Why are you NOT a member of the NRA?

[melensdad]

Just curious, but for those of you who are NOT currently members of the NRA, I wonder why. I have been a LIFE and BENEFACTOR member for about 20 years, I've understand why some gun owners are not NRA members, but I've never understood why some HUNTERS and ACTIVE SHOOTERS and other "gun" people are not members.

I've designed a poll, but obviously I could not make all the possible choices, please explain your answer in the thread.

 

[SEIGUY]

NICE POLL!!!!

 

[Prometheus]

the REAL nra

Because I only support pro-Second Amendment organizations. I don't support sportsmans groups that don't support my weapons and Rights.

 

[melensdad]

the REAL nra

Because I only support pro-Second Amendment organizations. I don't support sportsmans groups that don't support my weapons and Rights.

Please explain further, and please provide a list of groups that do a better job of lobbying Congress to protect your rights.

 

[Prometheus]

Please explain further, and please provide a list of groups that do a better job of lobbying Congress to protect your rights.

Read the link.

One of the things missing from it (which I think is huge) is the Katrina fiasco. GOA and JPFO filed emergency stop/stay procedures within 24 hours of the gun confiscation. The nra took almost 2 weeks to do anything... when they finally did they JOINED the GOA and JPFO suit. After which they made a cute propaganda video demanding money from everyone and acting like only they had any involvement in that debacle. Completely shunning all the work the GOA and JPFO had done.

BTW when speaking of Rights you need to capitalize the r. I'm not a grammar nazi but most people fail to realize that Rights (when used in that context) are a proper noun. Aside from that it also helps joe six pack from distinguishing between Rights and privileges.

IMO I do a better job in lobbying congress to protect my Rights with the occasional phone call or letter. My phone calls and letter have never PUSHED FOR MORE gun control.

As an example the veterans disarmament act that was recently passed with pressure from the nra for it to pass. Full info here:
Problems With The New Federal Gun Control (HR 2640 & S 2084)

The most effective, IMO are the GOA and JPFO. There actions have never brought upon us MORE gun control.

 

[melensdad]

I did read the link. I am not refuting nor confirming any of it. I simply asked the questions.

However, I would suggest that the GOA and the JPFO, both of which I have been members of, are totally impotent and ineffective in the cause of gun rights. Neither has any affect on our legislature, and neither has a membership base that is as large as a pimple on the ass of the NRA. For what it is worth, I've also been a member of the 2nd Amendment Foundation and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bare Arms, as well as the Hoosier Volunteers Militia and the Indiana Historical Weapons Society. None of those is on the radar screen of any of or legislators either.

If the organization is an "all or none" type of principled organization, and if it cannot actually mobilize a sizable political base, then it is very likely it will lose "all" and gain "none" for its members. From an emotional & principled standpoint, I'm willing to support all of them. From a practical standpoint I challenge any of them to show any result their efforts have achieved.

So I ask again, which groups are actually effective in supporting our rights other than the NRA?

 

[Prometheus]

I did read the link. I am not refuting nor confirming any of it. I simply asked the questions.

However, I would suggest that the GOA and the JPFO, both of which I have been members of, are totally impotent and ineffective in the cause of gun rights. Neither has any affect on our legislature, and neither has a membership base that is as large as a pimple on the ass of the NRA.

GOA 750k, nra has roughly 4 million. The nra has hemmoraged a large part of it's membership and in desperation recently gave out tens of thousands (some estimates put it at over 100k just this year) of free memberships to LEO's and Military in an effort to maintain it's 4 million mark. Gun owners are waking up. Remove the free memberships and the GOA as 1/3 the membership of the nra. I'd hardly call that a 'pimple'.

I also think the free membership to Military was to try and 'make up' for their veterans disarmament act, that pissed ALOT of Iraq Vets off.

So I ask again, which groups are actually effective in supporting our rights other than the NRA?

Loaded question. The question presumes that the nra is actually effective in supporting Rights. They aren't. The answer is an easy one, any of them.

A better question would be: Which gun group (pro or anti) has passed more anti-gun legislation than the nra?

 

[melensdad]

Well my question still stands. I understand that you don't like the NRA because the link you provided shows 4 or 5 examples of compromises over the past 70 years. But at least one of those examples is highly debatable as to if it was actually a compromise and the bit about Chris Cox at the end is not something that is provided in reasonable context. Alan Gura, who is held up in that link as critical of the NRA is himself the target of many pro-gunners for 'giving up' on the NFA weapons.

