PDA

View Full Version : Nra



BigDog
03-16-2009, 09:42 PM
If anyone here is not a member of the NRA, I suggest you look around. It isn't about AK47s. It is about micro stamping, making all guns with magazines illegal, gun registration, gun range rules...the list is long. Want more evidence....try to find primers, powder or just about anything related to handguns right now.

Yes the NRA send a lot of crap, but they do more to secure your right than you will ever know. The small fee helps to support their legislative action and high member numbers mean politicians pay attention when their leaders speak.

Bigdog.

jackie schmidt
03-16-2009, 10:00 PM
Years ago, I held distain for the NRA, I believed they were just a bunch of antagonist.

But I have since learned that they are THE organization with the political clout and recources to fight the good fight. They seem to understand that you simply do not compromise with those whose aim is to do away with the 2d Amendment.

Sure, there are warts. And they can be overbearing. But, compared to what the Liberals in the Government want to do to our liberties, they are certainly worth supporting. .........jackie

andre3k
03-16-2009, 11:18 PM
Dont forget about the state rifle associations. You're are more likely to be affected by a state legislative action than a federal one. Look at CA, NJ, NY.

Tom Wayte
03-17-2009, 06:12 AM
Bird Dog is correct. The NRA is looking out for the gun owner and the second amendment. Everyone who owns a gun should belong to the NRA the cost is peanuts - if you value you guns. You can say the government is not going to get my gun, however, look at the history in Europe & Asia ie. Germany, Russia, China. First the communist take your guns, then your religion, and then they can control you like sheep. It is time to wake up and see what is taking place with the existing politicians / government in the USA - both federal and state. Who is looking out for the gun owner? It is time each one of us got off our duffs and stood up for the constitution of the United States before it is too late, time is short.

BigDog
03-17-2009, 07:42 AM
Jackie,

Thanks for chiming in. I agree that the NRA is not perfect and I don't agree with everything single thing they support. However, that is true of every organization with which I associate. Clout is the right word. Membership means clout which means a bigger force fighting to keep your "current" rights in tact.

I also like the idea of supporting your local/state organizations. For those who hunt, groups like Mule Deer Foundation, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Ducks Unlimited, etc. do a great job of improving the health and habitat of the wildlife which is also necessary to continue enjoying the great outdoors.

Bigdog

Larry Elliott
03-17-2009, 10:32 AM
AMEN! If the only reason to be a member of the NRA was to get one of the magazines it wouldn't be worth it. But no other group does more to support ALL gun owners than the NRA. The guy who says that he has no use for the NRA because nobody wants to take his .30-30 deer rifle or duck gun hasn't been paying ANY attention to the gun banners at all.

Look at England to see what they'd like to do here and elsewhere.

Boss Hoss 540
03-17-2009, 02:39 PM
I am a Life Member--those IDIOTS call me all of the time:mad:!! Once every weekday(caller ID) for 2 weeks!! Finally answered one and put on my best Chinese accent and told them that they had a bad number. No calls in a couple of weeks!:)

Big Al
03-17-2009, 02:58 PM
The NRA under the guidance of Wayne La piss-air, has become a big pay day for himself and the rest of his family.

You want to do some real good with your dollars and voice, join the National Shooting Sports foundation!


All the NRA does is follow behind the NSSF, after they dig out the dirt. This is the absolute truth.

Randy Gerhardt
03-17-2009, 03:17 PM
Ton's of junk mail letting you know your membership is going to expire in six months. Phone calls wanting money for everything under the sun. Predicting the end of the world if you if you don't send them some cash. But every couple of years they do some good work.

wish they would keep the junk mail

brian roberts
03-17-2009, 03:26 PM
I think that some of the other organizations need to put more heat on the nra. I know that every time I get a newsletter from GOA, there are at least two to FIVE things they are commenting on, that hasn't seen the light of day in the nra rag. You can't tell me that isn't by design. I joined GOA simply because the nra was taking a position on pending legislation I didn't agree with, and when it passed, Carolyn McCarthy & Sarah both commended the nra publicly for getting on board! THAT was enough for me!! They began their compromising with the GCA-'68, and I'm just THROUGH with compromise. COM-pro-mise, combining a plus with a minus, to arrive at nothing.;) One thing about the GOA, as far as I'm concerned, they lead by EXAMPLE. Keep up the heat, GOA!!

dirtball
03-17-2009, 05:27 PM
I agree that none of these organizations are perfect, but we need to support as many as we can. Like it or not the NRA has way more clout than the others. I have been a life member since 1977; I do send them money since they certainly have spent the $150.00 I paid for life membership back then. I also belong to several other organizations as well. Remember this is what our liberal politicians are working towards:

” This year will go down in history;
for the first time a civilized nation
has full gun registration!
Our streets will be safer,
our police more efficient, and
the world will follow our lead
Into the future”

Adolph Hitler 1935

Pokerplayer
03-17-2009, 05:30 PM
There is some talk of legislation requiring a million dollar firearm liability policy to own a firearm. If this happens, I hope the NRA will have a policy to cover this. I am also sure that every gun owner will be forced to join. The fed might get more than they wanted. Careful what you wish for

speedpro
03-17-2009, 05:31 PM
I'm a lifer and support them when I can afford it and even when I can't. I asked my brother why he does'nt join or support the NRA and he said he had 20,000 reasons why he does'nt ,he claims that's the # of gunlaws that have been put on the books the last 60 yrs., I rest my case. :(

Tom Wayte
03-17-2009, 05:51 PM
Reply to Dirtball - Very well said. I like the quote from Aldoph Hitler. It would not suprise me if Mr. Obama uses Mr. Hitler's famous quote and dates it 2009.
For those of you who are not pro NRA try living in New York State (which is pretty much a communist state) and you would welcome all of the political clout that the NRA has to offer. Some of you folks need to take off the blinders and see what kind of government is running this country.

cassidy
03-17-2009, 05:55 PM
The att gen and Oboma have cut off the funding for the equiping/trainning of airline pilots to be Federal Marshalls when they carry the pistols on a plane.

