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.

Join the NRA?

ScottymacScottymac Member Posts: 472 ✭✭✭
Join the NRA? I did and then they called me it seemed like right after I joined and wanted more money, this became a cycle, maybe I should have ponied up the life member fee but I couldn't afford it and I had enough they were not winning any battles anyway, I let my subscription/membership lapse. I have watched our rights to choice in this country erode and so while I really don't agree with everything the NRA does, or how they spend the money and I think they should be louder but guess what without us voters to dangle in the pols faces and lots more of us are needed to GAIN ground so support the NRA and other Grassroots orgs and send them money if the NRA goes we go with it!
«1

Comments

  • pickenuppickenup Member Posts: 22,846 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Here we go again........
  • dsmithdsmith Member Posts: 902 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    pickenup is right. LOL. Everyone knows my stance on the NRA, but I'll reiterate it here again for the new guys: NRA gives up too much ground. NRA doesn't fight for gun law rollbacks.

    If you want to join a REAL pro-gun group, join the Gun Owners of America (gunowners.org) or the Jews For The Preservation Of Firearms Ownership (jpfo.org).

    Both the GOA and JPFO are infinitely better than the NRA.
  • tr foxtr fox Member Posts: 13,856
    edited November -1
    What the above posters said has some truth and merit, although almost anybody or any organization can be criticized and that criticism will have at least some merit.

    Just remember that various organizations are a lot like people. They/we all have a slightly different opinion on how best to reach our goal.. But if different organizations/people have at least the same general goal then we should all try and remain alllies until the battle is won.

    Remember also that the NRA (and all pro-gun organizations) are fighting a desperate political battle in an attempt to save our gun rights. Such battles require lots and lots of money. So should the NRA ask its members to contribute as much as they can or should they stand on a street corner with a tin cup?
  • WoundedWolfWoundedWolf Member Posts: 1,658 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    As TR and many others know, I used to be very pro-NRA, and am indeed still a paying member.

    However, after the H. R. 800 debacle, I came to the realization that the NRA is a gun industry lobbying organization, not a gun rights lobbying organization.

    The interests of the gun manufacturers will always trump that of the gun owners when it comes to the activities of the NRA.
  • tr foxtr fox Member Posts: 13,856
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by WoundedWolf
    As TR and many others know, I used to be very pro-NRA, and am indeed still a paying member.

    However, after the H. R. 800 debacle, I came to the realization that the NRA is a gun industry lobbying organization, not a gun rights lobbying organization.

    The interests of the gun manufacturers will always trump that of the gun owners when it comes to the activities of the NRA.


    WW, refresh my memory on what H.R. 800 was about. Was that the firearm manufacturers protection bill? If so, it was bankrolled largely by the firearms industry and the protection provided to the manufacturers is also protection to the civilian gun owning/buying public. Simply because if there are no civilian guns to buy, or no parts or factory repairs for the existing guns, or if the guns are now so expensive that civilians can't afford them, then that is just another way to disarm the American public.

    So it H.R. was about all that, then the NRA did two major players a very, very large favor. The firearms industry and the American civilian gun owners.
  • pickenuppickenup Member Posts: 22,846 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    OK, we can go through this AGAIN.

    HB 800 was a CLEAN BILL, which had MORE than enough sponsors to see it through.

    S. 397 had ANTI-GUN attachments.
    The NRA supported S. 397.

    ALL THE OTHER PRO-GUN ORGANIZATIONS SUPPORTED HB 800.

    S. 397 passed, some say largely due to the NRA's support.
    Some of the repercussions of S. 397 are still pending.
    The rest of the ANTI-GUN attachments have been implemented.
  • WoundedWolfWoundedWolf Member Posts: 1,658 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
  • tr foxtr fox Member Posts: 13,856
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by pickenup
    OK, we can go through this AGAIN.

    HB 800 was a CLEAN BILL, which had MORE than enough sponsors to see it through.

