FOX says NRA fading into background - Page 2

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - FOX says NRA fading into background (Page 2 of 2)

Posted: 4/19/2010 10:39:50 AM EDT

[#1]

The liberal mindset would have to become completely and permanently extinct.

It'll never happen.

All rights require watchdogs to protect them.

CJ

Posted: 4/19/2010 10:42:03 AM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:
The liberal mindset would have to become completely and permanently extinct.

It'll never happen.

All rights require watchdogs to protect them.

CJ

This post ^^^ doesn't square with your first one––

Quoted:
I do think that the NRA fights for our gun rights in much the same manner that .gov fights the "war on drugs": They fight for a standstill, always keeping
it in "crisis mode" which guarantees plenty of funding. This ensures that the paid members of the board continue to get an assured paycheck.

They are fighting not to win, but to keep fighting and getting paid for it.

It's about lifetime employment.

CJ

Which is it?

Posted: 4/19/2010 10:58:09 AM EDT

[#3]

Oddly enough, it's a bit of both.

The antis will always try to eradicate guns, which, if it happened, would do nothing to reduce violent crime. The last people to give up their guns would be

the criminal element that doesn't obey laws anyway.

The NRA's primary task is to counter the antis and give us an organized and powerful voice to keep our elected officials well aware of our wishes in the times between election campaigns.

But, at the same time, the NRA is somewhat selective about which gun rights it gives the most support for. They DO fight a holding action instead of

trying to storm the beaches and take a lot of territory in a hurry.

Do you really think that the NRA board of directors would be willing to push through a total rollback of gun laws to pre-1934 levels, and get it written

right into the Constitution that all additional gun laws are null and void, if it meant that they'd be out of a job?

Most of them would not want to eliminate their own jobs.

So, it's some of both. I'm not wrong about either general statement. The NRA does work to protect our rights, and at the same time, it is

also focused on ensuring that the fight continues as it means a steady paycheck, so it will only fight up to a certain level.
CJ

Posted: 4/19/2010 11:11:03 AM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:
Oddly enough, it's a bit of both.

The antis will always try to eradicate guns, which, if it happened, would do nothing to reduce violent crime. The last people to give up their guns would be
the criminal element that doesn't obey laws anyway.

The NRA's primary task is to counter the antis and give us an organized and powerful voice to keep our elected officials well aware of our wishes in the times between election campaigns.

But, at the same time, the NRA is somewhat selective about which gun rights it gives the most support for. They DO fight a holding action instead of
trying to storm the beaches and take a lot of territory in a hurry. There is NO point in fighting a battle known to be lost before engaging. Plus, there's the money issue––given the number of gun owners who look for excuses rather than supporting the organization, there is only so much money to go around. Lobbying costs money, ergo . . .

Do you really think that the NRA board of directors would be willing to push through a total rollback of gun laws to pre-1934 levels, and get it written
right into the Constitution that all additional gun laws are null and void, if it meant that they'd be out of a job? How would the NRA "push through a total rollback of gun laws to pre-1934 levels"? You sound like the NRA could do this if they "just wanted to." Do you understand how laws are made?

Most of them would not want to eliminate their own jobs.

So, it's some of both. I'm not wrong about either general statement. The NRA does work to protect our rights, and at the same time, it is
also focused on ensuring that the fight continues as it means a steady paycheck, so it will only fight up to a certain level.

CJ

Blue.

Posted: 4/19/2010 11:30:32 AM EDT

[#5]

No, the NRA couldn't push back the gun laws to pre-1934 levels. Of course I know that!

Yes, I FULLY understand how laws are made.

IF the PEOPLE wanted the laws rolled back to pre-1934 standards, they'd have to elect Congressmen who would actually support such

a bill, introduce it, and vote for it, and win with a majority. If it's not a veto-proof majority, the President then COULD veto it.
What I'm saying is that the NRA is going to do what it has to in order to keep its membership reasonably happy, but I am not under any

false impression that it is an organization that acts selflessly. It will not put itself out of a job even if it can be done by achieving

total victory over the antis.

CJ

Posted: 4/19/2010 11:37:10 AM EDT

[#6]

The NRA does a fantastic job of drawing fire so that State level organizations can engage in successful flanking maneuvers.

