Hi guys,

Suppose that you decide to join a small gun group like GOA or suppose that you decided to start a new group of your own.

Let me ask you a serious question:

What do you figure it would take to make your new group as well known and powerful as the NRA?

First of all, you would need millions and millions of dollars in order to buy advertising to make your group a household name like the NRA.  Let’s face it – practically everyone in the USA knows about the NRA.

Then you would have to convince 4 million guys that it would be a good idea to pay $35 a year to be a member of your group.

Then you would have to build a track record for being powerful in Washington.  Even the Democrats admit that they are afraid to mess with the NRA.  The NRA spent $20 million on TV ads against Kerry.   Bill Clinton gave the NRA credit for keeping Al Gore from winning the presidency.

See what I’m driving at?

Setting aside all the daydreams and big talk, in reality it would take hundreds of millions of dollars and probably 50 years or more to build up an organization like the NRA.

It’s almost impossible.  The Brady Campaign tried to do it and failed miserably.

That’s why the NRA members on this website get so frustrated with people who bash the NRA.

It’s not because we think the organization is perfect or anything, it’s because the NRA is one of the most powerful groups in Washington and it is virtually impossible to replace.  The NRA is literally worth diamonds and gold to all gun owners.

We just cannot understand why a gun owner would be glad to see the NRA torn down.

We have black rifle guys who hate the NRA because they say the NRA is just for hunters.

We have hunters who hate the NRA because they say it’s “too extreme”.

We have Hillary Clinton who hates the NRA because the NRA can spend $20 million on ads to keep her out of the white house.

How can it be possible that we have black rifle guys, hunters, and Hillary Clinton all working together against the NRA.  Tell me how that makes sense.

Please consider joining for a year.  It only costs $35.  If you join for 5 years, it costs $25 per year.  Let’s face it, that’s nothing nowadays.  You probably spend that on laundry detergent and those little dryer sheets every month.

If you belong to another group like GOA, that’s great.  But remember that it is also a good idea to join the NRA.  (You might even say it’s more important.  The NRA is a battleship and the GOA is a canoe.)

Please run a google search on the NRA.  Take a look at all the articles that come up in the NY Times, etc.  You can easily see for yourself how much the liberals hate and fear the NRA.   That alone makes it worth joining.

We live in a world where liberal fucktard celebrities wail and cry because a cop-killer is kept in jail.   Europeans look down their snot filled noses at us while their cities burn down with riots.  Nothing pisses them off more than the NRA.  Nothing makes liberals more angry than an NRA member, who they figure is a caveman that they “just can’t reach” with their message of evil happy crappy bullshit.  

Heck, I would join for that reason alone, even if I wasn’t a gun owner.

Plus, the magazine is pretty good, similar to the other gun magazines.

Regards,

Red65

Oo Rah, Yuk Yuk, SemperFi.

You should just jump to the end and start calling everyone who doesn't agree with you a cocksucker or something.

i'm an NRA member, and barring some insane event, probably always will be. but the fact remains that the NRA won't touch MG issues, and only begrudgingly acknowledges "assault weapons".

I did a poll awhile back - most folks here agree that we would be worse off from a gun rights standpoint if the NRA didn't exist

edited

and just so you are aware I am a member of and support the NRA, and it is a sad day in our world when you are a spokesman for them.

Sometimes, I think we get unrealistic expectations from our political system.  Back in the middle ages, if the Duke of York had 30,000 men, you made an alliance with him in order to win the battle, even if you had to hold your nose to do it.  In many ways, politics hasn't changed.  Yes, the NRA isn't perfect, but it has 4 million members and Congress listens to them.  A smart gun owner would join them long enough to ensure victory against the antis.  As others have said, if the NRA's membership doubled (which would still only be a small proportion of gun owners) we could wipe gun control out for a generation.  

edited

I pretty much agree with all the points mentioned. However, the NRA does have some problems, and they do some things which are pretty much guatanteed to piss people off. My personal list of gripes looks a bit like this:

• The Wayne LaPierre cult: A lot of time and money appears to be being spent agrandising Wayne LaPierre. As chief administrator he should be practically invisible. The president is the figurehead and all efforts should be directed towards making that person visible,


• The insulting level of propaganda sent out with the begging letters. Its worthy of a Ginsu knife advertisment. It treats all NRA members as imbeciles, and basically threatens them with dire concequences -- over exagerated in most cases -- if they don't cough up money.
  