There is nothing these two wont do.
Paul Ryan

rrendina
03-17-2009, 07:48 PM
When you renew your membership you can ask them not to contact you. Other than the Magazine, I have not had any correspondence from the NRA in at least 8 years. YMMV

Larry Elliott
03-17-2009, 08:05 PM
When I lived in Seattle I watched Wayne LaPierre "debate" Sarah Brady on tv, when she'd let him get a word in edgewise. My wife who could care less about guns, turned to me after it was over and said, "your side won". He sat there and let Sarah run her mouth and look like the ill-mannered shrew she is, and gave her all the rope she needed to make herself look terminally stupid. Then he shot her down in flames.

I've seen NRA presidents come and go, and at least LaPierre is concerned about the 2d Amendment unlike some who figured that sucking up to Chuckie Schemer and the rest of the gun banners to show them that we could be agreeable was the way to go.

The NRA isn't perfect, but if anyone can show me any organization that is I'd sure like to hear about 'em.

RStiefel
03-17-2009, 09:49 PM
an NRA member, LaPierre is more concerned about his $900,000 per year paycheck than the 2nd Amendment. Take half of that green away from him and watch him disappear. The NSSF has a proven record of leading our cause.

speedpro
03-18-2009, 12:04 AM
The NSSF may be fighting for our 2nd amendment right maybe more so in a "sport shooting" context, all well and good but the NRA is fighting for non sport shooters as well.
Australia had a "sport shooter" organization representing their gunowners and look what happen to the gunowners of that country. The only legal gunowners in Australia are the sport shooters and if your shooting disiplines don't fit the gov't criteria of sport shooting, your screwed. If you do fit in , well your home and firearm storage and caliber restrictions will be randomly checked by police when ever they decide to pay you a visit.
I would not be a bit suprised if 50% of "benchrest" competitiors even support NSSF or NRA. JMO

Big Al
03-18-2009, 03:48 PM
Hear is the deal, since HARLON CARTER the NRA has taken a bad direction of appeasement with the government. The problem is you just will not admit to being sucked in by the NRA. It has been going on for decades. Look at all the gun laws that have gone on the books since 1920. Then tell me about the NRA's record. The instance background check, was the NRA's way of appeasing the left.:mad:

Tom Wayte
03-18-2009, 04:34 PM
Question for Big Al:
What organization do you recommend to support the second amendant and gun owners rights?
On a brighter note how is the fly fishing in Alaska and can you recommend a fishing camp. I want to go to Alaska while I can still fish the streams?
I would like to live in Alaska to get away from NY and the LIBS.
Thanks,
Tom:)

LHSmith
03-18-2009, 09:24 PM
an NRA member, LaPierre is more concerned about his $900,000 per year paycheck than the 2nd Amendment. Take half of that green away from him and watch him disappear. The NSSF has a proven record of leading our cause.


This is a CHEAP shot. You contend that LaPierre is disingenuous for no other reason than class envy.
Since it's currently executive bashing season....let's put this in perspective.
LaPierre runs an organization worth $230 million in assets and an annual income of ~ $215 million in annual income from ~ 4 million members. My annual dues are $35/ year.
John Sweeney the head or the AFL-CIO has ~ 10 million members and his annual salary is........???? Why I don't know.....they don't tell you...I bet it's orders of magnitude greater than Waynes salary. Union dues are considerably more than $35/ year. Are you getting a big bang for your buck from Johnny?

Anyway, you should love guys with the big salaries, they're the ones who are paying the free ride we seem hell-bent on giving to more and more people.

As was stated previously, LaPierre does an outstanding presentation, and in a free-market society his talents are justifiably rewarded. In his speech I see genuine passion for THE cause.

RStiefel
03-18-2009, 09:35 PM
This is a CHEAP shot. You contend that LaPierre is disingenuous for no other reason than class envy.
Since it's currently executive bashing season....let's put this in perspective.
LaPierre runs an organization worth $230 million in assets and an annual income of ~ $215 million in annual income from ~ 4 million members. My annual dues are $35/ year.
John Sweeney the head or the AFL-CIO has ~ 10 million members and his annual salary is........???? Why I don't know.....they don't tell you...I bet it's orders of magnitude greater than Waynes salary. Union dues are considerably more than $35/ year. Are you getting a big bang for your buck from Johnny?

Anyway, you should love guys with the big salaries, they're the ones who are paying the free ride we seem hell-bent on giving to more and more people.

As was stated previously, LaPierre does an outstanding presentation, and in a free-market society his talents are justifiably rewarded. In his speech I see genuine passion for THE cause.

LH. The current NRA membership is 1.7 million. Not 4 million. The latest documentation from the USPS shows roughly 1.7 million publications from the NRA processed in 2008. Membership numbers are always inflated. With 4 million members at $35.00 per year each, they wouldn't have to ask every member for more and more money. You do the math. The answer to your question about Sweeney is $275,000 per year + his pension and health & welfare.

LHSmith
03-18-2009, 10:02 PM
First of all how can you correlate the number of publications with membership?
Some members opt for multiple magazines, some (like me) don't want any.
Furthermore you can't just divide the annual income into $35/ member........there's various membership levels, and some life members have paid up years ago, plus other sources of income.
Soliciting more money is the very reason the basic dues remain relatively low. If you don't want to be bothered...have them take you off their call list.
If that's all Sweeney makes....he needs a better bargaining agent:D:


Oh Yeah, you are correct.........I overstated the number of union members....I got the membership number off their website....and as YOU said "they are ALWAYS INFLATED".

Rflshootr
03-19-2009, 02:45 AM
I wonder if we could get Ted Nugent to run for pres of the NRA or maybe even the U.S.? :D

LHSmith
03-19-2009, 07:38 AM
I wonder if we could get Ted Nugent to run for pres of the NRA or maybe even the U.S.? :D



There you go.
A bona fide conservative. ....who speaks without regards to PC.
Let's work on this.........Nugent/ Palin in 2012!


A "Nuge" State-of the - Union would be something to behold.

RStiefel
03-19-2009, 08:30 AM
NRA members decline their magazine of choice. No one in his/her right mind is going to believe 2.3 million NRA members choose to decline their choice of magazine. Why don't you give up on the union thing. You have made clear to everyone, your hate for anyone affiliated with unions. I doubt seriously, that anyone cares. The only threads you respond to are ones of a political nature.

chino69
03-19-2009, 09:08 AM
Like it or not, the NRA is one of those grass roots organizations that has the political clout and membership to counter those who seek to disarm us. Wayne LaPierre is a very articulate speaker for the rights of gun owners and listening to some of the criticism, on this site, is unfounded. When we start division in our own ranks, it just makes it easier to allow the anti gunners to attack our weakness. This is not the time to fight among ourselves but to stand united because the forces allied against us are determined, with the help of our liberal leadership, to try and defeat us.

