Why aren't you a member of the NRA?

I won't relinguish [SIC] my right and duty to talk to my representative to any group by proxy, no matter how well the intention that group may be. Voting is an individual right, not a right of just certain groups (though that may change again as we all become more enslaved each day by an intrusive, overbearing government gone wild with power with total disregard of the 10th Amendment).

You are correct in that the vote is an individual right, however you are flawed in how to push for change. Part of the great power of individual rights are the freedoms guaranteed, not least of which freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. While having 4 million people in DC would surely have an even greater impact than the lobbying of the NRA, attempting to assemble that many supporters every time a bill is introduced is not realistic. Therefore, setting up the NRA to speak as a "collective" voice for all of us is the best option.

If you read throughout history, major movements and changes in the United States is because of a group, not individuals sitting at home writing and making phone calls. This is not a change at all. We vote in who we hope will do the best job in office, and then we lobby by collective voice to make sure they keep the "heartbeat" in mind while they serve their terms.
 
I'm not a member because I like to complain about the NRA. Therefore, I belong to the GOA. We don't accomplish much (actually, we don't accomplish anything), but we are a "no-compromise" group that protects the sheeple. We tried to defeat the NRA's Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, but that didn't work, so now gun manufacturers can't be sued for the unlawful acts of criminals. Also, we at the GOA are against providing funds to the States to ensure that crazy people who have been adjudicated as a threat to themselves or to others are prevented by the instant check system from buying a firearm. A crazy person who might kill lots of people with a gun has an absolute, unfettered right to keep and bear arms! As far as the GOA is concerned, we can always clean up the blood and bodies later.

Remember, at the GOA, we're all about "no compromise." Because as a practical matter, that's how legislation is enacted in congress; there is never any compromising when legislation is drafted and amended. Like I said, take a look at all of the legislation that's been enacted because of the GOA, and you'll see how effective the GOA really is.

And the NRA, with thier firearms training, safety programs, conservation efforts, effective lobbying, and everything else....that stuff is not so important. Remember, the GOA is watching out for you!

Using sarcasm to attack other pro-gun groups will not gain you my support either. Yet another example of arrogance by NRA members....
 
I've been a member most of my long life - Went to Life in 1993 and to Endowment Life last March. after some complaining by me, my certificate arrived with my name not correct - funny, they got it right on my Life certificate - it's no longer correct on the address label of my Rifleman magazine either.

An email complaint too a "members services" got me a computer generated response promising a follow-up answer - that was over six months ago ???? I then wrote a personal letter to Wayne LaPierre about that - at least five months ago - and it has been totally ignored. Maybe he's too busy but there must be others we employ in his office to answer such mail.

My take is the NRA has gone the direction of medical societies - first interest is maintaining the income of the full time paid staff - even if they have to do something publicly to show they really are doing their job and placate members. I think the NRA staff has forgotten who are employees and who is the employer.

OTOH, maybe a virus from AOL has spread to the NRA - AOL calls customers "members" and treats them like unwanted relatives at Christmas. That's the treatment I'm getting from the NRA.

For those upset when some of us grouse about the NRA, maybe reading those complaints with an open mind might promote some pressure on the NRA to provide members - long or short time - the courtesy they deserve.

:mad:
 
You are correct in that the vote is an individual right, however you are flawed in how to push for change. Part of the great power of individual rights are the freedoms guaranteed, not least of which freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. While having 4 million people in DC would surely have an even greater impact than the lobbying of the NRA, attempting to assemble that many supporters every time a bill is introduced is not realistic. Therefore, setting up the NRA to speak as a "collective" voice for all of us is the best option.

If you read throughout history, major movements and changes in the United States is because of a group, not individuals sitting at home writing and making phone calls. This is not a change at all. We vote in who we hope will do the best job in office, and then we lobby by collective voice to make sure they keep the "heartbeat" in mind while they serve their terms.

You're points are valid. However, my feelings on the matter are not flawed. They may not coincide with your opinions, but that's the beauty of individual liberty and freedom. We can agree to disagree and still remain friends.