• The insulting "choices" it gives when returning offers for a free gift: 1) Yes! I am proud to enclose my check for $150 to help the "Promote Wayne LaPierre fund!. 2) No, I am a mean, dispicable bastard, and want to take you up on your offer of free merchandise, even though I should know you don't really mean to give it away for free, but I am so cheap I am going to hold you to your word.


• The willingness to compromise on giving our rights away - the biggest example being the 1968 MG ban. Yes, they did get a lot of good things in that bill, but at the price of establishing the principle that various classes of weapons are not for the peasant classes to own.


• The reluctance to embrace black rifles and their kin. Admittedly, the Rifleman is getting more pro these sorts of guns. But I don't see real evidence of the organization paying more than lip service.


• The non-action on restrictions imposed by executive order. Bush could have recinded all of these orders with a wave of his pen. That should have been a condition of NRA support for his second term -- and yes, it would have been worth risking 4 years of Lurch in the whitehouse!


• The virtually blind partisanship. They will back an anti-gun (R) against a pro-gun (D) any day. Particularly at state and local levels. This just stinks.

Apart form the above, I am proud to be a life member...

Well put man.  I don't agree with EVERYTHING the NRA decides to do, but jeeze, I don't agree with everything the GOP does either, but that doesn't make me jump to the dems side.  All in all, I totally believe the NRA uses my money to do what they can to make sure the 2nd amendment isn't molested.  Anyhow, I never thought the NRA was for or against any certain type of gun owner.  In my view, they look more like an unbiased, pro 2nd amendment group that tries to vaguely cover all fieilds of gun ownership.  IMO, everyone who chooses to own a gun should be a lifetime member.  

edited

Quoted: i'm an NRA member, and barring some insane event, probably always will be. but the fact remains that the NRA won't touch MG issues, and only begrudgingly acknowledges "assault weapons".

Ditto, but I find the NRA's stance on NFA firearms rather hypocritical as many members of its BOD own them.

edited

if the NRA were ever to to on the offensive and get some of our gun rights back i would be all  over them.  as it is their philosophy is what we got is good enough.  they are a 100% defensive organization when it comes to gun legislation.  you can't win a war or your rights back by playing defense all the time  

Quoted: Quoted: i'm an NRA member, and barring some insane event, probably always will be. but the fact remains that the NRA won't touch MG issues, and only begrudgingly acknowledges "assault weapons". Ditto, but I find the NRA's stance on NFA firearms rather hypocritical as many members of its BOD own them.

Nothing is perfect, my friend.  Especially political groups like the NRA.

I think that if the NRA backed NFA stuff, it might cause a lot of harm.  They have to be very careful how they come off to the soccer moms.

The dems could make a lot of hay out of the NRA backing NFA guns.

The politicians (whores) might run away over that topic.

Heck, we're in a battle just to get people to understand that an AR15 is not a friggin R2D2 navy gatlin gun death machine.

Besides being a life member I suggest you get involved with your state backed NRA group and visit your state capitol when the NRA is there lobbying.  A lot of what you say is what people who aren't involved see but it's not really what's going on.

