In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
The NRA will prevail.
65gto389
Member Posts: 2,850 ✭✭✭✭✭
The NRA will prevail.
They need are help now more than ever, make a donation if you can as I will.
http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/Releases.aspx?ID=6839
" Those who give up a little freedom for temporary security, deserve neither freedom nor security "
- Benjamin Franklin
They need are help now more than ever, make a donation if you can as I will.
http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/Releases.aspx?ID=6839
" Those who give up a little freedom for temporary security, deserve neither freedom nor security "
- Benjamin Franklin
Comments
There are two kinds of people in this World....Those who lead....and those who get the hell out of the way...GUT CHECK!...Which one are you?
The NRA has been fighting for gun rights for over 100 years. Is that worth nothing to you?
In regards to the NO gun confiscations, the ONLY two gun rights groups who stepped in and put a stop to those gun confiscations (and by the precident they set, hopefully put a stop to future, similar gun confistcations) was the NRA and the Second Amendment Foundatation. Is that not enough for you?
Yet in spite of all I have mentioned, you throw another challenge at the NRA regarding the SF gun confiscations and almost dare the NRA to disappoint you. The NRA has over 3 million dues paying members. Do you truly believe that those 3 million are stupid, uninformed, ignorant, etc. and only you and the other NRA critics here are the smart ones?
I do not wish to linger here.
The gene pool needs chlorine.
MODERATOR pickenup
You noticed? [:0] Thanks. [;)]
The gene pool needs chlorine.
I'm glad for having groups like the NRA out there but what I don't like is how much they pay themselves with OUR money. If they came right out and said "I get paid $x,xxx,xxx.xx per year and I will see to it that we give 110% every time we go to battle", I would still maintain my membership. I don't like them trying to hide it and tanking their efforts in order to keep in with the Elites.
I am a paying member and these are my beliefs about a group that I, also, support. Being able to criticize is what once made our country great. Can you honestly argue my points? As far as the NOLA thing, that was a no brainer. That's what I expect from them. If they hadn't of done it, I would certainly have pulled my support. How about the gaping wide door they left open with the AP bullet clause in the gun industry relief bill? They were kind of out to lunch on that one weren't they?
I don't know tr, your allegiance is admirable I just think sometimes a bit blind or maybe clouded would be a better word. I'm not trying to insult you, I'm just trying to understand.
To answer your final question, yes, I do think the other 2,999,980 members are a bit naive or ignorant, if you please, I prefer naive. They can't see the forest through the trees, they are missing the big picture here. We have gun laws, period. You also contradicted you back patting when you said that the NRA set a precedent against future gun bans, yet here we are fighting a gun ban. Where was the precedent?
There are two kinds of people in this World....Those who lead....and those who get the hell out of the way...GUT CHECK!...Which one are you?
I was informed today by the NRA-ILA that
the bill was passed clean with no amendments.
I have not seen this in any of the e-mail or news.
Keep an eye open if anyone sees a copy of this bill
check it out.
NRA by the way is over 4 million members.
Don't forget GOA , I get there e-mails to.
With 90 million gun owners in this US of A
we should have a lot more than 4 million
members . From the looks of Canada they
could use an NRA to . Canada is what we
would be like if not for the NRA & GOA and
others like. Or maybe you guys would like
Mexico better .
The NRA granted ,is much like a big government
outfit , but it takes one to know one and how it works.
Every gun owner should pay dues to some one
just so no one will be at your door to pick up
guns. I might think that maybe a tax would
work, but then the government would have a
list of all of the gun owners . Not a good thing.
But then don't they already have a list of names. Liberals would love a new tax dollar
to pi ss away . Maybe we could trade gun rights
for money . This may help to get a tax revolt
going. Long over do.
The one thing that will always work with Libs
is a revolt this will force them to do what they
do best , make deals . If we all start burning
there cars ,they will give us what we want , that
is if we know what it is that we want.[8D][8D][;)]
A well armed society is the best form of homeland security.
Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.
A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.
Make yourselves sheep, and the wolves will eat you.
NRA write your Rep. will save a stamp
http://www.capwiz.com/nra/home/
GOA
http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm
Posted - 10/31/2005 : 10:51:09 PM
You can say what you will about the NRA , but 4 million + members all putting money were mouth is, is the most people in the same place anywhere in the world .
I have my bones to pick with them and we all have faults . Yes I do pay my dues. It's only 35 buck a year. The mag they send me helps keep me up to date on some of what needs to be done.
But most of all ,the NRA scares the hell out of the libs. Can you just think how it would be if the 90 million gun owners in this country were all members just for the hell of it. If this was so, we wouldn't have any gun control.
Think about it, 90 million is 2/3 of all of the heads of households.
[8D]
"The NRA scares the hell out of libs"...this is so pathetic it defies BELIEF...
You EVER heard of "20,000 Gun Laws"...20,001, now....WHAT THE HELL IS SCARY ABOUT THE NRA ?
WithOUT the NRA/GOA we would be like CANADA/MEXICO ?/?????
SURE...if YOU HAVE NO BALLS we will be ....Without the stinking nra/goa COMPROMISERS..we in Amerika would be walking as FREE MEN...or those of us willing to lay our lives on the line for freedom would be DEAD..and you compromisers would never again be troubled by someone pointing out your failures.
How many of you boys went overseas and fought for what the lying elites called 'your freedom'...and are not willing to fight for REAL FREEDOM right here at home !!????
Highball, if the NRA is really compromising our gun rights then why not support them? Wouldn't that just assist in quickening the removal of our RTKBA, thus hastening the final "showdown" with the anti-gunners?
-Wolf
MOΛΩN ΛABE
-Samuel Adams, Patriot/Brewer
(CNSNews.com) - One day after 58 percent of San Francisco voters passed a ban on handgun possession, the National Rifle Association announced that it would challenge the ordinance in court. "Lawful residents of San Francisco are being stripped of their freedom because of an illegal measure that defies common sense," said NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre...