Posted: 4/19/2010 11:59:22 AM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:
I do think that the NRA fights for our gun rights in much the same manner that .gov fights the "war on drugs": They fight for a standstill, always keeping
it in "crisis mode" which guarantees plenty of funding. This ensures that the paid members of the board continue to get an assured paycheck.

They are fighting not to win, but to keep fighting and getting paid for it.

It's about lifetime employment.

CJ

This sums it up quite nicely.

Not an NRA member, don't see a reason to become one. They seem to cater to the fudds. I don't shoot deer or ducks, and don't care about fudd guns.

Posted: 4/19/2010 12:03:17 PM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:
Just look at it this way, if they millionaires up at the NRA eliminate gun control they also eliminate their jobs.

Please think that through. They've existed for 125 years,do you really believe that they are
some nefarious bunch of fat cats that do nothing for gun owners? Do you think that their whole
existence has revolved around gun rights? This one dimensional line of thinking in any scenario
frustrates and disgusts me. Learn to think outside of your box or get used to living in one.

Posted: 4/19/2010 12:05:05 PM EDT

[#9]

Maryland's state house is about as one sided as it gets. The NRA could throw it's whole operating budget at it and accomplish
nothing.

Posted: 4/19/2010 12:12:36 PM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:

Maryland's state house is about as one sided as it gets. The NRA could throw it's whole operating budget at it and accomplish

nothing.

It's up to the voters to replace the members of the state house with candidates that respect ALL your rights. The NRA can help get the word out about

where the candidates stand, and that's really about as far as their powers extend.

It all comes down to the voters.

CJ

Posted: 4/19/2010 12:20:46 PM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:
The NRA would have alot more members if they did not charge the fees.
There are many people who would join together and help out a cause but won't give their money for nothing.
Hearing a number like 4.3 million members gives alot of people the idea that there are only 4.3 million people who want guns.The real number of people wanting their gun rights to stand or expand is much greater.Having a non paying member status could get a huge member count and help the cause.

FWIW I save more than $25/year in member benefits

For those of you in Rio Linda I'm getting more out of it than I'm putting in

Posted: 4/19/2010 12:21:19 PM EDT

[#12]

The NRA has yet to recognize that the right to keep and bear arms is primarily a check on the federal government codified in the Bill of Rights as the Second Amendment.
Whenever the NRA talks about the RKBA it is the context of a "sporting purpose" or a "self-defense" purpose at best. This creates a view that firearms can and should be heavily regulated by the federal government. This is further reinforced when the NRA states that it wants to "enforce the gun laws we have not make new ones." This assumes that all the firearm restrictions in existence are constitutionally valid.
There are many federal laws that should not be in place and violate the Constitution. The 1968 GCA "Sporting Purposes" clause remains in effect and completely unchallenged by the NRA. The 1934 NFA Chief LEO requirement remains in effect and even though there is the trust route that does not change the fact that the Chief LEO provision has not been challenged.
When the NRA refused to support Heller it came down on the wrong side of history. That was a devastating decision they will pay for as a organization for years to come.

Posted: 4/19/2010 12:39:23 PM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:
The NRA has yet to recognize that the right to keep and bear arms is primarily a check on the federal government codified in the Bill of Rights as the Second Amendment.

Whenever the NRA talks about the RKBA it is the context of a "sporting purpose" or a "self-defense" purpose at best. This creates a view that firearms can and should be heavily regulated by the federal government. This is further reinforced when the NRA states that it wants to "enforce the gun laws we have not make new ones." This assumes that all the firearm restrictions in existence are constitutionally valid.

There are many federal laws that should not be in place and violate the Constitution. The 1968 GCA "Sporting Purposes" clause remains in effect and completely unchallenged by the NRA. The 1934 NFA Chief LEO requirement remains in effect and even though there is the trust route that does not change the fact that the Chief LEO provision has not been challenged.

When the NRA refused to support Heller it came down on the wrong side of history. That was a devastating decision they will pay for as a organization for years to come.

You bashers sickatate the members at large here.

I wondered what the feeling was like at the board room table after Heller scored a win.