So why is it that when I view how things are "done" in D.C., I see that the individual citizen takes a back seat to groups? Why for instance, is Congress listening to the American Trucking Association about what is best for it and it's members (corporations) instead of what is best for you and me as individuals? It would seem to me that if we make sure that the individual retains all the rights granted by God and that the Congress adhered to the rule book called the Constitution, then everything would play out as intended by the Founding Fathers. Corporations and groups do not have the right to vote, nor are they given rights by our Creator. And as such since they are not real entities nor do they have rights, then they should not be petitioning our Congress critters for changes to laws that affect you and I as individuals. I find this practice flawed and contrary to the rights reaffirmed within the Constitution.

I'm not saying that life would be perfect and that there wouldn't be injustices perpetrated at the individual level, but I am saying that the central government, if the Constitution were followed, would be less intrusive on our individual rights and freedoms and that the states would be able to deal with social issues within their boundaries as envisioned with the addition of the 10th Amendment. Is it not easier for us as people to control our state reps and senators than it is our federal reps and senators? And if I disagree with the policies and practices of the city, county or state I reside, I can exercise my right to move to a new city, state or county that fits my needs better. It is difficult to move to another country if I'm not pleased with it's policies.

I'm not going to bash the NRA or it's members. But NRA members shouldn't bash those of us who choose freely not to join because of our various reasons. This country is about freedom, not laying guilt trips.
 
...attempting to assemble that many supporters every time a bill is introduced is not realistic.

Your wording almost makes it sound like you believe NRA can exert leverage on local/state issues. They cannot; People get exactly the government they choose- particularly at the local level. Sometimes they choose duds like Kennedy/Schumer/Boxer etc, and by extension they have chosen gun control. NRA has never had the political clout to dislodge these people, or relieve local firearms regulations beyond what the locals will tolerate. They are evidently quite happy with this condition, as evidenced by their efforts to keep 2A cases out of SCOTUS.

Nothing besides a SCOTUS ruling in our favor, and a determined, pro-2A constituency will protect our inalienable right.

Therefore, setting up the NRA to speak as a "collective" voice for all of us is the best option.

Except they don't speak for 'all of us' by any means, as this discussion has aptly illustrated. Frankly I had no idea that so many other gun owners had taken such a critical look at the Association- and arrived at much the same conclusion I have.
 
Veterans Disarmament Act H.R. 2640

"You talk o' better food for us, an' schools, an' fires, an' all:
We'll wait for extry rations if you treat us rational.
Don't mess about the cook-room slops, but prove it to our face
The Widow's Uniform is not the soldier-man's disgrace.
For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Chuck him out, the brute!"
But it's "Saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot;
An' it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' anything you please;
An' Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool -- you bet that Tommy sees! "



The NRA's support for H.R. 2640 really burns me up!
 
I do not believe in BUYING the vote.

If the NRA had 80 million members rather than 4 million, the "gun control debate" would be whether an M4 is controllable on full auto.

If the NRA could do that, any other org. could do it as well. This isn't the right way for a Republic to function.

I'm not a member because I feel the NRA needs the Brady's and vice versa. If people get on the phone, fax, email, all themselves instead of abdicating this responsibility to others, things would change. Look at Phoenix, we are actively getting the government to act as they should, as servants of "the people".

Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde
 
I am, and renew every 3 years. I think every gun owner should be too. They fight lobbyists on OUR behalf. The monthly magazine alone is worth the money to me.
 
arrogance by NRA members

Arrogance? I'm trying to protect the sheeple, and you're calling me arrogant?!? Seriously, look at all of the CCW legislation that GOA has helped to enact. GOA's "no compromise" demands Vermont/Alaska type CCW in every state. Of course, it doesn't matter that other states don't necessarily want and/or are able to enact a Vermont/Alaska type CCW law. There can be absolutely no restrictions, and no compromise!

Of course, the NRA has helped to enact CCW laws in many states. For example, in Nebraska, Vermont/Alaska style CCW would never have passed. However, the NRA lobbied for a CCW law that would, and did, pass the Unicameral. For the first time (after decades of trying to enact CCW) in Nebraska, law abiding citizens are now able to CCW and to protect themselves.

But like I said, just remember that the GOA is no-compromise!!!
 
GOA is no-compromise!!!

It doesn't matter if you are right. If the majority of the voters think you are wrong you are screwed. 2A or not.
Voters in many states, especially women are a few mall/school shootings away from putting the squeeze on gun ownership.