Lou Baccino

tiny68
03-19-2009, 09:53 AM
I joined the NRA last year for the first time in over 20 years. I had a major disagreement in the support of certain ammunition after a friend that was a police officer was shot to death with armor piecing handgun bullets that went through his vest. Sorry, I just don't see the need for the general public to have these but that is a different debate. I did continue to support the NRA at the local level and have brought my share of the annual tickets for the various local fundraisers. Even made it to a banquet or two.

After the politic change change last fall, I decide it was time to step up and join again or I did. Since that day, I have pretty much been regretting doing it. Their junk mail tops that of credit card companies a few years ago. I have been "signed up" and billed for two types of insurance that I didn't ask for and I am still trying to cancel a policy I didn't start. The bills stating payment past due keep showing up. It reminds me of the magazine subscriptions that bill you without requesting anything.

I am a member of two professional societies associated with my career. One is small and is a joy to be a member of. The other is larger and shares the same tactics as the NRA. Massive mailing campaigns and continuous phone calls when a crisis (such as a potential bill) occurs stating money is "required" to defeat this bill. This professional society is 225,000 members, much smaller than the NRA. I served as a officer and represented our state in national meetings for several years and participated at the higher levels in the organization. I quickly learned that the grassroots original organization was only a small part of a non-profit corporation. The organization was thriving on money generated from subscriptions, insurance, and others things. 10s of millions in income yearly. It has become a self-feeding monster. The more the side-promotions bring in, the more staff they hire to do more of them. I personally knew a person that served as the national president. They had absolutely no role in the true decisions that ran the organization. The chairman and the board of directors made all of the true choices. Decisions were being made solely based on what could bring in the most amount of money to the non-profit. I suspect the NRA has turned into such as organization. How much endowment money does the NRA have? Why isn't more of this being used to change public opinion in a way it counts: such as building public gun ranges, offering firearms safety classes, teaching self-defense classes to the public, getting more youth and young adults involved.

I will have to think hard about rejoining this fall. I personally think lobbyist and special interest groups are part of the part problem in this politic mess with our county. I will continue to contact my elected officials and state my view on 2nd amendment legislation. I will continue to vote every time the polls are open. There is a fine line between being a fanatic and sportsman.

Off the soap-box and open to the hall of comments you wish to throw, tiny

Fred J
03-19-2009, 10:59 AM
It's different, if you need information, they disappear. They are no help at all. I only renew my membership on it's aniversary date.

brian roberts
03-19-2009, 03:56 PM
to a club I belonged to for a "range improvement assesment". The guy got out of his car, walked around, said, "You should do this, you should do that". I'm figuring this guy's going to send us a report, after all, we were PAYING the nra. Nothing did we ever hear from them. So, about a year later, another committee member had them come down (I was out of state) same thing!! So, I called them to come back. Another guy comes out, so I meet him, same crap, walks around, talking, so I asked him why he wasn't taking photos for a report to us, so we could document what they felt we had to work on, then we could allocate funds to get going on the improvements. "Oh, well, we just look around & make suggestions.....No written report..." I told him, "Well, partner, don' LOOK no farther, just get in yer car & LOOK at that road, an' don't BOTHER sending that bill, either!!" I told the club NOT to pay that bill when it came in, because we weren't getting ANYTHING for that money!
And the last time they wanted to hit me up for a membership renewal, my membership had like 5 YEARS to go!!! Nothing like jumpin' the gun!!:rolleyes:

LHSmith
03-19-2009, 05:47 PM
Like it or not, the NRA is one of those grass roots organizations that has the political clout and membership to counter those who seek to disarm us. Wayne LaPierre is a very articulate speaker for the rights of gun owners and listening to some of the criticism, on this site, is unfounded. When we start division in our own ranks, it just makes it easier to allow the anti gunners to attack our weakness. This is not the time to fight among ourselves but to stand united because the forces allied against us are determined, with the help of our liberal leadership, to try and defeat us.

Lou Baccino



Lou...it's sad to see that some of us must whine about being inconvenienced by the NRA. Perhaps they don't see the formidable force that is about to turn their world upside down. I don't have the problems they contend.
I choose to pay annually, as I don't want to give ANY organization a carte-blanche to use my membership as an approval of their policies. As long as the NRA is in-sync with my idealogy, I will continue to renew annually. And I will offer a ILA contribution when I deem necessary.

LHSmith
03-19-2009, 08:32 PM
NRA members decline their magazine of choice. No one in his/her right mind is going to believe 2.3 million NRA members choose to decline their choice of magazine. Why don't you give up on the union thing. You have made clear to everyone, your hate for anyone affiliated with unions. I doubt seriously, that anyone cares. The only threads you respond to are ones of a political nature.


This is just an approximation,since there are various levels of membership, but it gives us an idea of the amount of dues it requires to come in proximity to a KNOWN number i.e. $205 mil.(wikipedia)
4mil members x $35 dues= $140 mil
Their annual income in "04 was $205 mil
Using YOUR figure: 1.7 mil x $35 =$59mil

So, using your number means one hell of a lot of soliciting on NRA's part........and judging by some of these posts, I really don't think they're THAT successful.

All the sources I could find state 4 mil as the current membership,except one lib blog lists it at 3 mil.

I don't hate anybody.

But, when I see misinformation , I call it out.

You are the one hanging his hat on some USPS number of publications....I'm saying that is a poor correlation to true membership.

You do realize that they put out at least 4 different publications. Your USPS numbers must be in error.........lest there be several million dissed subscribers.

One must wonder why a shooting sports enthusiast would continually denigrate the NRA.

Montana Pete
03-20-2009, 08:27 AM
I always read the NRA magazines at the library. I used to be a member, and generally support their goals.

However, as we went into the election last November, I did get a little uncomfortable with the extreme bias of NRA leaders against one of the candidates. Some of the editorials were little better than polemics against this guy.

As a service organization for the nation's sportsmen, I'm not sure it is necessary to paint yourself into a "far-right corner."