Proud to be an American!
I'm glad for having groups like the NRA out there but what I don't like is how much they pay themselves with OUR money. If they came right out and said "I get paid $x,xxx,xxx.xx per year and I will see to it that we give 110% every time we go to battle", I would still maintain my membership. I don't like them trying to hide it and tanking their efforts in order to keep in with the Elites. I am a paying member and these are my beliefs about a group that I, also, support.
Translate this for us ignorant rednecks. Are you coming out of the closet or what??? Do you expect anyone in this country to work for free now days?? Get real!!!!!!!!
Proud to be an American!
Proud to be an American!
If you do not believe in censorship on the internet explaian to me why I cannot access replies to my posts on this site???
Proud to be an American!
?????????
There are two kinds of people in this World....Those who lead....and those who get the hell out of the way...GUT CHECK!...Which one are you?
ComengetitSenior Member South Sandwich Islands1439 Posts Posted - 11/09/2005 : 11:31:55 PM
I'm glad for having groups like the NRA out there but what I don't like is how much they pay themselves with OUR money. If they came right out and said "I get paid $x,xxx,xxx.xx per year and I will see to it that we give 110% every time we go to battle", I would still maintain my membership. I don't like them trying to hide it and tanking their efforts in order to keep in with the Elites. I am a paying member and these are my beliefs about a group that I, also, support.
Translate this for us ignorant rednecks. Are you coming out of the closet or what??? Do you expect anyone in this country to work for free now days?? Get real!!!!!!!!
Proud to be an American!
Quite simply, quit making compromises with OUR money. If LaPierre is as good as he seems to think he is, then he should have no problem maintaining his status with the Elites, after all of the gun laws are repealed and the NRA is no longer a necessity for gun rights. I believe each of these groups started out with the right idea, but money corrupts. What closet might you be referring to? Us dumb educated folk need help too. I couldn't be any more real than I am. In case you missed it, I was calling a spade, a spade. It will take a much better effort to get me stirred for the benefit of the stagnated and reclused.
There are two kinds of people in this World....Those who lead....and those who get the hell out of the way...GUT CHECK!...Which one are you?
There are two kinds of people in this World....Those who lead....and those who get the hell out of the way...GUT CHECK!...Which one are you?
TR, nice to see you post here again. I hope whatever bad blood remains can be cleared up so that you can linger indefinitely.
A sincere thanks for your kind words
Highball, if the NRA is really compromising our gun rights then why not support them? Wouldn't that just assist in quickening the removal of our RTKBA, thus hastening the final "showdown" with the anti-gunners?
Man! I can't help but love logic that not only makes a statment but bites the receiver in the * at the same time.
-Wolf
MO??N ?ABE
-Samuel Adams, Patriot/Brewer
For those who say the NRA executive are overpaid. It only costs each NRA member $35.00 per year to be a member. This $35.00 is basically pocket change compared to buying a new gun at $500+ dollars, or paying $35.00+ for an afternoon of shooting. The NRA yearly dues do not require you to take out a bank loan in order to pay the dues and become a supporting member. Yeah, you will get NRA requests in the mail asking for more money, but just ignore such requests if that is what you wish.
So, if the NRA exec's can live high on my measly $35.00 per year AND fight for my gun rights at the same time, (N.O. law suit, S.F. lawsuit, etc, etc. etc.) then MORE POWER TO THEM. At least IF that is what they are doing, it shows that they are smart enough to do it. And I don't want people who ARE NOT smart running the NRA.
Oh, I guess it might make some here happy if we fired all those OVERPAID NRA exec's (If indeed they ARE overpaid) and just brought in some minimum wage flunkys that would run the NRA into the ground. If that is what you want, then start voting in NRA board members who will make that happen. Wait a minute. You say you aren't even an NRA member and therefore CAN'T cause/encourage any changes in the NRA that you believe in? Well, then sit down and quit your complaining.
If you love your gun rights as much as I do, you better look around and realize that we gun owners don't have all that many friends. There is NOT a different national gun rights group on every street corner, like there are gas stations, just waiting for you to join their group to give them the political clout so that they will have the strength to fight for your gun rights. If you have half a brain you will support the very, very few effective national gun rights groups we have (GOA, 2nd Amendment Foundation, CCRKBA, NRA). If those organizations had even half of the 65 million gun owners in America as members, those groups would have enough political clout that we would have few, if any, problems with our gun rights.
So we could all work together to make that happen, but instead there still be numerous responders who will tell me how bad the NRA is, how it has betrayed or let them down, or make stupid mistakes or compromised their rights away (as if the NRA even owned your rights and was even able to compromise them) or always wants money (everything in the world runs on money) or that the NRA isn't agressive enough, or how the NRA exec's are overpaid, and on and on and on and on.
So go ahead, I've heard it (and more) all before. In the meantime, the NRA just keeps doing the best it can with what little support it gets.
Exactly as many of the faithful will be led astray by false preachers in the end times, many gun owners will be paralyzed when the NRA tells them to turn in their guns..."Because we will fight them in the courts"....
Gun Owners that MIGHT just be the deciding factor in any conflict.
I would rather support Fiendstein/Shumer/Kennedy. They make no pretense that they are Americans.
tr- Your defense of the NRA is admirable and I don't totally disagree, but for the record as I clearly stated I AM A PAYING MEMBER. I think that gives me the right to criticize when I feel it fits. If you read closely, I hadn't yet come down on them save the salaries. By the way did you do the math? You said they got to live off of a measly $35 per year, did you neglect to multiply that by 3,650,000 members? The money that is spent lobbying is the money they ask for on the side. And yes, I do believe I could do a better job than some of them in the hierarchy of the NRA but that's not really the point is it? The point here is that we are slowly being sold out by several different organizations from all aspects of business big business and the NRA needs to make damn sure they don't become one of them. By compromising in areas where they clearly need not, I am left with nothing but the feeling of being sold out. You tell me if after 100 years of the NRA first why the NFA happened, second where were they in 1968 and again in 1986 and again in 1994 and again in 2001? They want praise for repealing laws that never should have been there in the first place. Did they not happen under their watch?
