -
Let me make sure I understand your position completely. You feel the only 2A group worth supporting is the one which always answers "NO!" to anything and everything put out there. Is this correct?
Let me make sure I understand your position completely. You feel the only 2A group worth supporting is the one which always answers "NO!" to anything and everything put out there. Is this correct?
Garand Illusion
New member
I'm a member. If you're not, you might as well be supporting the Brady campaign. The NRA is the only organization that is actually accomplishing anything pro-gun.
As to the perceived negatives ...
NRA Supported 1934/1968/etc. gun laws
On thing to remember ... the NRA didn't become an active political lobby until the 1970's. Before then, there was no reason to be politically active because there wasn't a legitimate gun ban movement. And honestly ... I could care less what previous generations of an organization did; all I care about is what they're doing now. And what they're doing now is fantastic (kept PA laws from going south, CCW in numerous states, etc.)
NRA tried to derail the Parker Case
This has been written on ad nauseum ... but what if the NRA did, and it was because they are knowledgeable enough on SCOTUS to know that the outcome will not be in our favor. IF we lose Parker/Heller, we're going to WISH they'd succeeded in derailing it. A substantially negative or even neutral outcome may be worse than no ruling at all.
NRA doesn't want a pro-2nd amendment SCOTUS ruling
The theory is that LaPierre (sp?) and others want to support their high paying jobs and the NRA would virtually disappear if SCOTUS ruled on 2a. I can't tell you what is in the hearts of the NRA leaders ... but I can tell you that they have done good things on the local level, more than anybody else. Heller is continuing in good shape with what appear to be competent lawyers. Heller will work for us or not, but in either case we're going to need the NRA and it's local power to continue to work for us. And I think the NRA leaders are smart enough to know that even with the best possible outcome of Heller, they'll have jobs for the rest of their careers sorting out the law suits that follow.
NRA supports tests for CCW, limitations on full auto, etc.
YUP -- because they're politically smart enough to know that not being willing to compromise on those things will limit their support by mainstream lawmakers. Or the public, for that matter. The NRA is politically realistic, which is why they can get things done. Groups like GOA and unrealistic, and because of it have just a few thousand members and accomplish nothing.
NRA leaders get paid too much
The leaders of the NRA run a huge and powerful organization. As long as they're getting results, I don't care how much they get paid. LaPierre gets $1mil a year? That's 25 cents per member. Wayne is welcome to my quarter if he can continue to expand CCW and reciprocity.
So support the NRA. I can't afford to be a life member at this time, but I keep up my yearly membership and occasionally send an extra $25 or NRAILA or buy something from the store. Support some other group too if you want and can afford it, but your membership to the NRA should be the first one.
To not be a member of the NRA is to tacitly support the gun banners, as you haven't joined your voice to the strongest force in your favor.
As to the perceived negatives ...
NRA Supported 1934/1968/etc. gun laws
On thing to remember ... the NRA didn't become an active political lobby until the 1970's. Before then, there was no reason to be politically active because there wasn't a legitimate gun ban movement. And honestly ... I could care less what previous generations of an organization did; all I care about is what they're doing now. And what they're doing now is fantastic (kept PA laws from going south, CCW in numerous states, etc.)
NRA tried to derail the Parker Case
This has been written on ad nauseum ... but what if the NRA did, and it was because they are knowledgeable enough on SCOTUS to know that the outcome will not be in our favor. IF we lose Parker/Heller, we're going to WISH they'd succeeded in derailing it. A substantially negative or even neutral outcome may be worse than no ruling at all.
NRA doesn't want a pro-2nd amendment SCOTUS ruling
The theory is that LaPierre (sp?) and others want to support their high paying jobs and the NRA would virtually disappear if SCOTUS ruled on 2a. I can't tell you what is in the hearts of the NRA leaders ... but I can tell you that they have done good things on the local level, more than anybody else. Heller is continuing in good shape with what appear to be competent lawyers. Heller will work for us or not, but in either case we're going to need the NRA and it's local power to continue to work for us. And I think the NRA leaders are smart enough to know that even with the best possible outcome of Heller, they'll have jobs for the rest of their careers sorting out the law suits that follow.
NRA supports tests for CCW, limitations on full auto, etc.
YUP -- because they're politically smart enough to know that not being willing to compromise on those things will limit their support by mainstream lawmakers. Or the public, for that matter. The NRA is politically realistic, which is why they can get things done. Groups like GOA and unrealistic, and because of it have just a few thousand members and accomplish nothing.
NRA leaders get paid too much
The leaders of the NRA run a huge and powerful organization. As long as they're getting results, I don't care how much they get paid. LaPierre gets $1mil a year? That's 25 cents per member. Wayne is welcome to my quarter if he can continue to expand CCW and reciprocity.