Quoted: I pretty much agree with all the points mentioned. However, the NRA does have some problems, and they do some things which are pretty much guatanteed to piss people off. My personal list of gripes looks a bit like this: The Wayne LaPierre cult: A lot of time and money appears to be being spent agrandising Wayne LaPierre. As chief administrator he should be practically invisible. The president is the figurehead and all efforts should be directed towards making that person visible, Wayne is the Cheif Executive Officer.  His job is to make sure things get done.  That means he travels all over the country to various events, puts on a ton of meetings, speaks to a ton of groups, and tries to get as much of the NRA programs and policies put in place.  When someone does that much work all over the country there is no way to avoid getting face time.    I don't really understand why you are upset that you see Wayne out and about rallying the troops to get things done?  That is his job.  Now if he was on the news talk shows, kicking it back at the whitehouse, and doing other things where his face was out there and he wasn't doing any work...then I would be pissed.   The insulting level of propaganda sent out with the begging letters. Its worthy of a Ginsu knife advertisment. It treats all NRA members as imbeciles, and basically threatens them with dire concequences -- over exagerated in most cases -- if they don't cough up money. I agree completely.  They go way over board with this and seem to be getting worse.  I'm not sure who is in charge of this. The insulting "choices" it gives when returning offers for a free gift: 1) Yes! I am proud to enclose my check for $150 to help the "Promote Wayne LaPierre fund!. 2) No, I am a mean, dispicable bastard, and want to take you up on your offer of free merchandise, even though I should know you don't really mean to give it away for free, but I am so cheap I am going to hold you to your word. I've never heard of the Wayne fund perhaps something you made.  But I agree with the rest and will add that the same goes for the survey questions they send out ask for donations.  "Make you voice heard.  A. Do you support the right to bear arms or B. Do you prefer everyone to be subjects of an evil oppressive government with no right to defend themselves."  WTF, that's not a choice. The willingness to compromise on giving our rights away - the biggest example being the 1968 MG ban. Yes, they did get a lot of good things in that bill, but at the price of establishing the principle that various classes of weapons are not for the peasant classes to own.  Typo, it was 1986.  Here is where you need to get involved with your state group and visit the capitol.  If politics worked the way you wanted it to then GOA would be the top pro-gun organization.  But as it is they actually get nothing accomplished because they refuse to work with the legislators.  You can't just order the legislators to do something, you have to convince them it is in their best interest.  Since a legislators primary interest is in getting re-elected they will always look at that interest first.  Back in 2000 when Michigan was trying to get a shall issue CCW law there were several legislators that wanted Vermont style most wouldn't support it though.  Had the NRA tried push for a Vermont style Michigan would not have gotten shall issue.  Most legislators supported the typical shall issue with background check and training, some didn't think it had enough requirements in it and wanted more restrictions.  The NRA worked with all the legislators to find a bill that would have enough votes to pass with the minimal number of restrictions.  When the vote came a couple of the Vermont style legislators threw a fit and threatend to vote against it because they wanted no restrictions at all.  If they had the votes would have been enough to kill the bill.  Eventually the NRA swayed enough people and the restricted bill was passed giving Michigan it's first real shall issue CCW law.  Since then they have gone back and reduced the restrictions twice.  The point is if the NRA pushed for a bill with no or less restrictions up front the bill never would have passed.  So you have to ask yourself what is better having a decent but not great legislation or having nothing?  That is what it really comes down to. The reluctance to embrace black rifles and their kin. Admittedly, the Rifleman is getting more pro these sorts of guns. But I don't see real evidence of the organization paying more than lip service. The NRA actually does a lot with black rifles.  They put on a lot of shooting competitions, as you mentioned they are all over Rifleman.  Let me ask you this of the 4 million NRA members what percent are black rifle owners?  5%? 10%?  Didn't you just get done complaining above that the NRA was wasting money on Wayne and he should just be small patatoes?  Why should the NRA spend a ton of money and go way out on a limb for such a tiny portion of it's membership?  Not that I don't agree with you...it's just that you have to look at things from the NRA side too. The non-action on restrictions imposed by executive order. Bush could have recinded all of these orders with a wave of his pen. That should have been a condition of NRA support for his second term -- and yes, it would have been worth risking 4 years of Lurch in the whitehouse! The virtually blind partisanship. They will back an anti-gun (R) against a pro-gun (D) any day. Particularly at state and local levels. This just stinks. I know that is not true for a fact.  Where I lived in Michigan was a strong Democrat area unfortunately.  However, I was lucky enough in that both my US Rep and my state senator were members of the Dingell family, both Democrats but both very pro-gun.  The NRA constantly backed them.  Any Democrat with a proven pro-gun record is backed by the NRA over an anti-gun Republican. Apart form the above, I am proud to be a life member...