I'm not here to defend the NRA, honestly they have done so much good for the pro-gun cause that I don't need to defend them. But the GOA simply is impotent by comparison and its membership is not mobilized. Just a few years ago the NRA had just over 2 million members, then it grew to 3 million and now is sitting at roughly 4 million. No question that some of those are 'free' memberships to members of our military but why does that discount them? The military members still have to sign up and the reality is many will very likely continue to fight for our rights after they return home from active duty.

BTW, it is pretty disingenuous to frame the last question the way you did. If the GOA had any power it would have been involved in the negotiations on some of the bills in question. The fact that they were not shows their ineffectiveness. The fact that the NRA sat at the table does not mean they helped pass 'anti-gun' legislation. It can easily be interpreted that they dramatically reduced the damage to gun owners by injecting our voices, and a voice of reasoned opposition, to the debate.

 

[HiRoller]

Uummmmm......They didn't send me my free hat with my paid member ship. Charlie Heston was alittle drunk at the time too...

 

[karlsgunbunker]

the REAL nra

Because I only support pro-Second Amendment organizations. I don't support sportsmans groups that don't support my weapons and Rights.

+1

GOA all the way!

 

[in812]

the REAL nra

Because I only support pro-Second Amendment organizations. I don't support sportsmans groups that don't support my weapons and Rights.

+1

 

[BloodEclipse]

But the GOA simply is impotent by comparison and its membership is not mobilized.

First I am a member of the NRA.
Second I'm ashamed I haven't heard of some of these other groups.

Third if there is a group out there who more closely matches my views and refuses to compromise should I not join them and help them become potent. If they stand for what gun owners stand for then why are the forums not ablaze with positive info on them to grow the membership so they can have a more focused voice?
Today the GOA will have a new member and I will encourage others to join as well.
Every group has to start somewhere and if you really believe in their message then why write them off and go with someone that fights to protect our Rights some of the time?

 

[TRWXXA]

I'm not a member, but probably should be now. Years back, the NRA was pretty militant about gun rights, even opposing common sense measures to ensure guns wind up in responsible hands. I know... the "slippery slope".

Even though I'm very pro-gun, I don't think EVERYONE should have them, and NOBODY needs to obtain one RIGHT THIS SECOND. Criminals (even "former" ones) should not have the right to keep and bear arms. Nor should they have the right to vote. All those rights should be rescinded at the time their right to liberty is taken away too. People with known mental disorders should not have guns either.

I applaud the idea of wait times to purchase guns, especially if that time is used for background checks. Keeping arms is the right of any responsible citizen. I don't object to having to prove that I am a responsible citizen before someone sells me a gun. Unfortunately the NRA did try to put up roadblocks to these measures. And, yes, I do know that laws do not deter criminals, but that doesn't mean we should make things easier for them.

It does seem like the organization has moderated it's official stance on these measures, so the NRA does appeal to me more now than it did.

 

[bigcraig]

snipped, because it gave me a headache.

What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

I will wait for my "betters" to show up and pick you apart on your theories, but in short, you sound alot like a liberal.

As far as the NRA, they get about $50 a year from me, and that is all they will ever get. The GOA is where I send my money.

 

[TomN]

If everybody is so disappointed by what the NRA has done, why not get in there and change it? Vote the people into the board of directors that don't want to compromise on gun ownership. Get the people in those positions that's going to make a difference and see what happens.

And still continue to support GOA and JPFO.

 

[melensdad]

If everybody is so disappointed by what the NRA has done, why not get in there and change it? Vote the people into the board of directors that don't want to compromise on gun ownership. Get the people in those positions that's going to make a difference and see what happens.

And still continue to support GOA and JPFO.

Oh Tom quit trying to make a common sense point. The so-called evidence presented "against" the NRA is pretty weak, pretty subjective, and is very similar in nature to the tactics used by the Brady Campaign against the NRA and pro-gun groups in general. Quotations are presented out of context and used as 'proof' as well as the recent action by the NRA in helping to craft the so-called "Veterans Disarmament Act" which is, in reality, no such thing. Further, its alleged that the free memberships to the military were provided to counter the losses the NRA has experienced due to the so-called "Veterans Disarmament Act" when the FACTS show that the NRA has been giving away free memberships to active military since LONG BEFORE this "act" was ever discussed. Truth be told, the NRA did more to preserve the rights of Veterans to ensure they will not lose their rights under this act, but some folks consider it a betrayal. I don't see it that way, but hey, we each are entitled to our own opinions.