There are two kinds of people in this World....Those who lead....and those who get the hell out of the way...GUT CHECK!...Which one are you?
" I would rather support Fiendstein/Shumer/Kennedy. They make no pretense that they are Americans"
Now this is and attitude that is losing ground.
Why I bet highball votes for DemocRATS .
Highball , when people read your post and see this crap you spill about the NRA and other gun rights groups they will feel ashamed that they were in your camp and will run to sign up.
I know a union man who is a gun guy that hunts ,is pro-choice and Catholic . He votes the DemocRAT line for all of the anti-gunners. When he talks politics I want to barfffff .
He is also an NRA member.[8D]
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.[8D]
By the way , if you don't like all of the NRA beggin mail . All you have to do is call the 800# for members info and ask them to flag your membership for no mailings and they will do it.
This will save them money and they will have more of it to pay better people to do the job that you can't do.[8D]
TFox Glad to see I am not alone here.[8D]
A well armed society is the best form of homeland security.
Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.
A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.
Make yourselves sheep, and the wolves will eat you.
NRA write your Rep. will save a stamp
http://www.capwiz.com/nra/home/
GOA
http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm
I think that gun laws probably affect gun sales in a general sense, but since 1986 I think the laws that the NRA has "compromised" on probably have not affected manufacturer sales all that much. I don't think that the AWB affected sales because there were legal versions of most guns that could still be sold. And S. 397 certainly protected gun manufacturers, while not necessarily protecting gun owners.
Does this make any sense? Just a theory.
-Wolf
P.S. I don't have a problem supporting a Gun Industry lobbying organization, because after all I am a potential customer of that industry. If they don't fight to preserve my right to purchase their product then they won't get my $$$.
MOΛΩN ΛABE
-Samuel Adams, Patriot/Brewer
The NRA is always looking for good people
for full time employment and the pay is
not so bad. Maybe you could make a wave
or two.[8D]
By the way how is your handgunin doing.[8D]
I am an NRA member, and a gun owner. I firmly believe in the 2nd Amendment.
What part of, "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED is hard to understand???
Second,
THE WHOLE TRUTH,
If an organization claims to SPEAK FOR ME then I want to know what they are doing / saying. If they make the claim that they champion MY RIGHTS, then I want them to DO IT, NOT compromise MY RIGHTS away.
Or are some so "afraid" of the "WHOLE" truth? Only wanting to hear ONE SIDE of the issue. Or is the NRA supposed to be placed on a pedestal, given FREE REIGN, where no one is supposed to question their actions? Are they NOT to be held accountable? Why not?
Third,
Am I advocating withdrawing your membership from the NRA...NO. Work within the system to CHANGE it, if you don't agree with what they are doing. VOTE the bad guys OUT. VOTE the good guys IN.
Only problem is "as with politicians" if the bad guys are in there for any length of time, the damage they do may be irreversible. Example, take a look at past and current gun laws.
Fourth,
Have they done some good? OF COURSE. But I, for one, will NOT put them on a pedestal. I will NOT turn a blind eye to their actions. I WILL be watching. Shouldn't you?
Someone asked not too long ago. What HARM can they do / have they done?
The NRA has been fighting for gun rights for over 100 years, huh?
"The NRA supported The Federal Firearms Act of 1938, which regulates interstate
and foreign commerce in firearms and pistol, revolver ammunition.
Consider that "Project EXILE" IS the NRA's project.
NRA'S PROJECT (EXILE) supports ALL gun laws. Handgun Control Inc. supports it TOO. NRA-ILA Executive Director James Jay Baker commented, "I'm glad that the president has finally agreed with the NRA that enforcing federal firearms laws makes sense. We've been pushing for more enforcement of existing laws. Did anyone tell them that ALL of the 20,000 gun laws are UNCONSTITUTIONAL??? OF COURSE Handgun Control Inc. supports this NRA project.
Schools
Then NRA Executive Vice President Wayne R. LaPierre, Jr., made these damaging statements during his nationally televised speech at the Denver NRA Members Meeting May 1, 1999. "First, we believe in absolutely gun-free, zero-tolerance, totally safe schools. That means no guns in America's schools, period ... with the rare exception of law enforcement officers or trained security personnel."
All across the country, school boards and state legislators are doing precisely what LaPierre suggested: shutting down school riflery programs, prohibiting historical firearms displays, forbidding hunter safety training with unloaded guns, and banning gun possession by teachers and other adults with carry licenses.
LaPierre also blessed gun show background checks by saying: "We will consider instant checks at gun shows when, and only when, this Administration stops (charging for NICS
checks) and stops illegally compiling the records of millions of lawful gun buyers."
The next day President Charlton Heston flatly said on ABC "This Week" that he was "in favor of" gun show background checks. Within six weeks, gun show background checks - and "youth gun access" bans - had been approved by both houses of Congress!
First amendment rights?
Was it the National Rifle Association that had one of its members, a pro-gun activist, arrested at its national convention on, April 27, 2003 in Orlando, Florida for handing out pro-gun freedom literature from an organization known as the Free State Project, Inc. The unlucky NRA member was Timothy Condon, a Marine Corps Vietnam veteran and Director of Member Services for the rapidly growing Free State Project.
It was NRA PRESIDENT Dr. C.R. (Pink) Gutermuth, who saw "no problem with gun registration," and was head of the Wildlife Management Institute, who became NRA President in 1973.