Posted: 4/19/2010 1:01:26 PM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Maryland's state house is about as one sided as it gets. The NRA could throw it's whole operating budget at it and accomplish
nothing.

It's up to the voters to replace the members of the state house with candidates that respect ALL your rights. The NRA can help get the word out about
where the candidates stand, and that's really about as far as their powers extend.

It all comes down to the voters.

CJ

Couldn't agree with you more. The problem as I have seen it is that despite a number of conservative counties.
Maryland is held hostage by Baltimore city and Montgomery and Prince George's counties. Aside from these uber liberal and "urban"
areas you have the phenomenon of old school democrats who couldn't vote republican with a gun to their heads.
Oddly enough, those same people have nothing in common with those for whom they vote.
Not to hijack the subject, but this is what makes me crazy about politics and gun rights.

Posted: 4/19/2010 1:06:32 PM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:
<snip>

What I'm saying is that the NRA is going to do what it has to in order to keep its membership reasonably happy, but I am not under any
false impression that it is an organization that acts selflessly. It will not put itself out of a job even if it can be done by achieving
total victory over the antis.

CJ

So you're saying they COULDN'T work themselves out of a job, but even if they could, they wouldn't. That about right?

How do you know this?

Posted: 4/19/2010 1:08:08 PM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:
Maryland's state house is about as one sided as it gets. The NRA could throw it's whole operating budget at it and accomplish
nothing.

Those looking for an excuse to not do their part see that as no excuse. They will claim––with a straight face––the NRA "just doesn't want to badly enough."

Posted: 4/19/2010 1:16:03 PM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Maryland's state house is about as one sided as it gets. The NRA could throw it's whole operating budget at it and accomplish
nothing.

It's up to the voters to replace the members of the state house with candidates that respect ALL your rights. The NRA can help get the word out about
where the candidates stand, and that's really about as far as their powers extend.

It all comes down to the voters.

CJ

So you grasp––and admit––the NRA has very limited power, yet you are willing to (unfairly, IMO) accuse them of extending the fight in order to maintain their jobs. This in spite of the fact there is NO evidence to support your (and others') claim. With "friends" like that . . .

Posted: 4/19/2010 1:24:51 PM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:
The NRA would have alot more members if they did not charge the fees.
There are many people who would join together and help out a cause but won't give their money for nothing.
Hearing a number like 4.3 million members gives alot of people the idea that there are only 4.3 million people who want guns.The real number of people wanting their gun rights to stand or expand is much greater.Having a non paying member status could get a huge member count and help the cause.

They have a 10.00 per year no magazine membership.
They started out to train riflemen for the military service.
There became a need to fight against restrictive gun laws and the NRA stepped up.
There is not one single person on this web site that does not owe the NRA thanks for the ability to have a gun cabinet with something in it.
If the mailings bother you, get them stopped, or throw them out.
When there are UN forces on American soil disarming US citizens remember that the NRA was the first to inform us of this threat. And I believe that hillary and the foreigner in chief are moving forward on the disarming of the US population through th united nations.

Posted: 4/19/2010 1:25:26 PM EDT

[#19]

EVERY TIME THERE IS A HIT PIECE ON TV THE NRA ALWAYS SAYS NO NO COMMENT.. THERE REALY FIGHT HARD!!! I NEVER SEE ONE PRO GUN ADVERTISEMENT ON TV,THERE A TON OF SHAM WOW ADVERTISEMENT!!!

Posted: 4/19/2010 1:31:06 PM EDT

[#20]

There is ONE political organization that people like Brady, and HCI and all the other douchebag gun-grabbers HATE and FEAR, and that organization is the NRA. Not the GOA, not some local grass-roots organization, and not angry letters from constituents. The NRA. Period.

The NRA is the only credible organization right now that has the power and momentum to affect Washington, and all the liberals know it. Might there be others in the future? Maybe 20 years from now, sure. But right now, there is no other horse to hitch the wagon to. None.

When someone like Diane Feinstein and Chuck Schumer see an article like this (assuming they didn't write it themselves), they undoubtedly giggle and laugh, hoping that people will actually believe it.