I am coming around to the NRA after years of sitting on the sidelines and mostly giving $$ elsewhere in the pro-gun community. Why?

1) CCW. Until recently, it really pissed me off that the NRA would NOT offer an openly CCW oriented course. The course they offered was "NRA Personal Protection IN THE HOME".  - yes, that is what its called.  IN THE HOME (not outside of it).

HOWEVER, I spoke w/ a friend who assured me that the NRA is now coming out with a CCW course that should meet SOME (though not all) state's CCW classroom requirements.  ANd here in VA, the VCDL has been more out front than the NRA in fighting for our CCW rights - though the NRA might be working quietly on our behalf. Step in the right direction though.

2) Competition. I am a USPSA shooter. The NRA sucks as far as pistol competition goes. NRA's Bianchi cup/NRA Action pistol are pathetic sports that are fast fading away.  Example: The Cup: 1x per year: about 148 shooters this year - smaller and smaller every year.  USPSA Nationals: Well over 1000 competitors and growing; plus there is a World Shoot in USPSA.  NRA REALLY missed the boat as far as USPSA, IDPA and GSSF go.

And targets? The NRA does not think that you, the civilian. should be allowed to shoot at a torso-shaped target. True, they have PPC Competition - but civilians are banned from competing. In Bianchi/"Action Pistol", its an NRA D-1 tombstone shaped target. Frankly, as a CCW holder who carries a gun every day, I find it patronizing that the NRA disapproves of me practicing by shooting at torso targets. Most of the NRA's competition department should be fired and replaced by people who are aware that its no longer the year 1961.

But, again, I think overall that things are changing for the better; the NRA is allowing a big 3gun in Ratton this summer (though its not USPSA or IDPA sanctioned) and again, they have the new CCW course.

I met Wayne once in 2002 at the Superbowl in New Orleans; it was the night before the game at the "Legends Dinner" - he seemed like a nice guy.

They will likely get my support this year (I already support them through an annon gift to ILA every year).