Part of the problem began during the unlamented regime of former Executive Vice President Warren Cassidy. NRA lobbyists under Cassidy stopped opposing gun control bills and started offering NRA-approved versions of the same legislation. They started WRITING ANTI-GUN LEGISLATION.
Politicians were lobbying their colleagues for the so-called "instant check?" These pro-gunners were pushing a gun control bill that the NRA was strongly supporting.
Jim Baker of the NRA was quoted by USA Today on October 26, 1993 as saying: "We already support 65% of the Brady bill, because it moves to an instant check, which is what we want."
NRA spokesman Bill McIntrye said that the instant background check also in the bill "will be a victory for gun owners.
From NRA Board member Tanya Metaksa.
I think this agreement was a victory for those who see flaws in the current bill. This is a much different Brady bill. This bill sunsets into what we've been supporting for several years [the instant check]. If you look at it in the long range, it's our bill in five years.
While reading the following, keep in mind that former NRA board member Russ Howard, RESIGNED from the board. His words, "In the past 5 years I've become increasingly concerned over NRA's penchant for giving UNDESERVED grades to politicians who TRAMPLE on the 2nd Amendment."
In California JOAN MILKE FLORES VS JANE HARMAN. 36TH CONGRESSIONAL
Flores is an anti-gun Republican who voted FOR the Los Angeles Assault Rifle Ban. Harman is an anti- gun Democrat who got an "A" rating from the NRA. Why an "A" rating? She was ANTI-GUN!!! Who later said that she supports the assault weapon ban.
CHRISTINE REED VS TERRY FREIDMAN (State Assembly)
Reed was an anti-gun C-rated Republican Handgun Control Inc. member who had been mayor of Santa Monica. Reed who should have been an "F". Freidman was an F-rated incumbent Democrat who authored many anti-gun bills
TRICIA HUNTER: Hunter was state senator whose bid to retain office was based on high-profile attacks on "killer assault rifles". She was rated "A-" by the NRA.
Howard Dean got an A+ from the NRA while governor, he supported the assault weapons ban and Brady bill.
Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA). Did not vote when needed, but was helped by the NRA come re-election.
Rep. Elton Gallegly (R-CA) voted FOR the brady bill (3 times) then was helped by the NRA come re-election.
Congressman Elton Gallegly -- voted FOR the Brady bill and the assault weapon ban and got an A-, and an endorsement. NRA's Terry O'Grady said, 'Gallegly voted against us on Brady and the Crime Bill, but he's always been with us before. We've decided to forgive him, give him an A- and endorse him. SAY WHAT?
In Virginia, 15 legislators were given A ratings after they voted FOR both the one-gun-a-month ban AND the shotgun ban. 41 legislators who voted for either or both bans got A ratings. 7 got exceptional, "above the call of duty" ratings.
In North Carolina, some districts have two senators. In the '94 elections, District 20 was represented by Ted Kaplan and Marvin Ward. Both favored assault weapon bans, handgun registration, and a one-gun-a-month ban. Their challengers were solid pro-gunners Ham Horton and Mark McDaniels (who fought tooth and nail for CCW). Nevertheless, ILA upgraded both anti-gun incumbents to "A" (one was initially a C), endorsed them, and supported them by mailing orange alert cards to NRA members in their district. Kaplan and Ward lost anyway, as incensed local groups like Grass Roots NC broke ranks with ILA and helped elect the pro-gun challengers.
In NC in 1995, Senator Fountain Odom betrayed the 2nd Amendment by gutting the CCW bill in his subcommittee. The bill had come over in more or less tolerable format from the house. Odom fixed it so that only a few police instructors could give the mandatory training. NRA instructors were prohibited. He also worked to move un-permitted CCW from a misdemeanor to a felony, prohibit CCW with any alcohol "remaining" in the body, prohibit CCW in financial institutions, mandate that all training be fully repeated for each renewal, and gut statewide preemption. Limited preemption was restored in the full judiciary committee, but Odom betrayed us again, fixing it so CCW could be prohibited in any "park". Later on the floor, to give ILA cover, Odom amended the training section to allow NRA instructors to do the training. In 1996, Tanya Metaksa gave Odom an A, an endorsement, and an orange ALERT postcard mailing telling NRA members, "Senator Odom has demonstrated his commitment to our right to self-defense...Here's how you can help re-elect Fountain Odom -- a dedicated supporter of your Second Amendment rights. Help the campaign...make a contribution...spread the word to family, friends, and fellow gun owners... Sincerely, Tanya K. Metaksa." Odom's still trampling on our rights. Now he's pushing for a CCW liability law.
In Virginia in 1996, extreme F rated gun grabber Congressman Jim Moran faced A rated, NRA life member John Otey. The American Rifleman carried the following message: "THIS IS YOUR OFFICIAL PRO-GUN BALLOT FOR THE FOLLOWING DISTRICT: VIRGINIA 8, US CONGRESS...NO ENDORSEMENT"
NO endorsement for an A rated NRA life member challenging an F- rated gun grabber???
In Virginia, 3 congressmen who voted many times against gun rights and supported the Lautenberg ban, kept their A+ ratings (part of a large club of turncoat A and A+ politicians). Tom Davis got an A after voicing support for Brady and the assault weapon ban and orchestrating a unanimous vote of support for the one-gun-a-month ban as a Fairfax County Supervisor. ?
In Pennsylvania (1993), then Republican Minority Whip Matt Ryan INTRODUCED an assault rifle ban. In 1994, he kept his A+ rating. The same A+ sellout rammed through ILA's infamous Act 17 betrayal of PA gun owners.
John Dingell?
The NRA's Golden Boy? The former NRA Director? The same guy who voted in favor of the 1994 "Assault" weapons ban and then resigned from the Board of Directors the day after the vote? The same Dingell who received the NRA's Harlon B. Carter Award, despite voting FOR an outright gun BAN? The same Dingell that coined the term"jack-booted thugs" when referring to the BATF? THAT Dingell?