Even so, I do support their goals, and I may consider joining the organization once again. Although I might be happier joining a similar sportsman's organization that is not so polarized and extreme politically. Can anybody suggest one?

Everyone at NRA seems convinced that the new president will take away our guns -- or try. This remains to be seen. He stated before the election that he would NOT do this.

RStiefel
03-20-2009, 09:40 AM
Spin how you choose to. The NRAs biggest contributions come via telephone and big donations. Each and every site you find showing the membership numbers, is related in some fashion to the NRA. The USPS is not. I'm a member of the NRA, but disagree with most of what they do, and their reasons to fight only battles they are certain to win.

Boss Hoss 540
03-20-2009, 10:10 AM
Kind of funny that most of us are members but are not very happy with NRA!!

Larry Elliott
03-20-2009, 02:07 PM
Obambi hasn't taken our guns YET, but he's floated making a new assault weapon's ban permanent, and various other "ideas" that Holder or one of the other flunkies puts forth. I've heard people complain that the NRA is right wing, but they gave both Montana's Senators A ratings and they're both Democrats.

Judging a politician, any politician, by what they SAY instead of what they've DONE is like believing in fairy tales and Santa Claus. ONE of the candidates had pretty much shown that he was about as anti-gun as anyone can be.

The NRA concerns themselves with gun related laws and regulations, and it doesn't matter what party anyone is if they are against more laws or regulations.

brian roberts
03-20-2009, 04:20 PM
nra gave both Montana's senators an "A" rating, BUUUUUUUTTT, the MSSA said, ".....those guys always make pro-gun noises, but when a must-have piece of anti-gun legislation comes along, those guys will always provide the swing vote." Bottom line, don't trust 'em as far as you can see'em; But remember, ila says they're "...staunch pro-gun senators..." Yeah, right.:rolleyes:

dlay
03-20-2009, 04:30 PM
I havent belonged to nra in three years, had it ready to mail to rejoin and laying here, started reading these posts and remembered why I dropped it to begin with. They go too far to the right on occasions, ask for money too much, and always seem to have a crisis going. I think I will just let it lay.

Larry Elliott
03-20-2009, 04:58 PM
nra gave both Montana's senators an "A" rating, BUUUUUUUTTT, the MSSA said, ".....those guys always make pro-gun noises, but when a must-have piece of anti-gun legislation comes along, those guys will always provide the swing vote." Bottom line, don't trust 'em as far as you can see'em; But remember, ila says they're "...staunch pro-gun senators..." Yeah, right.:rolleyes:

Well, they both told Holder that a new AWB wouldn't get their vote along with 63 other Democrats as I remember. I think that Baucus learned his lesson when he voted for Clinton's AWB and caught holy heck for it.

LHSmith
03-20-2009, 05:25 PM
Apparently some of you think that the Heller decision has negated any attempt by this administration to impact your status quo regarding your firearms.
I am here to tell you that they will seek other avenues to restrict the use of firearms.
The availability of ammo and components, mandated liability insurance, and extreme mandates on shooting range safety and environmental concerns.
There will be 4 million of us who will pay the freight to fight for the rights of over 100 million gun owners.
In my mind this is shameful.
You can tell your grandchildren how you could have stopped this mess, but that damn NRA was such a pain in the ass, that you didn't want any of their right wing BS.
I can appreciate those who belong to other pro 2nd amendment groups.....but realistically they don't make a pimple on the NRA's butt.

Gerry Nordmann
03-20-2009, 05:39 PM
The Mayor of Chicago took "Air Rifles" away from the ROTC school units in the Chicago area. The anti gun people are never going to give up the fight. The NRA is the biggest voice we have on our side. It is run by people, and any club is going rub some people the wrong way - you can't make all the the people happy. I pay the dues every year because it's I think it gives me the most pro-gun bang for my money. The Anti Gun people have big money behind them and it seems like there are more big city anti's every year, and they gladly give money whenever asked - because they are going to save the world. I am 73 and it's hard to believe how anti-gun this country has gotten in my life time. My own daughter voted for Obama, and it seems like most of the younger people voted like her. If the anti-gun trend continues like it has, I think it's just a matter of time before they win. Gun owners don't stick together, and young people are taught in school that guns are bad. It does not
look good.

rhaney2
03-20-2009, 05:50 PM
I havent belonged to nra in three years, had it ready to mail to rejoin and laying here, started reading these posts and remembered why I dropped it to begin with. They go too far to the right on occasions, ask for money too much, and always seem to have a crisis going. I think I will just let it lay.

Man,get real,i'm a life member of the NRA,if the NRA loses,you lose,simple as that.
Too far right,what a laugh.

brian roberts
03-20-2009, 06:21 PM
Those two senators from Montana voted FOR eric holder's(Uncle Janet's no. 2) confirmation!!! As far as keeping the crooks in dc on the track, the reason I joined GOA was because of one thing: "34 years of no compromise 1975-2009" I still remember their compromising, and I'm tired of it. I hope ol' sarah pushes jim around till she's blue in the face, she's sure made enough out of it.:rolleyes:

Big Al
03-21-2009, 12:21 PM
Question for Big Al:
What organization do you recommend to support the second amendant and gun owners rights?
On a brighter note how is the fly fishing in Alaska and can you recommend a fishing camp. I want to go to Alaska while I can still fish the streams?
I would like to live in Alaska to get away from NY and the LIBS.
Thanks,
Tom:)


National Shooting Sports Foundation! Remember the Late NEAL KNOX and the Hard Core?

Right now the fly fishing is rather slow. You cast out your line and wait for three months for the ice to thaw. Today at the home stead it's four below ("spring time in Alaska and it's fourty below") Remember the ssong?

I'm a died in the wool fly fisherman myself. I recommend you go on line and buy a subscription to "Fish Alaska" magazine. http://www.fishalaskamagazine.com/

That way you can sit at home and tear your heat out the whole year.

If you are a person with the money? You can go for the cream Delia cream trip and pay a few grand and go for the dream trip of a lifetime and do the remote fly in "Steel Head" fly in trip, have a chance of hooking in to a half dozen or more huge steelies a day (or more). I don't know of any where else on the planet you can do that?