    S. 397 had ANTI-GUN attachments.
    The NRA supported S. 397.

    ALL THE OTHER PRO-GUN ORGANIZATIONS SUPPORTED HB 800.

    S. 397 passed, some say largely due to the NRA's support.
    Some of the repercussions of S. 397 are still pending.
    The rest of the ANTI-GUN attachments have been implemented.


    Ah, yes. I remember now. H.B. 800 was the unattainable bill that if we had held out and insisted on only that bill, and nothing else, we would have been left with no bill at all. And if that had happened the civilian gun manufacturers would probably be out of business by now or at least severly hampered. So yeah, S.397 was a compromise. But everyone, everywhere, compromises to one degree or another. With family, on the job, with our spending, with other govenment regs, local laws, with our politicans we support who are impefect but sometimes the best we can get, etc.
  • dsmithdsmith Member Posts: 902 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by tr fox
    quote:Originally posted by pickenup
    OK, we can go through this AGAIN.

    HB 800 was a CLEAN BILL, which had MORE than enough sponsors to see it through.

    S. 397 had ANTI-GUN attachments.
    The NRA supported S. 397.

    ALL THE OTHER PRO-GUN ORGANIZATIONS SUPPORTED HB 800.

    S. 397 passed, some say largely due to the NRA's support.
    Some of the repercussions of S. 397 are still pending.
    The rest of the ANTI-GUN attachments have been implemented.


    Ah, yes. I remember now. H.B. 800 was the unattainable bill that if we had held out and insisted on only that bill, and nothing else, we would have been left with no bill at all. And if that had happened the civilian gun manufacturers would probably be out of business by now or at least severly hampered. So yeah, S.397 was a compromise. But everyone, everywhere, compromises to one degree or another. With family, on the job, with our spending, with other govenment regs, local laws, with our politicans we support who are impefect but sometimes the best we can get, etc.


    I am curious as to why you would say that H.B. 800 was unattainable. What makes an anti-gun bill that basically says the same thing more attainable than a pro-gun bill?
  • tr foxtr fox Member Posts: 13,856
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by dsmith
    quote:Originally posted by tr fox
    quote:Originally posted by pickenup
    OK, we can go through this AGAIN.

    HB 800 was a CLEAN BILL, which had MORE than enough sponsors to see it through.

    S. 397 had ANTI-GUN attachments.
    The NRA supported S. 397.

    ALL THE OTHER PRO-GUN ORGANIZATIONS SUPPORTED HB 800.

    S. 397 passed, some say largely due to the NRA's support.
    Some of the repercussions of S. 397 are still pending.
    The rest of the ANTI-GUN attachments have been implemented.


    Ah, yes. I remember now. H.B. 800 was the unattainable bill that if we had held out and insisted on only that bill, and nothing else, we would have been left with no bill at all. And if that had happened the civilian gun manufacturers would probably be out of business by now or at least severly hampered. So yeah, S.397 was a compromise. But everyone, everywhere, compromises to one degree or another. With family, on the job, with our spending, with other govenment regs, local laws, with our politicans we support who are impefect but sometimes the best we can get, etc.


    I am curious as to why you would say that H.B. 800 was unattainable. What makes an anti-gun bill that basically says the same thing more attainable than a pro-gun bill?


    Good and honest question. Thanks for asking. From close observations and polling of various members of congress, it was obvious that S.397 was almost a slam dunk. H.B. 800 was a battle in progress. Most people knew that in the very near future Congress would be controlled by the anti-gun democratic party and there would then be absolutely no chance whatsoever of passing ANY gun manufacturers protection bill. We gun owners, wile not in the gun making business, had to have a firearms manufacturers bill passed. Because, just as with the anti-gunners demonizing a particular type of firearm solely because they LOOK LIKE a military firearm and also look scary (assault weapons) and thereby making it much, much easier to gather support for banning such firearms (they did in 1994-2004), the anti-gunners had discovered they could use your very own tax money and have various uncountable cities sue gun manufacturers out of existance for the civilian market.