Take that radical no compromise attitude to fight with them and see what you get.
 
are you refering to this NRA ??

new_NRA_logo.jpg
 
One man's perspective...

Ban Of Device By ATF Triggers Inventor's Ire
1225rfl1.jpg

Tribune photo by ANDY JONES

Bill Akins of Hudson describes how his patented Akins Accelerator operates when a rifle is attached.

By CHRISTIAN M. WADE, The Tampa Tribune

Published: December 26, 2007

HUDSON - It was a simple idea, with big potential.

For years, marksmen have been using a technique called bump firing, shooting a semiautomatic rifle from the hip and allowing the weapon's recoil to pull the trigger.

With federal regulations keeping fully automatic weapons out of their hands, it was one of the few ways for firearm enthusiasts to enjoy the thrill of firing a machine gun.

If there was only a way to simulate that action, Bill Akins wondered, by creating a device that mechanized the recoil resistance to fire more rapid, and accurate, bursts of bullets.

Thus the Akins Accelerator was born.

Akins, 54, is an expert marksman, ex-Marine, Elvis impersonator, seventh-generation Floridian and member of the National Rifle Association.

The Hudson man spent nearly a decade designing his Accelerator. He got a patent for his invention. Then he poured his life savings into marketing and producing it for distribution.

In the era of gun control laws, the device promised to revolutionize target shooting.

"They were selling like hot cakes," Akins said. "We were truly amazed by the response."

That was until the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives banned the Accelerator - two years after approving it.

To the ATF, the mechanism is an illegal converter kit that, in the wrong hands, could turn a run-of the-mill target rifle into a 700-round-per-minute killing machine.

Threatening him with imprisonment, officials ordered Akins to cease production, turn over the recoil springs from his existing stock and hand over his customer list.

And they didn't give him a dime in return.

More than five years later, Akins is teetering on the verge of bankruptcy.

His business partner has severed ties with his company. His investors have bailed. He has a warehouse in Oregon filled with more than $750,000 worth of useless stock. His reputation has been sullied by trade publications that once praised his invention.

He can't afford to hire a lawyer to challenge the ATF's ruling.

"They've destroyed my dream," Akins said. "Eleven years of my life, gone like that."

Case Closed, ATF Says

ATF officials stand behind their decision to outlaw the Akins Accelerator.

Drew Wade, an agency spokesman in Washington, said the ATF initially approved the device after test-firing a prototype that Akins sent them in 2003.

Records indicate that the prototype malfunctioned when it was tested and analyzed by a senior technician from the ATF's Firearms Technology Branch, according to Wade. But the agency approved the Accelerator anyway, saying in a letter that it did not meet the criteria for a machine gun and, as a concept, was allowable under federal law.

"FTB has concluded that your submitted device is not designed and intended for use in converting a weapon into a machine gun," ATF officials wrote in a letter dated Aug. 23, 2005.

Wade said the agency reversed its position after someone who bought a fully functioning Accelerator requested another test firing.

This time, Wade said, the mechanism worked.

Shortly after, federal regulators issued a new ruling: The Akins Accelerator is prohibited under the National Firearms Act and the Gun Control Act of 1968.

The stop-production order came in an ATF letter dated Nov. 22, 2006. Besides mailing in all recoil springs in stock and his customer list, the agency demanded that Akins send an affidavit to each customer to account for all the devices sold. The recipients had to sign the document and return it to the ATF with the removed springs.

Wade would not comment on Akins' contention that the ATF erred in its decision-making.

"That's the bottom line is that we believe it's a machine gun," the spokesman said. "End of story."

Reversal Of Fortunes

Akins questions that rationale.

He cites sections of the 1968 gun control act that define a machine gun as any "weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger."

"That's not what the Akins Accelerator does," he said. "It isn't a gun. It isn't a machine gun. It's an accessory; that's all it is. These guys are making it up as they go along."

Officials from the NRA and the National Sports Shooting Association, chief advocates for gun ownership in the country, were not willing to comment on Akins' dilemma.

"We just don't know enough about it," said Ted Novin, the shooting association's president.

Before he patented the Accelerator, Akins did his homework.