The are a lot cheaper trips for a day and for the cost of a rental car and gas you can do a lot of great one day (or if you camp) as long as you want, just by driving the Hwy, between Anchorage and Fairbanks. Just make sure the ice is mostly gone, and remember these fish are hungry.

You can also find fly patterns for Alaska in the magazine.

Tom Wayte
03-22-2009, 03:47 PM
Big Al:
Thanks for the Alaska fishing info. I ordered the magazine Fish Alaska.
Tom

Douglas
03-23-2009, 04:10 AM
First of all, you can opt out of NRA mailings, just call them, you don't wait on hold, you talk to a person, very easy. Second, it's hard for me to believe that there are members of this forum that don't belong to the NRA, I thought the original poster was preaching to the choir, guess not. If every gun owner in America was a NRA member, you would never, ever, hear a single word about gun control. Thanks, Douglas

chino69
03-23-2009, 05:33 AM
If every gun owner in America was a NRA member, you would never, ever, hear a single word about gun control. Thanks, Douglas

Exactly!!!!!!

Lou Baccino

LHSmith
03-23-2009, 05:53 AM
First of all, you can opt out of NRA mailings, just call them, you don't wait on hold, you talk to a person, very easy. Second, it's hard for me to believe that there are members of this forum that don't belong to the NRA, I thought the original poster was preaching to the choir, guess not. If every gun owner in America was a NRA member, you would never, ever, hear a single word about gun control. Thanks, Douglas


It's worse that that.........when some on this forum freely denigrate the NRA and one goes as far as claiming it's actual membership number is only 40% of all published accounts (with no reference to justify this claim)..........then I fear we are headed to a place where our Aussie and Canadian friends have been warning us about.

f d shuster
03-23-2009, 06:41 AM
Do some research and you will find that it was Chris Cox, from the NRA, who met with "Department of Defense" and had the "milsurp" directive/decision that would have destroyed G.I. brass, (like 223 & 308), reversed. Once fired brass remains available for those who use it, including commercial reloaders like "Black Hills", 3-D, etc. I did not see any other orginization stepping up to fight. Life Member since 1965 and now Endowment.

rhaney2
03-23-2009, 06:56 AM
First of all, you can opt out of NRA mailings, just call them, you don't wait on hold, you talk to a person, very easy. Second, it's hard for me to believe that there are members of this forum that don't belong to the NRA, I thought the original poster was preaching to the choir, guess not. If every gun owner in America was a NRA member, you would never, ever, hear a single word about gun control. Thanks, Douglas

Yes Doug,and any gun owner should be a member of the NRA if they care about their guns.
I cannot understand why they vare not members,they spend hundreds on ammo,guns and shooting stuff but too cheap to pay NRA dues.

Big Al
03-23-2009, 09:21 AM
Big Al:
Thanks for the Alaska fishing info. I ordered the magazine Fish Alaska.
Tom

I'm warning you now, you'll go nuts next winter reading about fly fishing in Alaska. I do every winter and I live here.:eek:

Tom Wayte
03-23-2009, 09:39 AM
Douglas:
Well said and Amen.
Divided we become defeated, united we have a chance to survive.

f d shuster
03-23-2009, 10:00 AM
And, I should have added: it was the NRA who was at the forefront with a battery of attorneys fighting in our collective favor for the favorable Supreme Court "Heller" decision.

Big Al
03-23-2009, 10:06 AM
And, I should have added: it was the NRA who was at the forefront with a battery of attorneys fighting in our collective favor for the favorable Supreme Court "Heller" decision.



That Sir is not true. The NRA rode the coat tails of the NSSF on this. In fact you could say they weren't even on the hind teat on that one.

Learn the facts, the NRA needs to have a change, only missed out on that for the past 40 years. You want and need and NRA that is good as you think it is, NOW.

The NRA has been riding the coat tails of other organizations for many years. When that organization wins, then and only then will the NRA claim a victory and claim it's their own.:mad:

brian roberts
03-23-2009, 12:48 PM
MISTAKEN about the Heller decision; It was neither the nra NOR the NSSF that successfully prosecuted that through the courts, to the Supreme Court. That suit was brought by the CATO Institute, and during its progress, the nra had MANY opportunities to garner support for a pro-gun initiative. And, after the suit was going to the Supreme Court, nra tried to snuggle-up to CATO, to offer "assistance" in the court proceedings, etc. etc., but CATO wisely declined their "assistance", which left them the only alternative, to file a friend of the court brief. Know what?? THE ONLY brief, (which was remarked upon as "unique") which used the term: "....shall not be infringed.", was the brief filed by GOA!! Even in this, you'd THINK the nra could GET IT RIGHT, after all, that quote appears in their magazine!!! As I have said before, the nra had many, MANY opportunities to bring this suit, & when they tried to "help out", again, they were rebuffed as undesirable. If I had the nra calling me, I'd ask them about this, and some other things, such as: Why have they "fixed it", so that the very things Neal Knox & other respected members brought about as necessary changes, can never be voted on, or changed again (all have since been nullified); are they so afraid of positive "change"? Also, I'd ask them, how is it, that an organization, so old & revered, has NEVER taken it upon themselves to bring such a suit??? It CAN'T be about the money!! And, how is it that an organization, that is ALWAYS trumpeting about their ALWAYS taking the lead in the fight, can't even QUOTE THE SECOND AMENDMENT in their brief before the court??? Hey, I always was a suppoter of the nra, but when they come out & say I HAVE to belong, as a prerequisite to join some clubs, and I get no real political BANG for the BUCK, instead, a veritable BLIZZARD of requests for MORE BUCKS, I say, enough is enough. I joined the GOA & here I'll stay. And, I even pay the $35 a year nra could have continued to get, maybe one day I'll come back, & be a member of BOTH, I don't know, and right now, I don't care.:rolleyes:;) Oh, one MORE thing, type: "nra's Montana Snafu" in your favorite search engine; find out what a REAL pro-gun organization has to say about nra, go ahead, its a real EYE-OPENER!!!:mad:

Douglas
03-23-2009, 03:11 PM
All this may be true, but who the heck are GOA, CATO and NSSF? Nobody ever heard of them except the avid enthusiast. I'll gaurantee you one thing, everyone has heard of the NRA, even folks from around the world. My opinion, any member of this board who is not a NRA member is unconscionable. Thanks, Douglas

DR4NRA
03-24-2009, 01:23 AM
Dis the NRA if you want to, for what ever reason, but they are the only ones who have been around for 138 years. and I know for a fact will fight for my right to own a firearm or to hunt.