    So, we would have still had our gun rights, but no guns to buy, no parts or repairs, etc. and I am sure the anti-gunners would have then starte sueing ammo makers and FFL holders out of existance also. So we had to have the best bill put into place that we could get. So it was one of those hated "compromises" in that we did get a bill in place before the Democrats took over but it was not the best bill it could have been. But we still won because we got the protection of that bill into place.


    Now if anyone thinks we could have/should have done better, then why don't you here and now start lobbying for another, new, bill that you like better than the S.397 ? Lobby for that to get passed and replace S.397 that you think was such a betrayal by the NRA.
  • dsmithdsmith Member Posts: 902 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I consider it a betrayal. First off, the trigger lock requirement. Just a blatant tax on people who buy handguns.

    But my real problem relies in the other anti-gun rider. It is an ammunition restriction study designed to re-evaluate the definition of armor piercing rounds. Typically when they say AP ammunition, they are referring to steel-core rounds for calibers like .30-06 that would perform well against (obsolete) armored vehicles.

    If they changed it (as the Demonkrats push for) to refer to the calibers that can pierce body armor, then we have serious problems.

    I'll enumerate them:

    Depending on their definition of body armor, it could apply to any handgun more powerful than a .380 ACP, and most certainly any rifle round. I'll explain.

    Level 1 body armor protects from .22LR and .380 ACP ammunition.

    Level IIA protects from low velocity 9mm rounds, and .38 special, among others.

    Level II protects against medium/high velocity 9mm rounds and .357 magnum rounds.

    Level IIIA is as high as Kevlar goes, and protects against standard .44 magnum and the extreme velocity 9mm rounds, as well as 00 buckshot.

    Notice that the standard Kevlar body armor provides NO PROTECTION from any shotgun slug or rifle round. If they want protection from high powered handguns, slugs, or (some) rifles, they need their Kevlar to be augmented with a bulky, heavy steel plate.

    I for one don't like the thought of all rifle ammunition being declared armor-piercing. However, thanks to the NRA's beloved bill, we will have to fight that battle in the future.
  • tr foxtr fox Member Posts: 13,856
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by dsmith
    I consider it a betrayal. First off, the trigger lock requirement. Just a blatant tax on people who buy handguns. I did, you know, mention that the S.397 bill was not perfect. I have purchased cheap, plastic trigger locks, that work, for .99cents. Not much of a "blatant tax" . Plus, all new gun manufacturers are already providing some kind of trigger lock with all the guns they ship. IOW, you are asking, with this point, for way too much perfection in honest efforts to save our gun rights.

    But my real problem relies in the other anti-gun rider. It is an ammunition restriction study designed to re-evaluate the definition of armor piercing rounds. that fact was addressed and dimissed by the supporters of the bill. It comes down to the fact that what was already in effect was merely being voiced again in this bill. Typically when they say AP ammunition, they are referring to steel-core rounds for calibers like .30-06 that would perform well against (obsolete) armored vehicles.

    If they changed it (as the Demonkrats push for) to refer to the calibers that can pierce body armor, then we have serious problems.

    I'll enumerate them:

    Depending on their definition of body armor, it could apply to any handgun more powerful than a .380 ACP, and most certainly any rifle round. I'll explain.

    Level 1 body armor protects from .22LR and .380 ACP ammunition.

    Level IIA protects from low velocity 9mm rounds, and .38 special, among others.

    Level II protects against medium/high velocity 9mm rounds and .357 magnum rounds.

    Level IIIA is as high as Kevlar goes, and protects against standard .44 magnum and the extreme velocity 9mm rounds, as well as 00 buckshot.

    Notice that the standard Kevlar body armor provides NO PROTECTION from any shotgun slug or rifle round. If they want protection from high powered handguns, slugs, or (some) rifles, they need their Kevlar to be augmented with a bulky, heavy steel plate.

    I for one don't like the thought of all rifle ammunition being declared armor-piercing. However, thanks to the NRA's beloved bill, we will have to fight that battle in the future.we pro-gun people will ALWAYS have future battles.