 

[Prometheus]

Oh Tom quit trying to make a common sense point. The so-called evidence presented "against" the NRA is pretty weak, pretty subjective, and is very similar in nature to the tactics used by the Brady Campaign against the NRA and pro-gun groups in general. Quotations are presented out of context and used as 'proof'

Perhaps I should have warned you, but I will call you out each and every time you post falsehoods or outright lies. Please, when saying something like this post proof. How is this "out of context"?

full transcript: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0710/05/gb.01.html

How about this video of chris cox:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTt3D6KvKzU"]YouTube - Guns under fire[/ame]
Pay attention to the end where chris cox says he isn't for carry or concealed carry in the district.

Board of director member Jackson talking about no one should have more than a 5 round magazine [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSGySNLyACE"]YouTube - NRA board member Joaquin Jackson, the enemy with in[/ame]
Every year the NRA and it's higher archy say the same things, but gun owners just don't listen. They live in this dream world that the nra is a good for them. Ignorance may be bliss, but it's bringing me more gun control and I'm making it my mission to educate the ill informed and hapless gun owner.

as well as the recent action by the NRA in helping to craft the so-called "Veterans Disarmament Act" which is, in reality, no such thing.

Over 40,000 returning Iraqi vets fall under the Veterans disarmament act. I don't see how you can sit there and say it isn't. BTW In the link on this I've already provided you'll find the hard numbers.

Opinions can vary, facts do not. Please don't substitute your opinions for the facts.

 

[melensdad]

I don't dispute those thing but consider that the director of the the NRA was soundly beaten up by the members for his stupid statements. He is only one director among a board and his views were trounced, his statement were widely publicized but that does not mean that his views are anything beyond his personal views!!!

You condemn the whole organization for the views of an unpopular director who took a public beating from the membership. That seems somewhat silly.

As for Cox, and the statement about machine guns, that statement is within the context of the Parker/Heller vs DC supreme court case. Virtually every credible federal case watcher agreed that if Gura had defended opening up NFA regulated machine guns/automatic rifles, then the SCOTUS would simply uphold the DC gun ban.

As for the 40,000 Iraqi vets, I'm sorry but you are simply misreading the wording/intent and are wrong.

By the way, I'm not a liar, as you wrote. In all fairness that is simply a low blow and makes you look childish to suggest it. Stop name calling and deal with the real issues. You are clinging to absolutes and they simply don't work in the real world. Read up on the DC gun case, even Gura, in his comments after the case would not defend full auto WITHIN THE CONTEXT of that lawsuit. That is the same context that Cox was speaking about. You have taken Cox's statement as an absolute position, not from within this context.

 

[hunter480]

I called Chris Cox out, on the website for the now defunct, NRA branch known as FreeHunters. Cox had written a piece in the FreeHunters magazine stating that the Second Amendment was at least partially about hunting. I was absolutely shocked.

I blasted him-made the point about how the anti`s would start the mantra again, about how we don`t need no "assault rifles" to deer hunt. All the basic stuff. I made enough noise that some lacky responded to my thread, defending Cox of course. I was pretty upset with the whole thing.

And I`m certainly open to hearing about whatever lapses or errors NRA has had or made. I`m an Endowment-Life member, but I`m not against walking away from them if they fail us.

 

[TRWXXA]

What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

I understand enough to know a background check and waiting period does not "infringe" on your right to own a gun. Get a dictionary.

Perhaps you like the idea of the meth dealer next door to you, wandering down to Don's Gun's and buying an arsenal...

Okay... bad example.

I will wait for my "betters" to show up and pick you apart on your theories, but in short, you sound alot like a liberal.[/qoute]I'm sure you won't have to wait long. No matter where you go, your "betters" are all around you.

And for the record: I'm so far to the right, that if Ann Coulter and I were in a car, she'd have to drive.
(If you don't get it, you can have one of your "betters" explain it to you.)