NRA Life
DR

brian roberts
03-25-2009, 10:00 AM
didn't "Dis" the nra when they pointed out serious shortcomings, and neither am I. I made an effort to point out what I believe are serious problems, and deviations from the proper path, that is all. Yes, the nra has been around for 138yrs. That, however, does NOT necessarily mean they are at present living up to their hype; nor does it mean we are getting the results we desire, or should expect, for the freight we pay. It is sad, indeed, when an organization is turned into a company that masquerades under the attributes and mantle of a bygone era, while successfully deluding the customer to believe his best interests are its driving force. But, why should I care, when I look to comparisons of other businesses today, its.......business as usual.:rolleyes:

Big Al
03-25-2009, 10:47 AM
didn't "dis" the nra when they pointed out serious shortcomings, and neither am i. I made an effort to point out what i believe are serious problems, and deviations from the proper path, that is all. Yes, the nra has been around for 138yrs. That, however, does not necessarily mean they are at present living up to their hype; nor does it mean we are getting the results we desire, or should expect, for the freight we pay. It is sad, indeed, when an organization is turned into a company that masquerades under the attributes and mantle of a bygone era, while successfully deluding the customer to believe his best interests are its driving force. But, why should i care, when i look to comparisons of other businesses today, its.......business as usual.:rolleyes:


amen +1.

dlay
04-01-2009, 07:08 AM
Well, I just mailed a renewal in this morning for two years, have been absent for three years.

rhaney2
04-01-2009, 07:14 AM
didn't "Dis" the nra when they pointed out serious shortcomings, and neither am I. I made an effort to point out what I believe are serious problems, and deviations from the proper path, that is all. Yes, the nra has been around for 138yrs. That, however, does NOT necessarily mean they are at present living up to their hype; nor does it mean we are getting the results we desire, or should expect, for the freight we pay. It is sad, indeed, when an organization is turned into a company that masquerades under the attributes and mantle of a bygone era, while successfully deluding the customer to believe his best interests are its driving force. But, why should I care, when I look to comparisons of other businesses today, its.......business as usual.:rolleyes:

aw man,get off their backs,they do a lot more than any business or company or assoc. you know of that lobbies for our gun rights.

dlay
04-01-2009, 07:29 AM
looks like they have done some real good, Pelosi is quoted in this weeks Newsweek mag as saying that she "backed enforcing the laws we have now" and seems they are not pushing for the assault weapons ban.

chino69
04-01-2009, 08:13 AM
I just read an article about the Mexican drug situation and Hillary's comments about the U.S. being equally to blame for the drug wars. The journalist who wrote the article described how the demand for drugs exists in the U.S., the drug cartels supply the drugs and obtain weapons from the U.S.. The journalist essentially connected the dots in what he assumed Hillary's hidden agenda was with her statement; use of an end run tactic to re-kindle the Brady Bill and assault weapon ban. The liberal democratic party was smart enough to retract from this tactic, knowing full well the wrath of gun owning Americans would be vented toward Washington. They know that we are good and pissed off over the corruption, unaccountability and pathetic performance from the swine who are in Washington. They also know the NRA is one of the strongest, passionate and well funded organizations guarding our 2nd Amendment Rights and is not afraid to take on politicians who want to disarm us. This battle is not over but the lines have been drawn in the sand and liberal politicians are reluctant to go against the NRA. Name me one other organization that has that kind of political clout? Name me another organization who has a well polished, seasoned debater as eloquent and passionate as Wayne LaPierre?

I watched Wayne LaPierre debate some whining Australian femininist at King's College in London several years ago and this pathetic excuse for a female ended up looking like the spoiled, idealistic twit that she really was. She wanted to use the U.N. to sponsor a world wide ban on small arms and was giving the typically lame, 'Perrier' logic infused delirium to argue her case. La Pierre dismantled her phony logic masterfully and pointed to examples like Rwanda, where hundreds of thousands were hacked to death with machetes. So much for the U.N. and Little Miss Clueless's logic and argument. If you own guns and don't belong to the NRA, please don't trash the organization with the typical pitch we hear so much of. We need to stand united, not divisive, because this administration is going to try to change the way of life as we know it. Save your energy for the many battles that are going to be in our future.

Lou Baccino

Big Al
04-01-2009, 09:29 AM
http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/dgifford/2009/03/31/the-america-is-arming-mexicos-drug-gangs-lie/



The ‘America Is Arming Mexico’s Drug Gangs’ Lie
by Dan Gifford

“There is an iron river of guns that flows South into Mexico [from the United States] to supply criminal organizations on the border,” says Tom Mangan, senior special agent with Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) in Phoenix. “They are in the market for machine guns, hand grenades, rocket-propelled grenade launchers and Stinger anti-aircraft missiles,” he continues. That’s right. The drug gangs can’t buy that and other military stuff like the 40MM grenades (the silver things in the upper left) and the rifles with launchers shown in the photo below in Mexico, so they drive to the United States and purchase them from American gun dealers at retail. Isn’t that the story you’ve been told? Well, congratulations. America’s First Amendment protected propaganda ministry has punked you on another important issue — this time on behalf of dissembling officials and gun confiscation advocates.

For the benefit of those who may not know, machine guns (not the same thing as the demonized “semi-automatic”), hand grenades, rocket-propelled grenade launchers, Stinger anti-aircraft missiles and other such military items are illegal to possess by US civilians, which means they are not for sale in gun stores. OK, in the interest of extreme accuracy for anyone in need, there are some civilian owned machine-guns in America, but they all have to have been registered with the ATF by 1986 as evidence that a special Treasury tax has been paid and the owner’s residence state has to approve the possession. What’s more, none of these arms has ever been involved in a crime, to my knowledge, and all are considered very pricey collectors items. That means they are not for sale to or in the hands of Mexican drug goons.

That raises some questions:

If Mexican gangsters are not buying military weapons in the United States, why do people like ATF officials, Attorney General Holder, Secretary of State Clinton, gun prohibitionists like Sarah Brady and multitudes of media talking heads claim they are while calling for an American “assault weapon” ban they say will to keep the Mexican drug gangs from buying what they really aren’t buying here because they can’t?