    I care more for the bill we actually got that gives a lot of protection to my ability to buy new guns, get parts and repairs, than I worry about a .99 cent "tax" on my purchases. In regards to the armor pierceing topic, when it actually becomes a problem, simply because of S.397, let me know.
  • CrossdrawCrossdraw Member Posts: 9 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    DIVIDE AND CONQUOR - TOO MANY OF US ARE PLAYING INTO THEIR HANDS. WE BAD MOUTH THIS ONE AND BAD MOUTH THAT ONE AND END UP POINTING OUR MUZZLES AT OURSELVES! OUR HARD HEADS ARN'T GOING TO "WIN" US A THING. IF WE CAN'T STAND UNITED WERE GOING TO FALL DIVIDED. I'LL KEEP MY SUPPORT FOR THE NRA AND USE MY INTELECT TO PERSUADE THE POWERS TO BE WHY I SUPPORT THIS AND DON'T SUPPORT THAT. "I'M THE NRA, AND I VOTE".
  • HighballHighball Member Posts: 15,755
    edited November -1
    quote:DIVIDE AND CONQUOR - TOO MANY OF US ARE PLAYING INTO THEIR HANDS.
    You brought us 20,000+++ gun laws 'doing it your way'...
    I prefer mine.
    You by God WILL stand and be counted...or be scorned by those that love freedom ..the day the gun ban takes place. All you are doing is delaying the final outcome.
  • dsmithdsmith Member Posts: 902 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    TR, you mentioned the armor piercing amendment to be nothing more than restating what the law already said. This is not true. It has the potential to change the definition of armor piercing from the hard armor in vehicles to the soft armor in Kevlar vests. Level IIIA Kevlar won't even stop all handgun rounds, least of all a rifle round or shotgun slug.
  • tr foxtr fox Member Posts: 13,856
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by dsmith
    TR, you mentioned the armor piercing amendment to be nothing more than restating what the law already said. This is not true. It has the potential to change the definition of armor piercing from the hard armor in vehicles to the soft armor in Kevlar vests. Level IIIA Kevlar won't even stop all handgun rounds, least of all a rifle round or shotgun slug.


    I respect your opinions, but one of us is wrong. If I had more time and internet knowledge I would find proof one way or the other. And that proof would be a word by word comparsion of the old law involving armor piercing ammo compared to the wording found in S.397. Guess I will just have to wait and see if anything happens to prove one of us right or wrong.
  • pickenuppickenup Member Posts: 22,846 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    The old law, as well as the new one, both had provisions to re-define what "armor piercing" meant. The MAIN difference, between the two, was that the new law puts a time deadline on it. We will have to wait and see if/how the new law affects us.

    Where do you get the following information? H.B. 800 had MORE than enough sponsors AND support. It was said (at the time) that it would have passed, IF the NRA had backed this one, instead of the compromised one. One or the other was going to be passed in THAT session. What battle in progress do you refer to???

    quote:Originally posted by tr fox
    it was obvious that S.397 was almost a slam dunk. H.B. 800 was a battle in progress.

    A CLEAN bill.......OR.......a COMPROMISED bill?

    It "should" have been an easy choice for ANY second amendment advocate.
  • tr foxtr fox Member Posts: 13,856
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by pickenup
    The old law, as well as the new one, both had provisions to re-define what "armor piercing" meant. The MAIN difference, between the two, was that the new law puts a time deadline on it. We will have to wait and see if/how the new law affects us.

    Where do you get the following information? H.B. 800 had MORE than enough sponsors AND support. It was said (at the time) that it would have passed, IF the NRA had backed this one, instead of the compromised one. One or the other was going to be passed in THAT session. What battle in progress do you refer to???

    quote:Originally posted by tr fox
    it was obvious that S.397 was almost a slam dunk. H.B. 800 was a battle in progress.

    A CLEAN bill.......OR.......a COMPROMISED bill?

    It "should" have been an easy choice for ANY second amendment advocate.