Quoted: Besides being a life member I suggest you get involved with your state backed NRA group and visit your state capitol when the NRA is there lobbying.  A lot of what you say is what people who aren't involved see but it's not really what's going on. Quoted: I pretty much agree with all the points mentioned. However, the NRA does have some problems, and they do some things which are pretty much guatanteed to piss people off. My personal list of gripes looks a bit like this: The Wayne LaPierre cult: A lot of time and money appears to be being spent agrandising Wayne LaPierre. As chief administrator he should be practically invisible. The president is the figurehead and all efforts should be directed towards making that person visible, Wayne is the Cheif Executive Officer.  His job is to make sure things get done.  That means he travels all over the country to various events, puts on a ton of meetings, speaks to a ton of groups, and tries to get as much of the NRA programs and policies put in place.  When someone does that much work all over the country there is no way to avoid getting face time.    I don't really understand why you are upset that you see Wayne out and about rallying the troops to get things done?  That is his job.  Now if he was on the news talk shows, kicking it back at the whitehouse, and doing other things where his face was out there and he wasn't doing any work...then I would be pissed.   The insulting level of propaganda sent out with the begging letters. Its worthy of a Ginsu knife advertisment. It treats all NRA members as imbeciles, and basically threatens them with dire concequences -- over exagerated in most cases -- if they don't cough up money. I agree completely.  They go way over board with this and seem to be getting worse.  I'm not sure who is in charge of this. The insulting "choices" it gives when returning offers for a free gift: 1) Yes! I am proud to enclose my check for $150 to help the "Promote Wayne LaPierre fund!. 2) No, I am a mean, dispicable bastard, and want to take you up on your offer of free merchandise, even though I should know you don't really mean to give it away for free, but I am so cheap I am going to hold you to your word. I've never heard of the Wayne fund perhaps something you made.  But I agree with the rest and will add that the same goes for the survey questions they send out ask for donations.  "Make you voice heard.  A. Do you support the right to bear arms or B. Do you prefer everyone to be subjects of an evil oppressive government with no right to defend themselves."  WTF, that's not a choice. The willingness to compromise on giving our rights away - the biggest example being the 1968 MG ban. Yes, they did get a lot of good things in that bill, but at the price of establishing the principle that various classes of weapons are not for the peasant classes to own.  Typo, it was 1986.  Here is where you need to get involved with your state group and visit the capitol.  If politics worked the way you wanted it to then GOA would be the top pro-gun organization.  But as it is they actually get nothing accomplished because they refuse to work with the legislators.  You can't just order the legislators to do something, you have to convince them it is in their best interest.  Since a legislators primary interest is in getting re-elected they will always look at that interest first.  Back in 2000 when Michigan was trying to get a shall issue CCW law there were several legislators that wanted Vermont style most wouldn't support it though.  Had the NRA tried push for a Vermont style Michigan would not have gotten shall issue.  Most legislators supported the typical shall issue with background check and training, some didn't think it had enough requirements in it and wanted more restrictions.  The NRA worked with all the legislators to find a bill that would have enough votes to pass with the minimal number of restrictions.  When the vote came a couple of the Vermont style legislators threw a fit and threatend to vote against it because they wanted no restrictions at all.  If they had the votes would have been enough to kill the bill.  Eventually the NRA swayed enough people and the restricted bill was passed giving Michigan it's first real shall issue CCW law.  Since then they have gone back and reduced the restrictions twice.  The point is if the NRA pushed for a bill with no or less restrictions up front the bill never would have passed.  So you have to ask yourself what is better having a decent but not great legislation or having nothing?  That is what it really comes down to. The reluctance to embrace black rifles and their kin. Admittedly, the Rifleman is getting more pro these sorts of guns. But I don't see real evidence of the organization paying more than lip service. The NRA actually does a lot with black rifles.  They put on a lot of shooting competitions, as you mentioned they are all over Rifleman.  Let me ask you this of the 4 million NRA members what percent are black rifle owners?  5%? 10%?  Didn't you just get done complaining above that the NRA was wasting money on Wayne and he should just be small patatoes?  Why should the NRA spend a ton of money and go way out on a limb for such a tiny portion of it's membership?  Not that I don't agree with you...it's just that you have to look at things from the NRA side too. The non-action on restrictions imposed by executive order. Bush could have recinded all of these orders with a wave of his pen. That should have been a condition of NRA support for his second term -- and yes, it would have been worth risking 4 years of Lurch in the whitehouse! The virtually blind partisanship. They will back an anti-gun (R) against a pro-gun (D) any day. Particularly at state and local levels. This just stinks. I know that is not true for a fact.  Where I lived in Michigan was a strong Democrat area unfortunately.  However, I was lucky enough in that both my US Rep and my state senator were members of the Dingell family, both Democrats but both very pro-gun.  The NRA constantly backed them.  Any Democrat with a proven pro-gun record is backed by the NRA over an anti-gun Republican. Apart form the above, I am proud to be a life member...

I personally support the NRA, but also Gun Owners of America (GOA), Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKB), and Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership.

The antigun crowd has a bunch of little 3 and 4 member paper organizations that are nothing more than another desk at the Brady Bunch or VPC offices.  They make press releases and the press likes to make it look like there are a gazillion organizations against gun proliferation.

And they try their best to focas all their bile on the NRA, to make it appear that the NRA is the only thing standing in the way of "common sense gun laws".