NRA Board of Directors member Larry Craig, was one of the co-sponsors of this bill, "Our Lady of Peace Act" Which was also supported by Chuck Schumer and the usual band of anti Second Amendment slime, Ted Kennedy, Blanche Lincoln and Richard Durbin.
Don't know what it is/was? Look it up.
Lets not forget the latest "help" we got from the NRA. In the "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act." Not debating, if setting this kind of precedent with legislation, protecting industries, is right. Not debating whether the industry needed this protection. The point here is, that there was a CLEAN bill (800) on the floor, AT THE SAME TIME. Everyone agrees that either bill (397 or 800) would pass through the senate, with no problem. So it depended on the house. There are always more votes than there are co-sponsors of a bill. S. Bill 800 had over 250 signed on as co-sponsors. MORE than enough to pass it, CLEAN. Why did the NRA CHOOSE to back the anti-gun laden bill, when there was a clean alternative?
Oh and for those that said, don't worry about the armor piercing ammo part of the bill, and that the "ammo piercing" part was nothing new. Below is a quote from the NEW law. The old wording had NO DATE in it. The Attorney General did NOT have to test ammo (and had NOT done so) possibly setting a NEW standard for armor piercing ammo. This NEW law, that the NRA supported, requires the Attorney General to do the NEW study on ammo, with a NEW standard? Within 2 years!!! We shall see, if the fears for this, were warranted.
quote:(3) REPORT- Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act , the Attorney General shall submit a report containing the results of the study conducted under this subsection to--
NRA HELPED WRITE the 1986 federal law prohibiting the manufacture and importation of "armor piercing ammunition" adopted standards.
The NRA supported legislation to amend the Federal Firearms Act in regard to handguns when it was introduced in August, 1963.
In 1965, the NRA continued its support of an expansion of the above legislation to include rifles and shotguns, as well as handguns.
Additionally the NRA supported the regulation of the movement of handguns in interstate and foreign commerce by:
1. Requiring a sworn statement, containing certain information, from the purchaser to the seller for the receipt of a handgun in interstate commerce;
2. Providing for notification of local police of prospective sales;
3. Requiring an additional 7-day waiting period by the seller after receipt of acknowledgement of notification to local police;
4. Prescribing a minimum age of 21 for obtaining a license to sell firearms and increasing the license fees;
5. Providing for written notification by manufacturer or dealer to carrier that a firearm is being shipped in interstate commerce, and;
6. Increasing penalties for violation.
The NRA awarded Assemblyman Rod Wright its "Defender of Freedom" Award. This is the same Rod Wright who supported unconstitutional limits on firearms purchases and background checks. This is the same Rod Wright who authored a bill to increase licensing fees from $3 to up to $100. Never mind the absurdity of bilking peaceable citizens of hundreds of dollars for making a constitutionally protected purchase. This champion of "freedom" apparently thinks it's perfectly acceptable to license and charge Americans for exercising their rights. The NRA's "Defender of Freedom" in 2001 voted against gun owners 62 percent of the time
Deborah Danuski, a Democrat from Lisbon, was endorsed by the anti-handgun group, while also receiving an "A-" from the NRA on its report card of candidates. As a matter of fact, in Maine, both the NRA and Maine Citizens Against Handgun Violence supported 18 of the same candidates!
In Colorado, where the NRA supported Senator Wayne Allard for office, and even boosted his pro-gun lobby contributions to $37,000 since 1990, Allard stated flatly that he would support federal legislation requiring gun registration for private gun sales at gun shows. Is a legislator who wants to expand gun registration someone who stands up for the rights of gun owners?
From Virginia, where the NRA Political Victory Fund touted the pro-gun "accomplishments" of Delegate Jack Rollison. This is the same Rollison who in a press release had the unmitigated gall to paint Gun Owners of America and the Virginia Citizens Defense League, who have endorsed his opponent Jeff Frederick, as extremists and "milita-esque" organizations. This is the same Jack Rollison who wants to ban your right to self-defense in any restaurant that happens to sell liquor. And this is the same Jack Rollison who voted correctly on only two out of eight issues important to Virginia gun owners.
The NRA also gave their "Defender of Freedom Award" to one Kevin Mannix, who ran for governor here in 2002. In 1999 Mannix was the architect of the worst piece of gun control legislation in 10 years, in the Oregon House.
Treasurer Woody Phillips salary and benefits totaled $349,250 in 2002.
He is only the "treasurer" how much do the big wigs get?
They also reported that the NRA pension fund has a $9.9 million deficit, which according to NRA's tax returns, hadn't been contributed to for at least three years. Further, that in 2001 management doubled its line of credit to $12 million, and quickly drew $10 million out.
There are more bills that the NRA HELPED WRITE, or WROTE themselves. Other ANTI_GUN candidates that they endorsed. But why, if this doesn't open your eyes, nothing will.
Financials.
http://www.gunownersalliance.com/Financials.htm
The gene pool needs chlorine.
cut and paste this at the NRA website
under contact, the more the better.
That will fix um.[8D]
I think you may be right on all counts.
I have my bones to pick with them that are
personal.
Comengetit
The NRA is always looking for good people
for full time employment and the pay is
not so bad. Maybe you could make a wave
or two.[8D]
By the way how is your handgunin doing.[8D]
I've moved to my left hand now, up to 2 minutes with a .44 Mag. Thanks but no thanks on the NRA bit, folks get down right hostile towards 'em and I know how politics work. One person really CAN'T make a difference, you get sucked up, chewed up, and spit out and I don't care how big you are, politics is the widow maker of life. I suppose if I felt I was realistically going to get an unimpaired shot at making change I would go for it but that ain't never gonna happen. (I like talkin' like a redneck sometimes)
There are two kinds of people in this World....Those who lead....and those who get the hell out of the way...GUT CHECK!...Which one are you?