Posted: 4/19/2010 1:32:04 PM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:

Quoted:
The NRA has yet to recognize that the right to keep and bear arms is primarily a check on the federal government codified in the Bill of Rights as the Second Amendment.

Whenever the NRA talks about the RKBA it is the context of a "sporting purpose" or a "self-defense" purpose at best. This creates a view that firearms can and should be heavily regulated by the federal government. This is further reinforced when the NRA states that it wants to "enforce the gun laws we have not make new ones." This assumes that all the firearm restrictions in existence are constitutionally valid.

There are many federal laws that should not be in place and violate the Constitution. The 1968 GCA "Sporting Purposes" clause remains in effect and completely unchallenged by the NRA. The 1934 NFA Chief LEO requirement remains in effect and even though there is the trust route that does not change the fact that the Chief LEO provision has not been challenged.

When the NRA refused to support Heller it came down on the wrong side of history. That was a devastating decision they will pay for as a organization for years to come.

You bashers sickatate the members at large here.

I wondered what the feeling was like at the board room table after Heller scored a win.

"Whenever the NRA talks about the RKBA it is the context of a "sporting purpose" or a "self-defense" purpose at best."

The above statement is laughably stupid and is absolutely 100% incorrect. You literally could not be more wrong, and there 10,000 examples to prove it, both old and new.

You guys ran out of half-baked horeseshit to support your argument, now you're just simply re-writing history.

I know that you guys are bio-chemically incapable of understanding this, but the shooting world existed before the AR15 / tupperware explosion of the early 1990s.

Everything was exactly the same.

The anti-gun movement and the NRA were fighting the exact same battle in 1970, except instead of harping on "assault rifles", the anti-gun folk were harping on "saturday night specials" and so forth.

Posted: 4/19/2010 1:35:28 PM EDT

[#22]

The above statement is laughably stupid and is absolutely 100% incorrect. You literally could not be more wrong, and there 10,000 examples to prove it, both old and new.

I know that you guys are bio-chemically incapable of understanding this, but the shooting world existed before the AR15 / tupperware explosion of the early 1990s.

Lets see some of those examples. I have yet to hear the NRA refer to the 2nd as a 'reset button'.

Posted: 4/19/2010 1:43:50 PM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:

Not an NRA member, don't see a reason to become one. They seem to cater to the fudds. I don't shoot deer or ducks, and don't care about fudd guns.

Wrong.

Posted: 4/19/2010 1:53:14 PM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I do think that the NRA fights for our gun rights in much the same manner that .gov fights the "war on drugs": They fight for a standstill, always keeping
it in "crisis mode" which guarantees plenty of funding. This ensures that the paid members of the board continue to get an assured paycheck.

They are fighting not to win, but to keep fighting and getting paid for it.

It's about lifetime employment.

CJ

This sums it up quite nicely.

Not an NRA member, don't see a reason to become one. They seem to cater to the fudds. I don't shoot deer or ducks, and don't care about fudd guns.

You're the equivalent of a zumbo.

Only you're a tacticool rattle can zumbo. All you care about is what style of gun you shoot, and how they look.

I was fighting for your right to own an AR15 long before i ever bought one.

There are certain guys out there who are purely hunters, they have no interest in guns. Those are the only fuds arounf and they NEVER join the NRA.

Just like you.

You see the cover of the latest American Rifleman magazine? There's a giant picture of the latest piston AR on it for you tacticool to jizz all over.

Posted: 4/19/2010 2:04:05 PM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:

The above statement is laughably stupid and is absolutely 100% incorrect. You literally could not be more wrong, and there 10,000 examples to prove it, both old and new.

I know that you guys are bio-chemically incapable of understanding this, but the shooting world existed before the AR15 / tupperware explosion of the early 1990s.

Lets see some of those examples. I have yet to hear the NRA refer to the 2nd as a 'reset button'.

When the New Orleans disaster struck, there were numerous articles in the NRA pubs about how the police disarmed the citizens illegally and the NRA filed lawsuits about it.

The way the NRA described the incident was exactly the way you guys squawked about it on this website.