And if Mexican gangsters are not buying their military weapons in America from gun dealers as claimed, where are they buying them?

Confused? Well, as Fox News’ pundit Charles Krauthammer explained in one of his 1996 Washington Post columns, the answer to question one is quite simple:

Passing a law like the assault weapons ban is symbolic — purely symbolic … In fact, the assault weapons ban will have no effect either on the crime rate or on personal security. Nonetheless, it is a good idea … Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation … Ultimately, a civilized society must disarm its citizenry if it is to have a modicum of domestic tranquility of the kind enjoyed in sister democracies like Canada and Britain … Yes, Sarah Brady is doing God’s work.

Krauthammer is able to so clearly state the obvious that most government officials, politicians, gun banners and reporters keep denying because he does not have to lie to voters in order to stay in office or keep donations coming in, as Sarah Brady does. Neither do I. So please note that all the public safety blather about “plastic guns” that can evade metal screener detection, “cop killer bullets” that are specifically made to murder police officers, “Saturday Night Specials” which are unsafe for anyone to possess (except for police — there’s always a police exception) and the other oft repeated gun control paradigms are simply bogus media ready scare phrases that have zero to do with public safety and everything to do with eventually outlawing the private ownership of firearms.

Maybe you agree with that goal and maybe you don’t, but that’s the object of “reasonable gun control” advocacy.

The answer to the second question is equally obvious. Gun running from the United States into Mexico has been going on since the 1800s. But the stuff bought or stolen here is not the military weaponry we are continually told is arming the gangs there. This paragraph from a Los Angeles Times story managed to get the story right even if nobody else in the media will report it:

Most of these [military] weapons are being smuggled from Central American countries or by sea, eluding U.S. and Mexican monitors who are focused on the smuggling of semi-automatic and conventional weapons purchased from dealers in the U.S. border states of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California. . . . The enhanced weaponry represents a wide sampling from the international arms bazaar, with grenades and launchers produced by U.S., South Korean, Israeli, Spanish or former Soviet bloc manufacturers. Many had been sold legally to governments, including Mexico’s, and then were diverted onto the black market. Some may be sold directly to the traffickers by corrupt elements of national armies, authorities and experts say … These groups appear to be taking advantage of a robust global black market and porous borders, especially between Mexico and Guatemala. Some of the weapons are left over from the wars that the United States helped fight in Central America, U.S. officials said.

Stratfor, a private intelligence agency, noted more:

Grenades used in three recent attacks in Monterey, Mexico, and Pharr, Texas, all originated from the same lot delivered from South Korea.

So let’s recap.

Attorney General Holder, Secretary of State Clinton, ATF officials and a host of others claim that an “assault weapon ban” against American civilians will keep Mexican drug cartels with gazillions of dollars in their jeans from buying military weapons on the international black market.

LesWard
04-01-2009, 10:07 AM
Anyone care to comment on the program they showed the other night?
" America the Gun Nation" or something like that. I have since cancelled my membership. I thought it was about as one sided as you can get.:mad:

Aloha, Les= NRA Member

chino69
04-01-2009, 11:08 AM
Copied from the above post.

Passing a law like the assault weapons ban is symbolic — purely symbolic … In fact, the assault weapons ban will have no effect either on the crime rate or on personal security. Nonetheless, it is a good idea … Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation … Ultimately, a civilized society must disarm its citizenry if it is to have a modicum of domestic tranquility of the kind enjoyed in sister democracies like Canada and Britain … Yes, Sarah Brady is doing God’s work.

.
The above is true, however, most Americans are wise to this ruse. Take a close look at Rahm Emannuel's profile and look at the classic photo of Joseph Goebbels taken by Alfred Eisenstaedt; the similarities are disturbing. I fear much more propaganda and half truths are coming our way.

Lou Baccino

Geo.OR
04-01-2009, 11:34 AM
NRA is the BIGGEST and most influential lobby in Washington, for ANY interest group. It's not by any means perfect, but if you own a gun, you need to be a member.

If you're reading this forum, and you're not a memeber, you need to take the $$$ you're going to spend on a box of ammo or tank of gas and instead JOIN the NRA.

Your Second Amendment rights require that of you.

NRA Distinguished Life Member

brian roberts
04-01-2009, 07:00 PM
a little longer, I'll do it my way, and I'll agree, to disagree......:D:D:rolleyes:

Tony Shankle
04-01-2009, 07:24 PM
NRA is the BIGGEST and most influential lobby in Washington, for ANY interest group. It's not by any means perfect, but if you own a gun, you need to be a member.

If you're reading this forum, and you're not a memeber, you need to take the $$$ you're going to spend on a box of ammo or tank of gas and instead JOIN the NRA.

Your Second Amendment rights require that of you.

NRA Distinguished Life Member

I certainly agree with you that everyone should be a member of the NRA but it is NOT the "BIGGEST" nor the nost influential lobby in Washington. The insurance industry is #1 and healthcare is #2. By itself the NRA doesn't even make the top ten and it might not make the top 20. But, if every gun owner would join it might move up the list and we might get more accomplished.

brian roberts
04-01-2009, 07:54 PM
the largest AND the most influential(EVERY member of congress gets TWO visits per year, sometimes more)is the AIPAC, that's a fact, but, not known by most. :eek:;)

Tony Shankle
04-01-2009, 08:12 PM
I read it a while back and looked it up before I posted although I should have added that my stats were based on "dollars spent" and not number of members or visits. But, my comment is correct based on dollars spent. I apoligize for that slip. I guess in my mind, the only thing that matters to them is the money...our Bill Of Rights certainly doesn't! :eek:

Big Al
04-02-2009, 10:03 AM
Where did the 90% number come from? Remember that the Obama toady name Hillary Clinton says about 90% of the guns in Mexico's druggies hands come from the U.S.? New lies for old. Seems of the 29,000 that have been seized, only 11,000 were traced, 5,000 of the ones were not traceable. Of the 6,000 that were, 83% were not traceable to the U.S.