    (in red above).
    So basically you are giving the NRA credit for a tremendous amount of clout and power with congress. Especially in regards to getting particular pro-gun bills passed or not passed. That somewhat surprises me because if you feel that way then I believe that several others here agree. Therefore I cannot understand why the NRA does not get more respect on this forum.

    The dust still had not settled and the debate on HR 800 was still going on. But it was obvious to observers that S.397 could be had merely by putting it to a vote. Had we not made a move and grabbed the best we could grab under the circumstance (S.397) it is llikely that we would have had neither S.397 nor H.B. 800 and we would not get such a chance at such a bill for another 8-10 years since the Democrats on presently firmly in the drivers seat and, especially if a Democrat is elected president, will be running this country for the forseeable future.

    With such as bill as H.B. 800, or the S.397 that passed, the Democrats could have their cake and eat it too. They could stop their attack on indivdual citizens gun rights, and stop angering many of their Democratic allies, yet still instutite a national gun ban simply buy suing all the civilian gun manufacturers out of business. We had to have either H.B. 800 or S.397. S.397 was easily attainable, H.B. 800 was in great doubt.
  • HighballHighball Member Posts: 15,755
    edited November -1
    quote:Especially in regards to getting particular pro-gun bills passed or not passed. That somewhat surprises me because if you feel that way then I believe that several others here agree. Therefore I cannot understand why the NRA does not get more respect on this forum.
    Contained within this statement is the total answer to all your questions concerning the NRA and the angst of many people over the NRA's position on the Second Amendment, TR.
  • pickenuppickenup Member Posts: 22,846 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by tr fox
    I cannot understand why the NRA does not get more respect on this forum.
    Read Henry0Reilly's post "Gun grabbers persist, new bill in congress"
    It is a Gun Owners of America E-Mail ALERT.

    They say, "it could prove to be the most serious threat to the
    Second Amendment we face under the new congressional leadership."

    Make sure you read the NRA's article on it.
    http://www.nraila.org//Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=197

    This isn't historical data, this is happening RIGHT NOW.
    And you ask why they do not get more respect here?
    Yes, they have a LOT of power, and use it to help expand on UNCONSTITUTIONAL laws.
  • dsmithdsmith Member Posts: 902 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    TR, I do recognize that the NRA has a lot of power. The reason I am against them is because they use their power on the WRONG side.

    They are the ones who supported the FOPA with its MG ban. They supported the watered-down GCA of 1968, as well as the NFA of 1934.

    All of the power in the world doesn't make a difference if you are playing into your enemy's hand.
  • tr foxtr fox Member Posts: 13,856
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by dsmith
    TR, I do recognize that the NRA has a lot of power. The reason I am against them is because they use their power on the WRONG side.Now you know that more times than not, all of us, including the NRA, are all on the same side. At least appreicate the NRA for those times.

    They are the ones who supported the FOPA with its MG ban. They supported the watered-down GCA of 1968, as well as the NFA of 1934.

    All of the power in the world doesn't make a difference if you are playing into your enemy's hand.


    Here is some frank talk. With the weak hold we gunners have on our gun rights, (in spite ot the second amendment, state constitutions, etc.) I DO NOT offer any support for ownerhship of machine guns. If all pro-gun people and organizations agressivley clamored for the right of lawful, peaceful citizens to own machine guns, at that point we gunners would lose total support for all of us (and therefore support for ALL gun rights) from the great majority of the citizens, the politicians, judges, juries, the media, etc.

    We cannot afford this huge and instant loss of support. In that regard I support the NRA for not support machinegun ownership rights.

    WHEN AND IF WE GUNNERS EVER CLEARLY AND FIRMLY ESTABLISH OUR CONSITITUTIONAL, LEGAL, AND MORAL RIGHT TO OWN GUNS THEN I WILL SUPPORT THE OWNERSHIP OF MACHINE GUNS.
  • tr foxtr fox Member Posts: 13,856
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by pickenup
    quote:Originally posted by tr fox
    I cannot understand why the NRA does not get more respect on this forum.
    Read Henry0Reilly's post "Gun grabbers persist, new bill in congress"
    It is a Gun Owners of America E-Mail ALERT.