So support the NRA. I can't afford to be a life member at this time, but I keep up my yearly membership and occasionally send an extra $25 or NRAILA or buy something from the store. Support some other group too if you want and can afford it, but your membership to the NRA should be the first one.
To not be a member of the NRA is to tacitly support the gun banners, as you haven't joined your voice to the strongest force in your favor.
Wayne Lapierre called the ATF "jack-booted thugs"'; that's worth a lot to me on an emotional level.
I'll repeat what I said earlier; the excuses are pathetic.
I really enjoy shooting at our gun club's range; without the NRA's endorsed insurance program, we wouldn't be able to afford insurance; without insurance, we wouldn't have a range; without a range, we wouldn't have a club, and there are no other public or private ranges in our county, (which is even worse than it sounds--access to other counties is only by air; I live in Hawaii).
Another repeat: If the NRA had 80 million members instead of 4 million, the gun control debate would be whether M4s are controllable on full auto.
I'll repeat what I said earlier; the excuses are pathetic.
I really enjoy shooting at our gun club's range; without the NRA's endorsed insurance program, we wouldn't be able to afford insurance; without insurance, we wouldn't have a range; without a range, we wouldn't have a club, and there are no other public or private ranges in our county, (which is even worse than it sounds--access to other counties is only by air; I live in Hawaii).
Another repeat: If the NRA had 80 million members instead of 4 million, the gun control debate would be whether M4s are controllable on full auto.
Did you read the link I posted about nra's testimony in 1934? That looks pretty "politically active" to me.
There wasn't a gun ban movement
, then what was pushing the massive and far reaching 1934 ban/registration scheme? Then what was pushing the huge and far reaching 1968 ban?TexasSeaRay
New member
tooltimey said:
I think you're drunk from drinking way too much of little Richie Feldman's Kool-Aid.
Reckon you also believe the Air Force is keeping live space aliens in Roswell and the CIA is still planting chips in unsuspecting citizens' heads . . .
Jeff
Using something the NRA did in 1934 as an excuse? My father was 1 and my mother hadn't been born yet. 1968? I was nine. Maybe we should all boycott the Republican Party because Strom Thurman was a racist.
I actually read 2 of the NRA's magazines; I get American Rifleman and my son gets America's 1st Freedom (maybe you think this is about quartering troops in private homes?). It's amazing how ignorant some people are; even more amazing is when they share their ignorance with no embarrassment.
Pink Pistols has a list of anti-gun organizations; if anyone here has gone a whole year without spending at least a year's NRA dues ($35) buying stuff from avowed anti-gunners, I'll eat my shorts.
I actually read 2 of the NRA's magazines; I get American Rifleman and my son gets America's 1st Freedom (maybe you think this is about quartering troops in private homes?). It's amazing how ignorant some people are; even more amazing is when they share their ignorance with no embarrassment.
Pink Pistols has a list of anti-gun organizations; if anyone here has gone a whole year without spending at least a year's NRA dues ($35) buying stuff from avowed anti-gunners, I'll eat my shorts.
Garand Illusion
New member
Yup, I read it. Did you read where I, and other's, mentioned that was in 1934? That was a couple of lifetimes ago. I'm not going to rate any existing organization on what they said/did during the Great Depression.
And like I said ... the NRA made it's switch to focussing on politics in the 1970's. Revolt in Cincinnatti or something like that -- there were those in the NRA at the time that thought they should remove themselves entirely from politics.
LOL! If we could take the laws back to 1934, where any weapon can be purchased (including brand new machine guns) just by paying a $200 stamp, and the vast majority of Federal anti gun measures went away, I'd consider the Federal political battle done. There were still shotguns produced after that without even serial numbers (I own one) and you could buy guns at any hardware store that decided to sell them.
I'm sure there have always been anti-gun people since the revolution and before, but they had little support back then.
No and they haven't been trying to take your guns away either - the fellow members of your society, who elect and toss out governments, do not want their families endangered by criminals, disturbed individuals or addicts having their permission to carry lethal weapons. So, they desire the same freedoms + safeguards they want required in cars, drivers, pilots & aircraft, food preparation in restaurants, the medicines they purchase, and the machinery they operate etc. That way the family can enjoy their own responsible use of each family member's guns, having the right to arms, in the same way they can enjoy cars, driving, eating at restaurants, taken trips far away on planes, etc. without fearing lethal jeapordy all the time, and having those fears realized perhaps.
So don't go attacking governments for taking anything away, go start attacking your fellows who want what most governments want : freedom + the right to bear arms + reasonable safety. Scream at your fellow citizens.