I guess that the ATF head and Hillary went to the same new math class?:)


By the way, this was reported today, and can be found on FOX news.com.

dlay
04-02-2009, 05:10 PM
I cant believe anyone didnt comment on my previous post about the newsweek article about the nra and pelosi.

brian roberts
04-02-2009, 07:39 PM
Mrs. Pelosi. Mrs. Pelosi's father, Thomas D'Alesandro Sr. was the Mayor of Baltimore back in the 50s & 60s, organized crime(OOPS!I forgot, J. Edgar:D said there was no such animal!!) ran Baltimore, & the police just went through the motions. He was succeeded by his son,her brother, Tommy Jr. There were the usual bombings, beatings, firebombings, going on, ad infinitum under both. Mrs. Pelosi is no shrinking violet, she is accustomed to violence, it paid her way, and gave her entree' EVERYwhere. When she comes out with a statement about gun laws needing to be enforced, don't EVER trust her for a second!! She is trying to lull you to sleep w/language like that, while they pass MORE LAWS through the back door. Organized crime is now making a comeback in Maryland, in the form of slots, there's going to be a new cigarette tax they're trotting out under the masque of something for children(it always is some feel-good venture) Mrs. Pelosi is going to do anything she can for organized crime(the gov't.!!), to accomplish their goal, which is to make the us, mexico, & canada borderless, and turn the north into a third world nation like mexico...... where only the cops, the army, & the gangs got the guns(When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns) so they can run their little fiefdoms the way they want, and they will be the "western royalty". Mrs. Pelosi will do anything she's told, or thinks of, to perpetuate her position of priviledge & power, & those who are not "royalty" will be marginalized to their allotted positions of paying the freight, for everything; And, if one wants to get ahead, its simple, you got to kick back. Maryland has always been like that, although, there was a reprieve for awhile in the 70s & early 80s. But in good ol' Md., you never went anywhere unless you were "connected" to the system of patronage....there, it was an ART FORM; jobs, businesses, education, civil service, you name it. This is also one of the reasons why Maryland has never become a Shall Issue state. There was some real progess in that direction made under the last administration, even though Gov. Bob Ehrlich was no friend of the gunowners; Now, all that has been erased. No one in Maryland gets an unrestricted permit, unless they are a Doctor, attorney, retired cop, or a member of the board of directors of BGE, which used to be the Baltimore Gas & Electric company. They got unrestricted permits before the permit system was ever in place!! Wherever the permit system comes in, the cops start doing a better job, because they know, there may be a permit holder there that could save their life, whereas if they don't, a permit holder might just look at not helping out as.... a passive method of expedient cleanliness effected! See ya.:rolleyes:

dlay
04-03-2009, 05:32 AM
I dont trust her, I think that she was told from higher up to let the gun issue be, They know that it got them beat in the past. You need to read the article, NRA is in thick with them now.

phantom496
04-03-2009, 07:53 AM
Canada Moves To End Gun Control, Calling It An Ineffective Measure Against Crime

As madness takes over the in-power political elite here in America, in Canada it seems as though they’re coming to their senses. The federal government introduced a bill in the Senate on Wednesday to abolish the long-gun registry. “It’s totally inefficient and ineffective against crime,” Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan, told reporters on Parliament Hill. “We believe the long-gun registry as a device simply does not work � It’s a misdirection of resources,” he said. “I know there are a lot of members in the NDP, some members in the Liberal Party who have shared that view, who campaigned on that view, have spoken publicly on that view and we hope to achieve their support for that.” The bill has just been introduced in the Canadian Senate, and there’s a lot of opposition to it, but even so. That this is even on the agenda in Canada is surprising. And the people behind it are right, too. For years now researchers at places like the American CDC, for instance, have found absolutely no evidence to suggest that gun control is at all tied to reductions in crime rates. Gun control isn’t about safety or crime. It’s about, well, control. And people who just can’t stand the idea of their neighbors living freely.

By the way, this came off of the NRA website . .

I have read all of the above postings on this link, and although I do at times disagree with the NRA, and some of you have some very good points. I believe that "Everyone" that owns a gun should be a member of it. If they/we did, the political clout that it would posess would be enough to scare the B-jesus out any and all Politicans. Either United we stand - or divided we fall. And anyone who doesn't think that the "0" (that is not an O) in office isn't after your guns - is in MHO - dilusional . . !!!!!!!!

NRA Life since 1965

Phantom496

Larry Elliott
04-03-2009, 10:20 AM
I personally don't trust anyone in the current administration when it comes to guns and gun control laws. If they can spin news and whatever else to get us all to believe that the NRA really does believe in gun control laws and wants to snuggle up to the anti-gunners they'll do it. If that convinces gun owners that the NRA is not doing the job they've done since the late 1800's, the NRA will lose whatever power it has and the gun control laws will flow like water from a broken dam. There isn't another group that has the name recognition and power that the NRA does.

If you don't think that Obama, Holder, Pelosi, Schumer, and all the rest of them aren't that devious and underhanded you really need to change brands.

Douglas
04-03-2009, 01:50 PM
Here's an idea, every new gun purchase gets a free 10yr membership, that way the ranks of the NRA swell to 85mil. I think most gun owners would belong, but it's like any other club/org you belong to, after a while you get tired of all the mail. I quit AARP because of it, just to name one. I prolly would have quit NRA too, but I bit the bullet and became a life member and did the no mail request. Now all I get is American Rifleman and once in great while something asking for money. Most people just don't want to belong to nothing. Thanks, Douglas

speedpro
04-03-2009, 02:12 PM
Moveon.org touted their membership surpassed the NRA's back in 2006, and is steady growing, all gunowners need to stand up and be counted or give up their arms. IMO If we united as a well organized group of law abiding gunowners and our ranks were unified we would'nt be losing sleep over Pelosi, or Holder's next move against our 2nd Amendment rights.

Douglas
04-03-2009, 02:25 PM
Bottom line, NRA is first and foremost. 85mil gun owners in USA, what pol would stand up to that number? Thanks, Douglas

Wilbur
11-08-2009, 05:00 AM
Bottom line, NRA is first and foremost. 85mil gun owners in USA, what pol would stand up to that number? Thanks, Douglas

Is that a true estimate? I'm just asking with no agenda...as I often have.

JerrySharrett
11-08-2009, 05:33 AM
Is that a true estimate? I'm just asking with no agenda...as I often have.
Wilbur, the 85 million gun owner figure has been quoted several times recently in NRA publications. Hopefully, with the recent elections and gun grabs that figure will now be much higher.