You really want the NRA to start talking about the tacticool fan-boy vote from the rooftops crapola? In the real world, not the SHTF fantasy world of arfcom, you need to avoid sounding like a looney to people who are watching the news on TV and don't know shit about guns.

go to the website and virtually everything written on the site contradicts what you have written into this retard festival of a thread.

I just picked something at random:

"Why do people need handguns?

Though this is a commonly asked question, a more appropriate question would be: “Why should handguns be banned?” In a free society, the burden of proof is not upon those who would exercise a right but on those who would infringe that right. Private citizens benefit from handguns for the same reason that the police do: handguns are easy to carry, and they are effective defensive tools. Handguns are used for protection more often than they are used to commit violent crimes, and two of every three defensive uses of firearms are carried out with handguns. Survey research shows that people who use firearms for protection are less likely to be injured during a criminal attack than people who use other means of protection or no protection. Handguns are also very widely used for target shooting and they’ve become more commonly used for hunting."

How does the above "mostly cater to fuds"? it's just a straight-up, reasonable description of handguns as a tool for self defense. What else should it say?

All you have to do is go to the site and look around. But why do that when you can talk retard-shit on a arfcom and call 'er a day?

Posted: 4/19/2010 2:06:20 PM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:

The NRA would have alot more members if they did not charge the fees.

If they are too cheap to pay membership fees then they're not supporters, they are leeches.

Membership fees pay for the magazine and the "free" stickers and the "free" hat. A member should make himself useful by donating a few dollars every month to the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action so that the lobbyists will have money to fight the legislative battles on Capitol Hill.

Posted: 4/19/2010 2:14:00 PM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:

The reason why a lot of people are frustrated with the NRA is because the NRA does not like to do the public protests, the empty holster events, or the unloaded gun get togethers. The NRA has long feared that such events would lead to bad publicity and harm the institution. That is an understandable fear, the problem is people have stopped waiting around for the NRA to lead them, and have started organizing the events on their own.

As if waving confederate flags and making speeches about "voting from the rooftops" while brandishing a "machine gun" on the 6 o'clock news is going to win hearts and minds.

Posted: 4/19/2010 2:19:30 PM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:

EVERY TIME THERE IS A HIT PIECE ON TV THE NRA ALWAYS SAYS NO NO COMMENT.. THERE REALY FIGHT HARD!!! I NEVER SEE ONE PRO GUN ADVERTISEMENT ON TV,THERE A TON OF SHAM WOW ADVERTISEMENT!!!

ABC, NBC, and CBS will not accept advertising from pro-gun groups. Nor will they put a hunting/shooting program on their lineup.

Cable TV is another matter and the NRA has a show on the Outdoor Channel on Wednesday nights.

Posted: 4/19/2010 2:19:43 PM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:
The NRA is still Hunter/Fudd-Centric, that needs to change.

Yeah, they need to dump about 80% of their membership. What a great idea.

Posted: 4/19/2010 2:20:32 PM EDT

[#30]

They also get their information for this article from Jeff Knox. Jeff's dad was Neal Knox. Unless someone can enlighten me as to what Neal Knox was trying to do for the NRA that was productive, I always saw him as a trouble maker.

Posted: 4/19/2010 2:20:38 PM EDT

[#31]

Seems everyone keeps forgetting the vote total in Heller. 5 - 4. I for one think that tells me more about how much we should help support the NRA than any other statistic.
Yeah, Gura argued the case and the NRA was against bringing suit, but look at the vote count again. Do you really think the liberal SC justices pay much attention to the Constitution's intent based on that vote? This was a case that should have gone 9 - 0 and we almost went down in flames. One person's vote could have fucked up your rights, and it was pretty close to going the other way if some of the stuff I read about the arguments going on behind closed doors was true.
And maobama is going to add another liberal gun hater to the court. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Posted: 4/19/2010 2:23:56 PM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:

Quoted:
The NRA is still Hunter/Fudd-Centric, that needs to change.

Yeah, they need to dump about 80% of their membership. What a great idea.

painless,

there are no 'fuds' in the NRA.

I only ever met maybe 3 real fuds in my life, they were always casual hunters with zero interest in firearms.

they never join the NRA, they think the NRA is full of hardcore loonies.

