|
Amazing; a few hard questions and the toys are out the pram. Who let small children into the lobbying business?
Now I have to warn a few dozen gun owners about NAGR, who will probably warn a few dozen more, who will . . . You know, I think I need to re-up my NRA membership. |
|
Quoted:
Amazing; a few hard questions and the toys are out the pram. Who let small children into the lobbying business? Now I have to warn a few dozen gun owners about NAGR, who will probably warn a few dozen more, who will . . . You know, I think I need to re-up my NRA membership. Well, if you had more than 20 years professional lobbying experience, you would understand. Since you don't dud brown can't discuss it with you. |
|
Quoted:
Goodbye, children. Have a rant in your little sandbox. I've got to say that if this thread is any indication of how you conduct your "lobbying" that alone would be enough reason not to donate, even without ethical issues. As I type this, the "little sandbox" you are dismissing has 3,282 users online at 7:27 a.m. That's potentially 3,282 readers at this moment who are going to judge your organization based on this thread. That doesn't strike me as smart PR. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Have you ever heard of the Hughes Amendment, circa April 1986? NRA supported that bill and lost me (and millions of others) <u>Forever</u> by doing so. I know they don't mention stuff like this in their weekly snail mails, but if you check, you will find that it is true. The NRA supported the 1986 Firearms Owner Protection Act. They did not support the Hughes Amendment which was attached to the FOPA as a poison pill on a voice vote. Charlie Rangel declared the amendment approved. The NRA made the decision that it was better to swallow the poison pill rather than lose FOPA (FOPA had been defeated in committee for 7 years running. It only managed to avoid death in committee again by clever use of a discharge petition - making it one of only two bills brought out by discharge petition to actually become law from 1931-2003.) The NRA immediately filed a legal challenge to the Hughes Amendment (Farmer vs. Higgins) which was led by Stephen Halbrook and funded by the NRA Firearms Civil Rights Legal Defense Fund. That challenge was defeated in the 11th Circuit (FARMER v. HIGGINS Cite as 907 F.2d 1041 (11th Cir. 1990)) and the Supreme Court denied cert when the NRA attempted to appeal. Oh... That makes it ok then. After all, what harm could come from swallowing a poison pill... |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Have you ever heard of the Hughes Amendment, circa April 1986? NRA supported that bill and lost me (and millions of others) <u>Forever</u> by doing so. I know they don't mention stuff like this in their weekly snail mails, but if you check, you will find that it is true. The NRA supported the 1986 Firearms Owner Protection Act. They did not support the Hughes Amendment which was attached to the FOPA as a poison pill on a voice vote. Charlie Rangel declared the amendment approved. The NRA made the decision that it was better to swallow the poison pill rather than lose FOPA (FOPA had been defeated in committee for 7 years running. It only managed to avoid death in committee again by clever use of a discharge petition - making it one of only two bills brought out by discharge petition to actually become law from 1931-2003.) The NRA immediately filed a legal challenge to the Hughes Amendment (Farmer vs. Higgins) which was led by Stephen Halbrook and funded by the NRA Firearms Civil Rights Legal Defense Fund. That challenge was defeated in the 11th Circuit (FARMER v. HIGGINS Cite as 907 F.2d 1041 (11th Cir. 1990)) and the Supreme Court denied cert when the NRA attempted to appeal. Oh... That makes it ok then. After all, what harm could come from swallowing a poison pill... Protect millions upon millions of gun owners, including the overwhelming body of NRA members in all 50 states, or a tiny minority of niche owners for a politically unpopular slice of gun ownership....gee why did they do it? Does any of us like it? Fuck no, but you have to be drunk not to see why the NRA reluctantly supported FOPA. Your anger should be focused on the traitorous left that put the Hughes amendment into the bill, but you're going to blame the NRA for the rest of your life for political expediency that benefits you every day. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Have you ever heard of the Hughes Amendment, circa April 1986? NRA supported that bill and lost me (and millions of others) <u>Forever</u> by doing so. I know they don't mention stuff like this in their weekly snail mails, but if you check, you will find that it is true. The NRA supported the 1986 Firearms Owner Protection Act. They did not support the Hughes Amendment which was attached to the FOPA as a poison pill on a voice vote. Charlie Rangel declared the amendment approved. The NRA made the decision that it was better to swallow the poison pill rather than lose FOPA (FOPA had been defeated in committee for 7 years running. It only managed to avoid death in committee again by clever use of a discharge petition - making it one of only two bills brought out by discharge petition to actually become law from 1931-2003.) The NRA immediately filed a legal challenge to the Hughes Amendment (Farmer vs. Higgins) which was led by Stephen Halbrook and funded by the NRA Firearms Civil Rights Legal Defense Fund. That challenge was defeated in the 11th Circuit (FARMER v. HIGGINS Cite as 907 F.2d 1041 (11th Cir. 1990)) and the Supreme Court denied cert when the NRA attempted to appeal. Oh... That makes it ok then. After all, what harm could come from swallowing a poison pill... Personally, I like the fact that I haven't been thrown into a Maryland jail. |
|