He consulted lawyers such as James H. Jeffries III, who represented the NRA in high-profile lawsuits against the federal government, and sought a legal opinion from the ATF's Firearms Technology Branch.

They all thought his device was permissible under federal law.

"I wouldn't have invested millions of dollars on this if I knew it wasn't legal," Akins said.

Bringing his product to the marketplace, he established Akins Group Inc., took out bank loans and a second mortgage on his home to fund production, and began advertising in Shotgun News and other firearms publications.

The Accelerators, made of injection molded plastic, sold for about $1,000 apiece. They came in a small box with tools and instructions on how to attach the device to a semiautomatic rifle.

Buzz Spread Online

Similar to a Hellfire - which attaches to the trigger guard and already is on the market - the Accelerator was based on the practice of bump firing.

Once the trigger is pulled, the Accelerator's spring mechanism takes over and the trigger reciprocates at high speed, using recoil resistance to imitate automatic fire.

Most of the Accelerators were made for a Ruger 10/22, but Akins intended to make them for other rifles.

Overnight, the buzz about the Accelerator spread across the Internet.

"This thing is cool," one buyer gushed in a sporting chat room. "I can't believe it's legal."

But in 2006, several months after full production began, the ATF reversed its original ruling, outlawing the device and leaving Akins with a worthless product.

Akins wrote to the ATF, asking for clarification.

What followed was a flurry of vague and often contradictory correspondence that never fully explained why the federal regulators changed their position, Akins said.

"I wanted to explode," he recalled. "I started calling everyone I know, looking for help."

The NRA understood his dilemma, a spokesman told him, but didn't have a dog in the fight.

Akins turned to several pro-gun Republicans in Congress. Staff members promised someone would look into it.

"They said they couldn't do anything," Akins said. "Their hands are tied."

At the very least, he hoped to recover some of the money - his own and investors' - which he estimates at several million dollars.

"I don't understand how the federal government could come into my life like this, destroy my business and not offer compensation," Akins said.

"We did everything by the books."

Feeling Shaken And Stirred

The man behind the Akins Accelerator has toured the country impersonating Elvis onstage. He and his wife, Jeannie, live in a modest home on 2 acres along a winding road, in a rural corner of west Pasco County where you still can see the stars at night.

"I haven't made a lot of money over the years," Akins said. "But I've done all right for myself."

He considers himself a patriot and a rugged individualist in the Jeffersonian tradition.

He is an unflinching defender of the Second Amendment and a 30-year member of the NRA who learned to appreciate guns as a kid hunting rabbits in rural Florida.

He joined the Marine Corps at the height of the Vietnam War.

He has voted Republican his entire life, twice for George W. Bush.

And he loves his country.

"I was brought up to believe in America, in the principles of right and wrong," Akins said. "My boyhood heroes were John Wayne and Roy Rogers. I was a child of the 1950s."

That's why his ongoing feud with the federal government and the lack of backup for his cause have shaken him to the core.

He cites the Ruby Ridge shootings and the Branch Davidian siege by ATF agents in Waco, Texas, as examples of how the government crushes dissent.

He wonders if they will come for him, too.

"They're a bunch of jack-booted thugs," he fumed. "I wouldn't put it past them."

He also said he feels betrayed by the pro-gun lobby.

A few weeks ago, the NRA sent him a membership renewal. Akins stared at the one-page letter for a while. He sighed.

"I couldn't bring myself to renew it," he said. "What's the point, right?"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Comment: This story is an indictment of not only the ATF, but elected representatives, AND the NRA. There are dozens of individuals being destroyed by ATF rulings, for which advocacy by NRA would be invaluable, and legal support would not be financially noticeable on the NRA budget.

NRA seems to believe it is better to fight only those battles it knows it can win, as though fighting and losing is worse than not fighting at all. Not unlike betting on a horse race (no longshots).

When NRA comes calling for donations, it is any wonder that some citizens respond as Mr. Akins has: "Sorry, I don't have a dog in this fight."?:(
 
Mach 11 Sailor

That's exactly the mentality I am referring to that is tempermentally and intellectually ill-prepared to deal with the challenges facing the gun owner community.
 