Every one that reads this post should
cut and paste this at the NRA website
under contact, the more the better.
That will fix um.[8D]
That actually is a good idea and I for one am going to do it this AM.
The point of my statement (Shumer,ect.) is that I can RESPECT an enemy that makes it plain by their words/actions that they despise EVERYTHING I stand for..American Ideals,Morals,Rights.
I Cannot respect those that PRETEND to uphold those ideals...and cut back room deals to remove those rights.
During the S. 397 vs. H.R. 800 debacle, I think I gained some clarity on the purpose of the NRA. I believe they are a Gun Industry lobbying organization. I believe their primary goal is to serve the gun manufacturers, not the gun owners. I'm not sure at what point this transition was made, because I think the NRA did serve the interests of gun owners at some point.
I think that gun laws probably affect gun sales in a general sense, but since 1986 I think the laws that the NRA has "compromised" on probably have not affected manufacturer sales all that much. I don't think that the AWB affected sales because there were legal versions of most guns that could still be sold. And S. 397 certainly protected gun manufacturers, while not necessarily protecting gun owners.
Does this make any sense? Just a theory.
-Wolf
P.S. I don't have a problem supporting a Gun Industry lobbying organization, because after all I am a potential customer of that industry. If they don't fight to preserve my right to purchase their product then they won't get my $$$.
MO??N ?ABE
-Samuel Adams, Patriot/Brewer
Many gun rights activists didn't realize the full importance of getting the firearm manufacturers protection act (S 397) passed and signed into law. The importance of that law was that it put a resounding halt to the stealth, sneaky and back door gun banning that has been discovered by the gun grabbers and been used by the gun grabbers for a few years now.
The gun grabbers finally got it in that they could not get the majority of the American people or the majority of state and federal legislators to outlaw guns. So instead, the crafty gun grabbers discovered a sneaky way around the American people and their legislators; simply sue gun makers out of existance. The police and military would still have their new guns becuause when there was no longer a supply of civilian/military/police gun makers around, the government could easily step in and contract with private companies to produce guns for police and military ONLY. Or the government could simply setup their own gun making factories.
Oh, and the perfect part of the gun grabbers plan was that their plan was being funded by YOUR TAX DOLLARS and the power of government to file and pursue those countless city and county lawsuits. In contast, private funds and private companies were on the defending side of those lawsuits. In short, the gun grabbers brillantly discovered a way to prevert the use of the court system in an effort to defeat the will of the majority of Americans and their legisators and use the tax money of the American people for their war against guns.
The gun grabbers strategy was simply to either sue the civilian gun makers out of existance or to sue them into submission to the demands of the gun grabbers.
If sued out of existance (a few were) then there would be no civilian gun makers producing new guns for us gun owners; nor parts for existing guns nor factory warrantys or factory repairs.
If sued into submission to the gun grabbers, the gun makers would stop producing new guns that the gun grabbers hate. Such as semi-automatic rifles, handguns and shotguns. Or large caliber guns such as the S&W 50 caliber revolver or the 50 caliber BMG Barrett rifles, etc. in addiltion to stopping the production of new parts and factory repairs fo any guns hated by the gun grabbers.
After the Senate passed S 397, and the NRA started pressuring the House to pass a matching bill, many pro-gunners protested that they did not want S 397 because it contained two restrictions they did not want. One was the trigger lock requirement and the other was the part about armor piercing ammo.
The trigger lock is of little concern for people like me because all new guns come from the factory with trigger locks. Plus trigger locks can be purchased for as little as .99 cents as I have done at gun shows. Plus there was not requirment put on trigger locks when sales are made between private parties. Nor is there any requirment that the trigger locks be used by the gun owner. Although that requirment may be attempted by the gun banners in the future, that attempt COULD EASILY BE MADE WITH OR WITHOUT THE LANGUAGE/LAW IN S 397.
In regards to the armor piercing ammo part of the bill, Pickenup raised a valid point about the previous and very similar armor piercing law, which did not require a specific date for the law to be acted upon, However, with all the anti-gun liberals in government, it is felt that if the previous armor piercing law was of any real use to the anti-gunners, they would have jumped on it long ago. So in that regard, merely adding a time frame in which the armor piercing part of the law must be acted upon should not cause us any problems THAT COULD NOT HAVE ALREADY BEEN CAUSED. Besides, maybe we need to focus our gun rights fight on that very particular policy and get it resolved. Now that the gun makers protection act, which was a national problem, has been resolved, we will have more time, money and energy to fight other such fights.
Lastly, it was very, very important for us to have gotten S 397 passed NOW as opposed to waiting for a better time or a better bill. Reason being that Prres. Bush is losing popularity, power and support and at some point may become ever less supportative of gun owners than he has already become. This in an effort to try and get back some of that lost support from the more liberal part of the Republician party or even the more conservative support from Democrats. Plus, in a few short months, there will be new congressmen/women elected and when that happens there was no way to predict how much support a gun makers protection act would have.
So with the situation being that the Senate has passed S 397 albeit with two fairly minor unwanted parts (trigger lock and armor piercing ammo) and Pres. Bush stating he would sign it into law, we pro-gunners were 2/3rds of the way through the ball game and we had two points and the gun grabbers had zero points. We only needed for the House to pass their own matching bill for S397 or to pass S397 themselves and we progunners would win the game. However, many pro-gunners wanted to scrap S 397 and in effect start the whole ball game all over and roll the score back to both side having zero points. We will never know for sure if we pro-gunners could have even gotten back to our orginal position of 2/3rds through the game with a 2 point lead, let alone know if we could have ever won the game. We had little choice but ot push for the passage of S397. We could not risk the alternative of a total loss.