    They say, "it could prove to be the most serious threat to the
    Second Amendment we face under the new congressional leadership."

    Make sure you read the NRA's article on it.
    http://www.nraila.org//Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=197

    This isn't historical data, this is happening RIGHT NOW.
    And you ask why they do not get more respect here?
    Yes, they have a LOT of power, and use it to help expand on UNCONSTITUTIONAL laws.


    Most of the time they do not do as you claim. Appreciaate the NRA for the good things they do and forgive them for any bad things that you see.
  • dsmithdsmith Member Posts: 902 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    So, TR, are you saying that you oppose machine gun rights, or are you just saying that you are not fighting for them at this stage?
  • tr foxtr fox Member Posts: 13,856
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by dsmith
    So, TR, are you saying that you oppose machine gun rights, or are you just saying that you are not fighting for them at this stage?


    I think that lawful citizens should have the right to purchase and own a machine gun just as easily as they purchase any other gun. But with the present climate so against ALL guns, I do not publically fight for machine gun rights. Reason being that because in most places where such a fight would have to take place I would be sure to lose.
  • dsmithdsmith Member Posts: 902 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by tr fox
    I think that lawful citizens should have the right to purchase and own a machine gun just as easily as they purchase any other gun. But with the present climate so against ALL guns, I do not publically fight for machine gun rights. Reason being that because in most places where such a fight would have to take place I would be sure to lose.


    Looks like we agree more than I previously thought. Cool. [:)]
  • tr foxtr fox Member Posts: 13,856
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by dsmith
    quote:Originally posted by tr fox
    I think that lawful citizens should have the right to purchase and own a machine gun just as easily as they purchase any other gun. But with the present climate so against ALL guns, I do not publically fight for machine gun rights. Reason being that because in most places where such a fight would have to take place I would be sure to lose.


    Looks like we agree more than I previously thought. Cool. [:)]


    [8D]
  • codenamepaulcodenamepaul Member Posts: 2,931
    edited November -1
    Such blind support-regardless of proof. Fox-I am losing faith in your intelligence by the day.
  • HighballHighball Member Posts: 15,755
    edited November -1
    He has looked into the abyss..and is clutching at whatever straws he can find to prevent the next step.

    Fox is a decent man...and he is being dragged kicking and screaming over the edge by the actions of a few of us...and pushed by those he trusted before..

    It is not comfortably to stand outside the fatherly embrace of those that proclaim themselves 'Protectors of Life, Liberty, ect.'
  • dsmithdsmith Member Posts: 902 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Highball
    He has looked into the abyss..and is clutching at whatever straws he can find to prevent the next step.

    Fox is a decent man...and he is being dragged kicking and screaming over the edge by the actions of a few of us...and pushed by those he trusted before..

    It is not comfortably to stand outside the fatherly embrace of those that proclaim themselves 'Protectors of Life, Liberty, ect.'


    I agree with Highball 100% on this one.
  • tr foxtr fox Member Posts: 13,856
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by codenamepaul
    Such blind support-regardless of proof. Fox-I am losing faith in your intelligence by the day.


    Well, that must mean at one point you had some "faith" in my "intelligence". So I guess your statement is not a 100% insult.
  • codenamepaulcodenamepaul Member Posts: 2,931
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by tr fox
    quote:Originally posted by codenamepaul
    Such blind support-regardless of proof. Fox-I am losing faith in your intelligence by the day.


    Well, that must mean at one point you had some "faith" in my "intelligence". So I guess your statement is not a 100% insult.


    No insult at all. I admire you Fox, just starting to "question our faith" and whether it's misguided.
  • tr foxtr fox Member Posts: 13,856
    edited November -1
    Roger that codenamepaul. I kinda think I knew you weren't being evil unlike some.
  • gunphreakgunphreak Member Posts: 1,791 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    The NRA is a compilation of its membership. I can assure you, if suddenly 4 million new members arrived wanting their unabridged right to own automatics, the NRA would jump.