Thus my support of GOA, CCRKB, and JPFO.  I don't dislike the NRA.  It is just that we need these other organizations as well.

Good responses. My comments in-line below:

Quoted: Besides being a life member I suggest you get involved with your state backed NRA group and visit your state capitol when the NRA is there lobbying.  A lot of what you say is what people who aren't involved see but it's not really what's going on. Quoted: I pretty much agree with all the points mentioned. However, the NRA does have some problems, and they do some things which are pretty much guatanteed to piss people off. My personal list of gripes looks a bit like this: The Wayne LaPierre cult: A lot of time and money appears to be being spent agrandising Wayne LaPierre. As chief administrator he should be practically invisible. The president is the figurehead and all efforts should be directed towards making that person visible, Wayne is the Cheif Executive Officer.  His job is to make sure things get done.  That means he travels all over the country to various events, puts on a ton of meetings, speaks to a ton of groups, and tries to get as much of the NRA programs and policies put in place.  When someone does that much work all over the country there is no way to avoid getting face time.    I don't really understand why you are upset that you see Wayne out and about rallying the troops to get things done?  That is his job.  Now if he was on the news talk shows, kicking it back at the whitehouse, and doing other things where his face was out there and he wasn't doing any work...then I would be pissed.   I personally don't believe that the organization needs a CEO. Wayne treats the members like shareholders, seemingly not understanding that this isn't a corporation, its an association of its members. The members are what is important. I have no problem with him getting things done, if they are the right things. I seem to see him spending more time propmoting his books than anything else -- which is fine, provided that all proceeds go to the NRA. The insulting level of propaganda sent out with the begging letters. Its worthy of a Ginsu knife advertisment. It treats all NRA members as imbeciles, and basically threatens them with dire concequences -- over exagerated in most cases -- if they don't cough up money. I agree completely.  They go way over board with this and seem to be getting worse.  I'm not sure who is in charge of this. The insulting "choices" it gives when returning offers for a free gift: 1) Yes! I am proud to enclose my check for $150 to help the "Promote Wayne LaPierre fund!. 2) No, I am a mean, dispicable bastard, and want to take you up on your offer of free merchandise, even though I should know you don't really mean to give it away for free, but I am so cheap I am going to hold you to your word. I've never heard of the Wayne fund perhaps something you made.  But I agree with the rest and will add that the same goes for the survey questions they send out ask for donations.  "Make you voice heard.  A. Do you support the right to bear arms or B. Do you prefer everyone to be subjects of an evil oppressive government with no right to defend themselves."  WTF, that's not a choice. Yes, I made that up - reflection of the above which I let creep into this section. This is another example of treating the members as having less intelligence than cattle. A good CEO would NEVER allow the members to be treated in this way, even if it does produce more money -- money is not the object, the memers are. That point of view seems to have gotten lost. The willingness to compromise on giving our rights away - the biggest example being the 1968 MG ban. Yes, they did get a lot of good things in that bill, but at the price of establishing the principle that various classes of weapons are not for the peasant classes to own.  Typo, it was 1986.  Here is where you need to get involved with your state group and visit the capitol.  If politics worked the way you wanted it to then GOA would be the top pro-gun organization.  But as it is they actually get nothing accomplished because they refuse to work with the legislators.  You can't just order the legislators to do something, you have to convince them it is in their best interest.  Since a legislators primary interest is in getting re-elected they will always look at that interest first.  