Quoted: Protect millions upon millions of gun owners, including the overwhelming body of NRA members in all 50 states, or a tiny minority of niche owners for a politically unpopular slice of gun ownership....gee why did they do it? Does any of us like it? Fuck no, but you have to be drunk not to see why the NRA reluctantly supported FOPA. Your anger should be focused on the traitorous left that put the Hughes amendment into the bill, but you're going to blame the NRA for the rest of your life for political expediency that benefits you every day. "Politically unpopular"... Oh... well, if they are "unpopular", just haul 'em all off in chains then. Fuck 'em. They don't have Rights...  FOPA was unnecessary IMO. Application of 2A via the Courts "made up" selective "incorporation" doctrine would have given us 50 State "shall not be infringed". Just like it says in Article 6 Paragraph 2 "Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding". The GCA of '68 was as blatantly unConstitutional as was the NFA of '34 once they no longer "allowed" you to pay the tax. A wrong path taken earnestly is still not going to lead you where you need to be. As many gains as we've made, we STILL need to ASK PERMISSION to exercise a Right. Ask that gal in NYC who visited the 9/11 memorial and forgot to leave her carry piece behind how the FOPA protected her or how comforted she is that RKBA is protected by our Constitution. All of that being said, the NRA is the acknowledged "Big Dog" in the room. Because of that, it is twice as important for those of us who are members (Life member here) to keep our dog from peeing on the carpet. |
|
Quoted: Personally, I like the fact that I haven't been thrown into a Maryland jail. Yet. We've had people here on ARFCOM go to jail over stupid and capricious laws that should not exist in the first place. Rowing the boat in every direction at once won't help us at all... |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Protect millions upon millions of gun owners, including the overwhelming body of NRA members in all 50 states, or a tiny minority of niche owners for a politically unpopular slice of gun ownership....gee why did they do it? Does any of us like it? Fuck no, but you have to be drunk not to see why the NRA reluctantly supported FOPA. Your anger should be focused on the traitorous left that put the Hughes amendment into the bill, but you're going to blame the NRA for the rest of your life for political expediency that benefits you every day. "Politically unpopular"... Oh... well, if they are "unpopular", just haul 'em all off in chains then. Fuck 'em. They don't have Rights... FOPA was unnecessary IMO. Application of 2A via the Courts "made up" selective "incorporation" doctrine would have given us 50 State "shall not be infringed". Just like it says in Article 6 Paragraph 2 "Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding". The GCA of '68 was as blatantly unConstitutional as was the NFA of '34 once they no longer "allowed" you to pay the tax. A wrong path taken earnestly is still not going to lead you where you need to be. As many gains as we've made, we STILL need to ASK PERMISSION to exercise a Right. Ask that gal in NYC who visited the 9/11 memorial and forgot to leave her carry piece behind how the FOPA protected her or how comforted she is that RKBA is protected by our Constitution. All of that being said, the NRA is the acknowledged "Big Dog" in the room. Because of that, it is twice as important for those of us who are members (Life member here) to keep our dog from peeing on the carpet. Like I said, you're going to continue to focus your rage on the wrong people. Do it, I don't care. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Have you ever heard of the Hughes Amendment, circa April 1986? NRA supported that bill and lost me (and millions of others) <u>Forever</u> by doing so. I know they don't mention stuff like this in their weekly snail mails, but if you check, you will find that it is true. The NRA supported the 1986 Firearms Owner Protection Act. They did not support the Hughes Amendment which was attached to the FOPA as a poison pill on a voice vote. Charlie Rangel declared the amendment approved. The NRA made the decision that it was better to swallow the poison pill rather than lose FOPA (FOPA had been defeated in committee for 7 years running. It only managed to avoid death in committee again by clever use of a discharge petition - making it one of only two bills brought out by discharge petition to actually become law from 1931-2003.) The NRA immediately filed a legal challenge to the Hughes Amendment (Farmer vs. Higgins) which was led by Stephen Halbrook and funded by the NRA Firearms Civil Rights Legal Defense Fund. That challenge was defeated in the 11th Circuit (FARMER v. HIGGINS Cite as 907 F.2d 1041 (11th Cir. 1990)) and the Supreme Court denied cert when the NRA attempted to appeal. Oh... That makes it ok then. After all, what harm could come from swallowing a poison pill... Protect millions upon millions of gun owners, including the overwhelming body of NRA members in all 50 states, or a tiny minority of niche owners for a politically unpopular slice of gun ownership....gee why did they do it? Does any of us like it? Fuck no, but you have to be drunk not to see why the NRA reluctantly supported FOPA. Your anger should be focused on the traitorous left that put the Hughes amendment into the bill, but you're going to blame the NRA for the rest of your life for political expediency that benefits you every day. The problem is, the benefits of FOPA are taken for granted because the kids don't know anything different. The benefits have always existed (for them) so the '86 law was just "a machine gun ban." I'm guessing they also don't grasp how very difficult it is to pass anything politically, especially in a Dem-controlled House and Senate. 