The above story is yet another example. I refuse to give money to an organization with a history of compromise and failure.
I have found it quite entertianing the excuses used to rationalize NRA membership. It should be noted that I was one phone call from becoming a member of the NRA. Then I read one of these NRA threads(on another message board) That was about 2 years ago and in hind sight I'm kinda glad I read that thread. I almost wasted $35.

Shotgun,
 
You don't have to be a lifer, you can reup yearly .I am a lifer and not geting billed every year is nice. You can pay for it on the instalment plan. Only hurts for a little while. As for as the NRA being to involved in politicts, they have to be. The politictions make the laws.
 
The Akins device was talked about a great deal on NRA news as an injustice.

But the NRA doesn't exist to fight for one man's invention, especially since it can be presented by the antis as a means to do full auto and "could turn a run-of the-mill target rifle into a 700-round-per-minute killing machine."

I don't want them spending my money to defend one man's niche invention; I'd rather they fight the ban so I can but a real automatic for a reasonable price. Wouldn't you?

The NRA has argued for the removal of the ban on machines guns newer than 198?.

BTW -- none of my NRA support is meant to be blind -- certainly we have to keep an eye on them and make sure they are still working for our goals.

But they have accomplished a lot. And as baby steps ... a compromise is better than a total failure!
 
And as baby steps ... a compromise is better than a total failure!


When you have an organization that uses one compromise after another all it serves to do is prolong that which it claims to defend. If the NRA continues on it's current trend then some time in the future the NRA will "compromise" by allowing .22s to banned in order to allow air rifles to remian legal. Of course they will they argue that comprimise is better then going for broke and losing. Of course if we had a real pro-gun organization we would never have to worry about ever having to make that decision.


Oh and since I know someone is going to ask. A real victory for the pro-gun side would be if everyone who owned a gun took at least one person to the range. If the same people would work to convince fellow gun owners (and non gun owners) to vote for pro-gun canidates (unlike some of the canidates endorsed by the NRA, One of which vowed several times to renew the 94AWB) If all of the above happened, instead of buying a $35 right-to-be-lazy permit. then we would see real victories in D.C.
 
Compromise is a two way street. If the pro-gun side doesn't compromise then by definition the anti-gun side can't compromise.

Consider the implications of that if the anti-gunners are the majority, which they probably already are.
 
When you have an organization that uses one compromise after another all it serves to do is prolong that which it claims to defend. If the NRA continues on it's current trend then some time in the future the NRA will "compromise" by allowing .22s to banned in order to allow air rifles to remian legal. Of course they will they argue that comprimise is better then going for broke and losing. Of course if we had a real pro-gun organization we would never have to worry about ever having to make that decision

LOL -- you are assuming bad compromises. Let's see the way this has been working for us:

Kansas: no CCW at all
Kansas compromise 1: CCW, but local limits still allowed.
Kansas compromise 2: One of the better CCW laws in the nation.

Most states with good CCW, including Alaska, have compromised their way to that position. First we compromise on a basic law (like kansas, Ohio, etc.) and then expand upon it and make it better. If we'd just demanded non-licensed CCW -- it woudn't have happened all.

When the politicians are against us, we use compromise to mitigate the consequences. When the politicians are for us, we use compromise to move forward.

If we all just draw a line in the sand GOA style ... first, a lot of us would drop out and form a new pro-gun organization that will actually get something accomplished, and the NRA will become like the GOA -- a good watchdog for informing us what is happening, but politically ineffectual.

Groups that refuse to back a politician who doesn't do everthing they say will find themselves with no politicians who desire their backing.

... A real victory for the pro-gun side would be if everyone who owned a gun took at least one person to the range. If the same people would work to convince fellow gun owners (and non gun owners) to vote for pro-gun canidates (unlike some of the canidates endorsed by the NRA, One of which vowed several times to renew the 94AWB) If all of the above happened, instead of buying a $35 right-to-be-lazy permit. then we would see real victories in D.C.

I actualy totally agree with you on all of the above. Except I think all gun owners ALSO need to join the NRA, the local shooting association ... and even the GOA if they have enough money left over. I haven't joined the GOA, but if I were in a better financial position I would.
 
If NRA charges a dollar a month per gunowner then with 80 million gunowners NRA will have 960 million dollars a year. Instead of 140 million dollars a year for 4 million gunowners who paid $35 dollars a year. What do you think ?
 
Back
Top