Back in 2000 when Michigan was trying to get a shall issue CCW law there were several legislators that wanted Vermont style most wouldn't support it though.  Had the NRA tried push for a Vermont style Michigan would not have gotten shall issue.  Most legislators supported the typical shall issue with background check and training, some didn't think it had enough requirements in it and wanted more restrictions.  The NRA worked with all the legislators to find a bill that would have enough votes to pass with the minimal number of restrictions.  When the vote came a couple of the Vermont style legislators threw a fit and threatend to vote against it because they wanted no restrictions at all.  If they had the votes would have been enough to kill the bill.  Eventually the NRA swayed enough people and the restricted bill was passed giving Michigan it's first real shall issue CCW law.  Since then they have gone back and reduced the restrictions twice.  The point is if the NRA pushed for a bill with no or less restrictions up front the bill never would have passed.  So you have to ask yourself what is better having a decent but not great legislation or having nothing?  That is what it really comes down to. Not quite the same thing. There was no trading away existing rights there, simply setting the sights lower and asking for less, knowing that asking for the moon was going to get nothing. That sort of compromise is reasonable. Trading away rights is not. Quite honestly, I would feel much better about the NRA if they would admit that this was a mistake and start work on correcting it. The reluctance to embrace black rifles and their kin. Admittedly, the Rifleman is getting more pro these sorts of guns. But I don't see real evidence of the organization paying more than lip service. The NRA actually does a lot with black rifles.  They put on a lot of shooting competitions, as you mentioned they are all over Rifleman.  Let me ask you this of the 4 million NRA members what percent are black rifle owners?  5%? 10%?  Didn't you just get done complaining above that the NRA was wasting money on Wayne and he should just be small patatoes?  Why should the NRA spend a ton of money and go way out on a limb for such a tiny portion of it's membership?  Not that I don't agree with you...it's just that you have to look at things from the NRA side too. It would be interesting to find out what proportion of NRA members own or shoot black rifles or their cousins. I would not mind betting that its more than you think. Its certainly more of the younger members -- and non-members -- which is exactly why I think they are slowly coming around. Its not to represent their members, its to prevent themselves becoming irrelevant. The days of wood and blued steel are close to over, except for reasons of nostalgia. In functional terms and economic terms the EBR design wins hands down. Look at most of the new designs for rifles - they pretty much all now have a straight line from shoulder to muzzle and are built of composite plastics and light metal alloys along with corrosion resistant metal finishes. Not a reason to abandon members who love their wood and blued steel, but just recognise that those designs are destined to become museum pieces. The non-action on restrictions imposed by executive order. Bush could have recinded all of these orders with a wave of his pen. That should have been a condition of NRA support for his second term -- and yes, it would have been worth risking 4 years of Lurch in the whitehouse! The virtually blind partisanship. They will back an anti-gun (R) against a pro-gun (D) any day. Particularly at state and local levels. This just stinks. I know that is not true for a fact.  Where I lived in Michigan was a strong Democrat area unfortunately.  However, I was lucky enough in that both my US Rep and my state senator were members of the Dingell family, both Democrats but both very pro-gun.  The NRA constantly backed them.  Any Democrat with a proven pro-gun record is backed by the NRA over an anti-gun Republican. Then I can only say that you have been lucky. In Oregon we see them continue to push for our (R) Senator, who has apparently never seen a gun restriction he didn't like, and they pushed their favorite (R) candidate for govenor, even though he was the author of some of the most vile gun control legislation ever to be considered by this state -- fortunately recognised as such and dumped. Apart form the above, I am proud to be a life member...