Posted: 4/19/2010 2:25:51 PM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:

Seems everyone keeps forgetting the vote total in Heller. 5 - 4. I for one think that tells me more about how much we should help support the NRA than any other statistic.

Yeah, Gura argued the case and the NRA was against bringing suit, but look at the vote count again. Do you really think the liberal SC justices pay much attention to the Constitution's intent based on that vote? This was a case that should have gone 9 - 0 and we almost went down in flames. One person's vote could have fucked up your rights, and it was pretty close to going the other way if some of the stuff I read about the arguments going on behind closed doors was true.

And maobama is going to add another liberal gun hater to the court. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Exactly

Posted: 4/19/2010 2:26:42 PM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:

Quoted:
The NRA is still Hunter/Fudd-Centric, that needs to change.

Yeah, they need to dump about 80% of their membership. What a great idea.

painless,

there are no 'fuds' in the NRA.

I only ever met maybe 3 real fuds in my life, they were always casual hunters with zero interest in firearms.

they never join the NRA, they think the NRA is full of hardcore loonies.

I know that and you know that, but there are a lot of posters on this forum that feel that anyone that hunts and doesn't own a bunch of black rifles, is a Fudd. And they hate them with a passion.

Posted: 4/19/2010 2:26:57 PM EDT

[#35]

FOX says NRA fading into background

NRA will be here long after FOX fades into the background.

Posted: 4/19/2010 2:32:19 PM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:

And like I said in the other thread:

The NRA needs a new Harlon Carter.

+1

And another Cincinnati Revolt.

Posted: 4/19/2010 2:32:32 PM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:

Quoted:
The NRA is still Hunter/Fudd-Centric, that needs to change.

Yeah, they need to dump about 80% of their membership. What a great idea.

painless,

there are no 'fuds' in the NRA.

I only ever met maybe 3 real fuds in my life, they were always casual hunters with zero interest in firearms.

they never join the NRA, they think the NRA is full of hardcore loonies.

I know that and you know that, but there are a lot of posters on this forum that feel that anyone that hunts and doesn't own a bunch of black rifles, is a Fudd. And they hate them with a passion.

exactly.

so why the hell am i bothering to argue with them, it's a waste of time.

Posted: 4/19/2010 2:34:00 PM EDT

[#38]

If NRA goes away, our gun rights will be soon to follow.

You don't believe it read about what happened in UK and Australia.

Their gun rights organizations were weak and ineffective.

We need to feed our 800 lb Gorilla, even if we don't always like the way he acts around company.

Posted: 4/19/2010 2:36:35 PM EDT

[#39]

go to the website and virtually everything written on the site contradicts what you have written into this retard festival of a thread.

What have I written?

Posted: 4/19/2010 2:36:44 PM EDT

[#40]

Quoted:
The NRA would have alot more members if they did not charge the fees.
There are many people who would join together and help out a cause but won't give their money for nothing.
Hearing a number like 4.3 million members gives alot of people the idea that there are only 4.3 million people who want guns.The real number of people wanting their gun rights to stand or expand is much greater.Having a non paying member status could get a huge member count and help the cause.

If they didn't charge a fee, where would they get the majority of funds to fight the anti-gun establishment in & out of court?

Posted: 4/19/2010 2:43:32 PM EDT

[#41]

Quoted:
...
this retard festival of a thread.

I like that. Sometimes, that could be a description of G.D.

Posted: 4/19/2010 3:05:07 PM EDT

[#42]

The NRA leadership is content with their 7 figure salaries and interfering with Supreme Court Gun Cases brought by private citizens because the NRA lacked the balls.

Posted: 4/19/2010 3:14:44 PM EDT

[#43]

Quoted:

There is ONE political organization that people like Brady, and HCI and all the other douchebag gun-grabbers HATE and FEAR, and that organization is the NRA. Not the GOA, not some local grass-roots organization, and not angry letters from constituents. The NRA. Period.

The NRA is the only credible organization right now that has the power and momentum to affect Washington, and all the liberals know it. Might there be others in the future? Maybe 20 years from now, sure. But right now, there is no other horse to hitch the wagon to. None.

Even so, I don't want to hitch my wagon to a horse that's going in the opposite direction of my destination.