So bottom line, we don't have NEARLY as much worry (maybe NO worries) about not being able to buy new guns, parts and factory repairs as we had before the S 397 was passed. The trigger lock requirment is no big deal and we can now focus on fighting any problems (if any) regarding the armor piercing ammo part of S 397.
And regardless of what kind of gun maker protection bill was passed, didn't we all know that we would still have to continue fighting for our gun rights?
But in general I will say, about myself, I consider myself a honest, kind and good person as this is what I try to be. Yet if you were to minutely examine my life over my some 63 years, you would finds events in my life in which you could justifiably criticise me as not being that good person I try to be. This is the nature of many people and organizations; since organizations are run by people. But keep in mind that if you analyze the history of me, or of the NRA, there will absoutely be exagerrations and out-right lies creap into the data you are considering. And sometimes it is impossible to unravel the lies from the truth since it took place so long ago.
So sure, I will freely admit without a doubt there are probably many things in the 100+ year history of the NRA that the NRA has done things that I don't like or agree with. So the best I can do is to consider my own close-up experiences with the NRA and using that data decide if I should support the NRA.
The NRA obviously does good things. If you doubt it, merely read about how the NRA fights for gun rights in various parts of the USA and has constant programs going on to bring new shooters into the sport as well as retain current shooters. And most private gun clubs/ranges could not exist without help and support from the NRA. More recently, the ONLY two organizations (pro-gun or not) that took their fight to court to not only stop the NO gun seizures, but to have it ordered that the seized guns be returned to the lawful owners in N.O., LA was the NRA and the 2nd Amendment Foundatation. In regards to the outlawing of handguns in L.A., the only organization I know of that filed a lawsuit trying to overturn that is the NRA. In regards to passing a CCW law in MO, (next to my state of KS) the only organization that I know of that made that happen is the NRA. In regards to passing a CCW law in my home state of KS, the NRA is the only organization I know of that is working on that and got it passed until the govenor vetoed it.
So yeah, I support the NRA even with all it's faults. If I ever become disenchanted with it, rather that publically slam it, and thereby maybe cause it to lose support from potential new members as well as current members, I will do as Pickenup said and work within the NRA to reform it.
There are two kinds of people in this World....Those who lead....and those who get the hell out of the way...GUT CHECK!...Which one are you?
quote:The NRA obviously does good things. If you doubt it, merely read about how the NRA fights for gun rights in various parts of the USA and has constant programs going on to bring new shooters into the sport as well as retain current shooters. And most private gun clubs/ranges could not exist without help and support from the NRA.
I wholeheartedly agree with the above statement, and it is the reason why I maintain my NRA membership, even when I disagree with their political manuevering. I also strongly support their non-profit wing, the NRA Foundation.
However, I have a different take on S.397. There was a clean alternative in the House, H.R.800. GOA saw this and supported it while the NRA pretended it didn't exist. My only explanation for this is that the NRA felt that lawsuit protection for gun manufacturers trumped the cost and inconvenience of forcing gun owners to purchase gun locks, and the potential redefinition of armor piercing ammo to include common ammo used today. Hence my judgement that the NRA is essentially an industry lobbying organization. They took the quick and easy out.
It kind of reminds me of the Seinfeld episode where Kramer settles for the lifetime supply of free coffee instead of the multi-million dollar settlement that the coffee chain was willing to pay him for being burned by hot coffee. I think we had the votes to pass H.R.800. If NRA had united with GOA, then we could have had our cake and ate it too, lawsuit protection for manufacturers with no hidden anti-gun provisions.
We will just have to agree to disagree.[;)]
-Wolf
MOEUN EABE
The Second Amendment begins when the First Amendment ends.
TR, thanks for your respectful responses. I always appreciate your input.
quote:The NRA obviously does good things. If you doubt it, merely read about how the NRA fights for gun rights in various parts of the USA and has constant programs going on to bring new shooters into the sport as well as retain current shooters. And most private gun clubs/ranges could not exist without help and support from the NRA.
I wholeheartedly agree with the above statement, and it is the reason why I maintain my NRA membership, even when I disagree with their political manuevering. I also strongly support their non-profit wing, the NRA Foundation.
However, I have a different take on S.397. There was a clean alternative in the House, H.R.800. GOA saw this and supported it while the NRA pretended it didn't exist. My only explanation for this is that the NRA felt that lawsuit protection for gun manufacturers trumped the cost and inconvenience of forcing gun owners to purchase gun locks, and the potential redefinition of armor piercing ammo to include common ammo used today. Hence my judgement that the NRA is essentially an industry lobbying organization. They took the quick and easy out.
It kind of reminds me of the Seinfeld episode where Kramer settles for the lifetime supply of free coffee instead of the multi-million dollar settlement that the coffee chain was willing to pay him for being burned by hot coffee. I think we had the votes to pass H.R.800. If NRA had united with GOA, then we could have had our cake and ate it too, lawsuit protection for manufacturers with no hidden anti-gun provisions.
We will just have to agree to disagree.[;)]
-Wolf
MOEUN EABE
The Second Amendment begins when the First Amendment ends.
I am comfortable with "agreeing to disagree" and continue on as gun loving cousins. However I just want to briefly restate what I have already stated; perhaps not clearly enough.
First above red quote. Yes there was a clean HR 800 bill in the house, but S 397 was not all that "dirty". The Senate had already passed their S 397, with it standing by just ready for the house to pass it and then it would go to Bush for signature into law. So we had the Senate with an already approved and passed gun makers protection act and Bush standing by ready to sign such an act IF AN WHEN the House could either also pass S 397 or pass a bill of their own (H.R. 397 I guess) that would be identical to S 397 as this is the ONLY way any federal law gets passed. You cannot pass into law JUST a Senate bill or JUST a House bill. Any bill that goes to the Presidents desk to be signed into law must be not only one single bill but one indential bill that has been passed by BOTH the Senate and the House. If I am wrong on this, someone please correct me.