Quoted: If you do not like the NRA, join it, get your friends to join it, and change it from within just like was done in 1977. But nothing better or more effective is going to come around anytime soon.

I agree that its the best bet we have, and that EVERY member of Arfcom (at least) should be a member. If only they made being a member a little less painfull....

edited

edited

pa

edited

Holy cow!  Did this thread just get the "Nail puller of the Dead"?  What was the last time a thread got locked and unlocked in GD?

Anyways....NRA isn't perfect, but its damn good.

Quoted: and another NRA thread bites the dust

Was my original post offensive?  I'm not playing dumb, I don't understand the bile that this thread provoked.

The only even remotely negative item in my original post was the part about the liberal celebrities and europeans.  How is that bad to say?  Screw them.  I hate them, they are destroying our society.  I'm proud to offend liberals.  You can hardly avoid offending liberals.  They expect you to tiptoe around being Politically Correct metrosexual pussbags like they are.

I wrote that into the post thinking of it as a free bonus for joining the NRA.  Offend liberals and get a nice magazine.

Looks like it struck a nerve somehow.  I'm sort of confused about it.

Certainly the rest of the post about how important the NRA is could not have made everyone get all riled up like this.  Or is that it?

Quoted: Indeed the NRA is THE brand name.  While the JPFO and GOA are more absolutist in their views, the NRA is the one that actually gets things done.

Join all 3.

I am NRA and GOA. I am thinking JPFO or perhaps something local.

Don't like the NRA? Rather than whine of about this and that?  The anti-gunners are not scarced of whining people, but they are concerned about people who get off their backsides and actually do something about the problem. Do something pro-gun in it's place.

How about volunteering to campaign for a pro-gun candidate in the coming fall elections, or against a anti-gun candidate.  The NRA does a lot in this area, where you defeat anti-gun candidate before you even hear about them in the news media.  I've have been doing this political stuff for a few years, and this is a lot of work.

Quoted: if the NRA were ever to to on the offensive and get some of our gun rights back i would be all  over them.  as it is their philosophy is what we got is good enough.  they are a 100% defensive organization when it comes to gun legislation.  you can't win a war or your rights back by playing defense all the time

Problem is I don't even see them as defensive, they are more of a compromise organization by my view. They are going towards an all out ban on all firearms about 1/5th as fast as the democrats... I don't have any ill will towards them, and I'm happy to let them continue to provide the type of training and stuff ty're great at, but when it comes to legislative stuff, my money is going to GOA where it will get the best bang for the few bucks I have....

If it wasnt for the NRA the guns would already be gone.

Quoted: if the NRA were ever to to on the offensive and get some of our gun rights back i would be all  over them.  as it is their philosophy is what we got is good enough.  they are a 100% defensive organization when it comes to gun legislation.  you can't win a war or your rights back by playing defense all the time

You read too much of the general news media.  The NRA is reponsible for getting must-issue CCWs in many states, and of course the gun manufacturers liability law on the federal level.  That anti-gunners figured that if you bring enough lawsuits you can bankrupt this cottage industry.  If you read too much of the BS from the anti-gun general news media of course the sky is falling.

Of course the next battle the anti-gunners are taking is to ban your gun by international treaty via the UN, even thought the UN denies it up and down, but the anti-gunners are using the UN as vehicle to limit your gun rights right here in the USA.  The blue helment boys are here whether you like it or not.  This is one reason why the NRA haa NGO status in the UN.  Any other pro-firearms group has NGO(non-governmental organization) status?  GOA? etc.  BTW: if you don't have NGO status you can not even attend these meetings.

While the NRA does little for BR's, they help a lot with the self defense/concealed carry thing. And wasn't it the NRA that sued the NO govt for taking guns during the katrina? Nobody's perfect but the NRA serves an excellent purpose. I'm 18. I'm a member. 35 bucks.

Now I feel cheap for not buying a membership on ARFcom guess thats next.

Quoted: The virtually blind partisanship. They will back an anti-gun (R) against a pro-gun (D) any day. Particularly at state and local levels. This just stinks.

That is just common sense political math...

They would rather have one more (R) who votes for a pro-gun (R) leadership, than an pro-gun (D) who puts the Dems in charge...

Seeing as how it HAS gotten to a 1-vote margin over the last few years in DC, I'd say they're right (since the party leadership is who actually gets things done, not the individual reps)...

Quoted: While the NRA does little for BR's, they help a lot with the self defense/concealed carry thing. And wasn't it the NRA that sued the NO govt for taking guns during the katrina? Nobody's perfect but the NRA serves an excellent purpose. I'm 18. I'm a member. 35 bucks. Now I feel cheap for not buying a membership on ARFcom guess thats next.

Ha, now I don't feel cheap

what a waste of my time