Posted: 4/19/2010 3:18:34 PM EDT

[#44]

Quoted:

Quoted:
The NRA is still Hunter/Fudd-Centric, that needs to change.

Yeah, they need to dump about 80% of their membership. What a great idea.

painless,

there are no 'fuds' in the NRA.

I only ever met maybe 3 real fuds in my life, they were always casual hunters with zero interest in firearms.

they never join the NRA, they think the NRA is full of hardcore loonies.

I know that and you know that, but there are a lot of posters on this forum that feel that anyone that hunts and doesn't own a bunch of black rifles, is a Fudd. And they hate them with a passion.

Anyone who hunts, doesn't own a black rifle, and feels that hunting and "self-defense" is the only legitimate, lawful purpose of a weapon is a Fudd. The same goes for someone who doesn't hunt, owns a black rifle, and yet still believes the same dangerous lie.

And you can be damn sure about my feelings towards them.

Posted: 4/19/2010 4:06:51 PM EDT

[#45]

Quoted:
[

Anyone who hunts, doesn't own a black rifle, and feels that hunting and "self-defense" is the only legitimate, lawful purpose of a weapon is a Fudd. The same goes for someone who doesn't hunt, owns a black rifle, and yet still believes the same dangerous lie.

And you can be damn sure about my feelings towards them.

I agree.

Hunting and self defense are natural rights, but they have nothing to do with the second amendment. Anybody that believes the second is about hunting and self defense has drank the leftist bullshit coolaid. The second amendment is about remaining free by retaining the ability to over through a tyrannical government. Nothinh more and nothing less.

Posted: 4/19/2010 4:21:05 PM EDT

[#46]

Quoted:

Quoted:
The reason why a lot of people are frustrated with the NRA is because the NRA does not like to do the public protests, the empty holster events, or the unloaded gun get togethers. The NRA has long feared that such events would lead to bad publicity and harm the institution. That is an understandable fear, the problem is people have stopped waiting around for the NRA to lead them, and have started organizing the events on their own.

As if waving confederate flags and making speeches about "voting from the rooftops" while brandishing a "machine gun" on the 6 o'clock news is going to win hearts and minds.

Yep that is the attitude that I was talking about.

Posted: 4/19/2010 5:58:14 PM EDT

[#47]

It seems to me (and I could be wrong) that once the political pendulum swings farther toward freedom than would be profitable for the NRA, they fight against freedom. Like the Iowa shall-issue CCW, they seemed like they had it ready to go with statewide shall-issue, no training required... but the NRA fought against that bill, substituting their own bill requiring training. And from what I hear, the NRA wasn't happy about the recent Arizona no-training/no-permit required law, but now they are taking credit for it.

Posted: 4/19/2010 6:10:28 PM EDT

[#48]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Maryland's state house is about as one sided as it gets. The NRA could throw it's whole operating budget at it and accomplish

nothing.

It's up to the voters to replace the members of the state house with candidates that respect ALL your rights. The NRA can help get the word out about

where the candidates stand, and that's really about as far as their powers extend.

It all comes down to the voters.

CJ

So you grasp––and admit––the NRA has very limited power, yet you are willing to (unfairly, IMO) accuse them of extending the fight in order to maintain their jobs. This in spite of the fact there is NO evidence to support your (and others') claim. With "friends" like that . . .

They couldn't work themselves out of a job even if they dedicated their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to doing so. (Sound familar?

)

If every anti-gunner were converted or eliminated, and the social and economic conditions that they came from eliminated or fixed, the next generation would sprout its own crop of them despite all efforts to prevent them. The battle will never end.

It is for this reason that I think that the NRA board of directors doesn't really have a lot to worry about. They know that there is no mandate for them to work themselves

out of a job because a new crop of libtards will always spring up and give them more work to do.

But if you were to eliminate that scenario from play, and it WAS possible to achieve total and permanent victory for ALL gun rights for ALL law-abiding citizens, then I still

think that at least a respectable number of the NRA board would not show much enthusiasm for working themselves out of a job. That job is their income. It's quite

a decent income, apparently. And, money corrupts.

CJ

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - FOX says NRA fading into background (Page 2 of 2)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us