So we were at the stage of only needing that third part of the puzzle (House passage of S 397 or a matching H.R. bill passed) and we would have the much needed gun makers protection act become a law. To help you decide how to judge this situation, realize that the the anti-gunners in the Senate and even the House would have liked NOTHING BETTER than for the house to have passed H.R. 800 because then the Senate and House would have found themselves at such a disagreement that it is quite possible that NO BILLS protecting gun makers would have ever have made it to Bush to be signed into law.
Sen. Ted Kennedy had already attempted and almost suceeded in attaching some truly damaging armor piercing ammo language into S 397 and was beaten back on it. He would have welcomed yet another chance. If the Senate had to pass yet another bill, or to open up S 397 for revisions, there is no gurantee that this time Kennedy could have been beaten back. I for one didn't want to risk it.
So as so often happens in the real world (unless you are a dictator of some country) we had a small compromise and got the best we could; but we got a "good" best we could.
Second red quote above. Gun locks can be purchased for as little as 99 cents. I have done so at a gun show. S 397 doesn't require gun locks for private sales between indivduals. All new guns already come with gun locks. If putting up with this requirment got me the new law that will put a stop to the anti-gunners using my tax money and courts and cities to sue the gun makers out of business, then it is a tiny price to pay.
Third red quote above. The armor piericing ammo provision doesn't do much but restate law already on the books and that law hasn't cause us much/any trouble. If that is dangerous to us gun owners, then it would have been used by the anti-gunners by now. I believe the only difference in the armor piercing ammo language in S 397 is that it requires a decision about such ammo within a few years or so. We need to face this law anyway since it has been hanging over our heads all along anyway. At least now we can fight it without also having to fight to help keep gun makers in business.
BTW, if gun makers had had continue spending millions of their profits to keep on fighting those never ending lawsuits, IF they were able to stay in business they would have had to raise the price of their guns and parts and repairs to such a degree that many people could not have been able to afford them. That makes the tiny price of a trigger lock look not so bad.
OK, point taken, I just wish they would quit settling for less than total repeal of these unconstitutional laws. You want to talk about a monumental achievement, if the NRA could get the Supreme Court to rule on the second amendment they could quite literally save America. With the way things are going with the Patriot Act I think I may have understated the importance of an SC ruling. If it goes the wrong way, well I guess Highball will get his wish and we will go to war with the government. But if it goes our way (which I now have confidence that it will) all other MAJOR laws (like the Patriot Act) will be declared unconstitutional. This administration talks about suspending our rights like it was a provision of the Constitution, it is not. What we need is for all of the NRA members to march on Washington.
There are two kinds of people in this World....Those who lead....and those who get the hell out of the way...GUT CHECK!...Which one are you?
Public opinion and government officials opinion has an effect on supreme court decisions. It shouldn't but it does. I feel the supreme court should only make their decisions based on the language found in the US Constitution. If that language is not liked by a large number of people, then the language should be changed into something they do like. In the meantime, the existing constitutional language should rule.
With the sometimes goofy and unpredictable decisions of MANY courts, including the Supreme Court, for many decades, with the makeup of the court, there was no way to predict but what the court would rule AGAINST citizens being guaranteed gun rights by the second amendment.
But we have gotten lucky lately and maybe it was good that we waited for this luck. Citizens and many government officials are becoming more gun friendly. This for many reasons I won't list except to say that the mounting terrorism in the world and the outlaw behavior in the N.O. hurricane aftermath gives you some idea. So we have gotten help for a favorable supreme court decision because of a change for the better involving public opinion.
The second way we got lucky is that Pres. Bush has already appointed, not just a gun friendly new supreme court justice, but THE CHIEF justice. And he has nominated yet another person to become yet another gun friendly justice if confirmed to the court. If all this happens, then finally now is the time to take our case to the U.S. Supreme co
the bill was passed clean with no amendments.
I have not seen this in any of the e-mail or news.
Keep an eye open if anyone sees a copy of this bill
check it out.
Do to the high volume of mail from the RIGHT YOUR REP on NRA and GOA the bill S397 and HR800 was cleaned up and passed with no offending amendment.
NRA write your Rep. will save a stamp
http://www.capwiz.com/nra/home/
GOA
http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm
I guess I just feel that if the political/judicial will is there then we might as well do it right. If there are obstructionists in our midst, Democrat or Republican, then we should expose them. If the huddled masses see us as the extremists... then so be it.
Not directing this at anyone specifically, this is just a recurring theme of panic that I have seen on occassion in some posts.
-Wolf
MOLON LABE
The Second Amendment begins when the First Amendment ends.
I don't really understand the "Holy crap, we gotta pass all this legislation and these lawsuits before the Libs get back in control" mentality. Isn't that like trying to save the deck chairs on the Titanic?
I guess I just feel that if the political/judicial will is there then we might as well do it right. If there are obstructionists in our midst, Democrat or Republican, then we should expose them. If the huddled masses see us as the extremists... then so be it.
Not directing this at anyone specifically, this is just a recurring theme of panic that I have seen on occassion in some posts.
-Wolf
MOLON LABE
The Second Amendment begins when the First Amendment ends.
I know in my case I probably show some panic about trying to strengthen gun rights before the liberals get back in power. It is kinda like building up your strength because when the time is right, all your strength is going to be needed in order to resist the enemy. And with the recent elections around the country (Calif Swartznagers entire program shot down, several democratic canadidates elected over excellent republician canadidates, etc) the enemy shows signs of getting back in power. Despite the fact that Bush isn't as gun friendly as most of us would lke for him to be, we gun people have had it pretty good for the last several years when you compare what happened to us during Clinton's administration.
Sure, I could be an alarmist but as long as I have been around watching how things work I don't believe I am. But one thing I am sure of is that time will prove me either right or wrong.