    Instead, it makes its membership cozy with the thought that they will continue their tradition to hunt, and all is well.
  • Wagon WheelWagon Wheel Member Posts: 633 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    WTH does this mean???????????

    It is our hope that Mr. Zumbo will use his energy and talent to help preserve our Second Amendment, America's First Freedom, by ensuring that no one else falls prey to the tragic demonization of gun owners.

    http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/Releases.aspx?ID=8952

    Ok Highball, You ARE ABSOLUTLY RIGHT.
  • sig232sig232 Member Posts: 8,018
    edited November -1
    I read this thread and can understand both sides of the issue. The NRA is having to give up ground to achieve a victory of sorts. I am not sure GOA is a large enough group at this point to win many battles, but they are agressive and put forth a lot of effort.

    I do think we are all disecting the details and overlooking the big picture, in my humble opinion.

    When Hitler was taking over Europe all the countries had very different opinions as to how to confront him and where to begin to strike back. Until they all decided to agree on a plan they did not have much success.

    You have heard me say this before and let me state it again. Until all of us put aside our differences and join up to fight the same battle, and stop this flanking action, we will not even begin to stop this attack on the second amendment.

    The little pissy 3-4 million members of the NRA is not going to get the attention of Congress or the Supreme Court. Until most of the 80 million gun owners decide to link up and put their support behind one organization we will continue to fight this retreating action.

    Figure out how to do this and you have the solution! Discussing points on specific bills is fun but it does deflect from the issue at hand. How to reach the real mass of gun owners out there and get them to sign up for GOA or any other gun group is the real tough question. I don't think all the gun forums in the US have enough members to even come up to the numbers represented by the NRA membership.

    Any group of 50-80 million members would be one of the most powerful gun lobbying organizations on the Planet and could not be ignored.
  • HighballHighball Member Posts: 15,755
    edited November -1
    The points being raised continually about 'gun owners joining together'..I have searched for many years for the solution.

    I have given up on that particular aspect of the problem.

    Why ?
    1; Entirely too many gun owners live in a fantasy world.."It will NEVER happen here"..

    2; Entirely too many gun owners SUPPORT gun laws. I...I WILL NEVER SIDE those people...NEVER AGAIN.
    And I will work tirelessly to cut the legs out from under such Quislings.

    That leaves working with what we have...3% of the population...and a rotten corrupt ruling class.
  • tr foxtr fox Member Posts: 13,856
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Wagon Wheel
    WTH does this mean???????????

    It is our hope that Mr. Zumbo will use his energy and talent to help preserve our Second Amendment, America's First Freedom, by ensuring that no one else falls prey to the tragic demonization of gun owners.

    http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/Releases.aspx?ID=8952

    Ok Highball, You ARE ABSOLUTLY RIGHT.


    Could it be referring to the fact that the anti-gunners cleverly "demonized" an entire class of firearms just because of cosmetic features; and in so doing "demonized" the gun owners who own such guns?
  • Smitty500magSmitty500mag Member Posts: 13,597 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    If you don't want junk mail from the NRA sent to you just call them or send them an E-mail and tell them to take your name off of their junk mail list. It works. You'll only get voting info and a bill sent when you membership is about to expire.

    There are some other good organizations for gun owners out there but the truth is you only hear about the NRA from the liberals and in the media. The NRA is the only real game in town. If you don't support it then our gun rights will surely go to hell and would have already if it wasn't for the NRA.

    Smitty
  • WoundedWolfWoundedWolf Member Posts: 1,658 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    There are many "real" 2nd Amendment organizations out there that do an excellent job with assisting us in defending our rights. GOA and JPFO to name just two.

    But I agree that nothing stirs up the Libs quite like those three letters, N-R-A.

    [8D]
Sign In or Register to comment.