|
|
Quoted: Like I said, you're going to continue to focus your rage on the wrong people. Do it, I don't care. Yes, you do care or you wouldn't have chimed in. Who are the right people, if you don't mind my asking? For me, it's anyone pushing gun control in any form regardless of political affiliation or group membership... |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Have you ever heard of the Hughes Amendment, circa April 1986? NRA supported that bill and lost me (and millions of others) <u>Forever</u> by doing so. I know they don't mention stuff like this in their weekly snail mails, but if you check, you will find that it is true. The NRA supported the 1986 Firearms Owner Protection Act. They did not support the Hughes Amendment which was attached to the FOPA as a poison pill on a voice vote. Charlie Rangel declared the amendment approved. The NRA made the decision that it was better to swallow the poison pill rather than lose FOPA (FOPA had been defeated in committee for 7 years running. It only managed to avoid death in committee again by clever use of a discharge petition - making it one of only two bills brought out by discharge petition to actually become law from 1931-2003.) The NRA immediately filed a legal challenge to the Hughes Amendment (Farmer vs. Higgins) which was led by Stephen Halbrook and funded by the NRA Firearms Civil Rights Legal Defense Fund. That challenge was defeated in the 11th Circuit (FARMER v. HIGGINS Cite as 907 F.2d 1041 (11th Cir. 1990)) and the Supreme Court denied cert when the NRA attempted to appeal. Oh... That makes it ok then. After all, what harm could come from swallowing a poison pill... Protect millions upon millions of gun owners, including the overwhelming body of NRA members in all 50 states, or a tiny minority of niche owners for a politically unpopular slice of gun ownership....gee why did they do it? Does any of us like it? Fuck no, but you have to be drunk not to see why the NRA reluctantly supported FOPA. Your anger should be focused on the traitorous left that put the Hughes amendment into the bill, but you're going to blame the NRA for the rest of your life for political expediency that benefits you every day. The problem is, the benefits of FOPA are taken for granted because the kids don't know anything different. The benefits have always existed (for them) so the '86 law was just "a machine gun ban." I'm guessing they also don't grasp how very difficult it is to pass anything politically, especially in a Dem-controlled House and Senate. Exactly. I actually find it hard to even believe the people who claim they were gun folks prior to this and who don't recognize how significant the law was. The worst is, the revisionism and anti-NRA spin is all coming from our "side" of the gun control debate. Further, if the "no compromise" crowd had their way, FOPA not only never would have been passed, but Hughes or a supporter would have likely been able to get a separate machine gun bill through the Congress on on its own. The only people fighting it would be a politically weak group of perceived fringe zealots. I shudder to think what gun laws might be like in the US if not for the NRA. |
|
Quoted: The problem is, the benefits of FOPA are taken for granted because the kids don't know anything different. The benefits have always existed (for them) so the '86 law was just "a machine gun ban." I'm guessing they also don't grasp how very difficult it is to pass anything politically, especially in a Dem-controlled House and Senate. If it all so difficult, maybe isn't worth it then? Is that what you are suggesting? That we should just be happy with the status quo? Please do not denigrate our concerns just because you think things "aren't as bad as they were before". Things should be even better still... |
|
Quoted:
FOPA was unnecessary IMO. Application of 2A via the Courts "made up" selective "incorporation" doctrine would have given us 50 State "shall not be infringed". Just like it says in Article 6 Paragraph 2 "Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding". The GCA of '68 was as blatantly unConstitutional as was the NFA of '34 once they no longer "allowed" you to pay the tax. So FOPA was unnecessary because the same court that upheld the Hughes Amendment as constitutional when the NRA challenged it in Farmer v. Higgins (and in a separate California case as well) was also going to give us 50 state "shall not be infringed?" I can think of lots of good reasons to criticize the NRA; but FOPA isn't one of them. People will scream about the NRA for "selling out machine gun owners" without realizing that the NRA went to bat to own full-auto Uzis, in California, in 1986 (which as those of you who remember the Second Amendment fight in the pre-Internet days remember was a WHOLE different media ballgame. You can get a mild taste of that by reading the 1991 LA Times article I linked above) |
|
Quoted: I shudder to think what gun laws might be like in the US if not for the NRA. If you think that is bad, take a read through USC Title 18 Sect 922 from beginning to end and tell me how well "compromise" works. Especially if you read Art 6 Para 2 and the text of the 2A just before you do it... And yeah... <––- NRA Life Member for a reason. I may disagree with some of their "compromises", but they do more good than harm. They do need their feet kept to the fire all the more... |
|
Quoted:
If it all so difficult, maybe isn't worth it then? Is that what you are suggesting? That we should just be happy with the status quo? Please do not denigrate our concerns just because you think things "aren't as bad as they were before". Things should be even better still... It is bad form to sit under a roof that you had no part in building and criticize the people who built it for not making the way you would have. If it weren't for those people, you'd be sitting in the fucking rain, freezing your ass off. Rather than complain about the roof, get off your ass and make it better without constantly bitching that someone else didn't do it for you in the past? |
|
Quoted: So FOPA was unnecessary because the same court that upheld the Hughes Amendment as constitutional when the NRA challenged it in Farmer v. Higgins (and in a separate California case as well) was also going to give us 50 state "shall not be infringed?" I can think of lots of good reasons to criticize the NRA; but FOPA isn't one of them. People will scream about the NRA for "selling out machine gun owners" without realizing that the NRA went to bat to own full-auto Uzis, in California, in 1986 (which as those of you who remember the Second Amendment fight in the pre-Internet days remember was a WHOLE different media ballgame. You can get a mild taste of that by reading the 1991 LA Times article I linked above) If so, those judges should have been impeached. Just like today, we rarely hold them accountable for bad behavior and blatant judicial activism. The system works, but only if all of the pieces work as they should. |
|
Quoted: It is bad form to sit under a roof that you had no part in building and criticize the people who built it for not making the way you would have. If it weren't for those people, you'd be sitting in the fucking rain, freezing your ass off. Rather than complain about the roof, get off your ass and make it better without constantly bitching that someone else didn't do it for you in the past? <––- NRA Life Member. NRA member since '87. Your post needs more "fuck".  |
|
IN.
Just posted this to the Nebraska Firearms Owner's Association forum. Hopefully more people there will spread the word locally. I don't care if he's actually done some real 2A work, if he's conducting business this way he's dishonest and not deserving of any of my money. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
If it all so difficult, maybe isn't worth it then? Is that what you are suggesting? That we should just be happy with the status quo? Please do not denigrate our concerns just because you think things "aren't as bad as they were before". Things should be even better still... It is bad form to sit under a roof that you had no part in building and criticize the people who built it for not making the way you would have. If it weren't for those people, you'd be sitting in the fucking rain, freezing your ass off. Rather than complain about the roof, get off your ass and make it better without constantly bitching that someone else didn't do it for you in the past? Is it bad form to point out a leak in the roof and suggest that it needs to be fixed? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Goodbye, children. Have a rant in your little sandbox. Noted.  ... off to give the NRA and SAF some money. Hell, I still donate to the VCDL and I haven't live in VA for a few years. ETA: Heller Correction on Heller. Heller's website is www.hellerfoundation.com You posted a link to the Bill of Rights foundation which is the sister organization to Heller. Both are great groups and truly patriotic. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: If it all so difficult, maybe isn't worth it then? Is that what you are suggesting? That we should just be happy with the status quo? Please do not denigrate our concerns just because you think things "aren't as bad as they were before". Things should be even better still... It is bad form to sit under a roof that you had no part in building and criticize the people who built it for not making the way you would have. If it weren't for those people, you'd be sitting in the fucking rain, freezing your ass off. Rather than complain about the roof, get off your ass and make it better without constantly bitching that someone else didn't do it for you in the past? Is it bad form to point out a leak in the roof and suggest that it needs to be fixed? Apparently... In fact, some folks may like the leak. Fuck off whipper-snapper...  |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If it all so difficult, maybe isn't worth it then? Is that what you are suggesting? That we should just be happy with the status quo? Please do not denigrate our concerns just because you think things "aren't as bad as they were before". Things should be even better still... It is bad form to sit under a roof that you had no part in building and criticize the people who built it for not making the way you would have. If it weren't for those people, you'd be sitting in the fucking rain, freezing your ass off. Rather than complain about the roof, get off your ass and make it better without constantly bitching that someone else didn't do it for you in the past? Is it bad form to point out a leak in the roof and suggest that it needs to be fixed? When others are fully aware of the leak, and the leak was a result of a necessary repair made to the roof that previously have much worse leaks? Yeah, it is bad form to blame the people who fixed the roof for not doing it the way you envision, especially since it was simply not possible at the time. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If it all so difficult, maybe isn't worth it then? Is that what you are suggesting? That we should just be happy with the status quo? Please do not denigrate our concerns just because you think things "aren't as bad as they were before". Things should be even better still... It is bad form to sit under a roof that you had no part in building and criticize the people who built it for not making the way you would have. If it weren't for those people, you'd be sitting in the fucking rain, freezing your ass off. Rather than complain about the roof, get off your ass and make it better without constantly bitching that someone else didn't do it for you in the past? Is it bad form to point out a leak in the roof and suggest that it needs to be fixed? My apologies to Rev Dead Corpse, my response was out of line. The whole criticism of what the NRA has done in the past from people sitting in the present tends to remind me of children sitting in their house surfing on their iPad wondering why the pioneers didn't just call the police on their cellphone when they got attacked by the Indians. It is difficult to understand some of the decisions made without understanding the times and context in which they were made - and that isn't to say that the NRA always made the right decision by any means; but they were there and fighting. In any major endeavor, there are always going to be mistakes made and things that look one way 30 years later in the comfort of my mom's basement weren't quite as clear cut at the time. Having said that, I don't think it is bad form at all to point out that the leak needs to be fixed - and working with the guy who built the roof to begin with will save you a lot of unpleasant suprises that you might otherwise have to discover for yourself. However, the response of some here, that we shun an organization forever because they disagree with choices made by entirely different people who made up that organization 26 years ago doesn't strike me as a productive approach. |
|
Quoted: When others are fully aware of the leak, and the leak was a result of a necessary repair made to the roof that previously have much worse leaks? Yeah, it is bad form to blame the people who fixed the roof for not doing it the way you envision, especially since it was simply not possible at the time. So maybe paying other contractors to come in and fix that leak isn't a bad thing? I'm confused where we are at with the analogies at this point... |
|
Quoted: I hit the big donate button from hellerfoundation.com. I think its always redirected like that for donations. Quoted: Quoted: Goodbye, children. Have a rant in your little sandbox. Noted. ... off to give the NRA and SAF some money. Hell, I still donate to the VCDL and I haven't live in VA for a few years. ETA: Heller Correction on Heller. Heller's website is www.hellerfoundation.com You posted a link to the Bill of Rights foundation which is the sister organization to Heller. Both are great groups and truly patriotic. ETA: They all got five times that of what the huckster was asking, just because of his attitude in this thread.
 |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
When others are fully aware of the leak, and the leak was a result of a necessary repair made to the roof that previously have much worse leaks? Yeah, it is bad form to blame the people who fixed the roof for not doing it the way you envision, especially since it was simply not possible at the time. So maybe paying other contractors to come in and fix that leak isn't a bad thing? I'm confused where we are at with the analogies at this point...
I am confused as to who you think is against patching the leak. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Goodbye, children. Have a rant in your little sandbox. You have completely trashed your own credibility and reputation. Rest assured this will follow you. 
 I am aware of no law that would keep them from telling people who to vote for unless they are a section 501(c)(3) type of organization (i.e., the type of organization where your donations are tax deductible). I don't remember Dudley's organization being the type that you could deduct contributions to on your income tax return? IIRC, the Second Amendment Foundation is a deductible type of organization, which is why they never try and tell people who to vote for (i.e., they do not endorse candidates). |
|
Quoted: My apologies to Rev Dead Corpse, my response was out of line. The whole criticism of what the NRA has done in the past from people sitting in the present tends to remind me of children sitting in their house surfing on their iPad wondering why the pioneers didn't just call the police on their cellphone when they got attacked by the Indians. It is difficult to understand some of the decisions made without understanding the times and context in which they were made - and that isn't to say that the NRA always made the right decision by any means; but they were there and fighting. In any major endeavor, there are always going to be mistakes made and things that look one way 30 years later in the comfort of my mom's basement weren't quite as clear cut at the time. Having said that, I don't think it is bad form at all to point out that the leak needs to be fixed - and working with the guy who built the roof to begin with will save you a lot of unpleasant suprises that you might otherwise have to discover for yourself. However, the response of some here, that we shun an organization forever because they disagree with choices made by entirely different people who made up that organization 26 years ago doesn't strike me as a productive approach. My apologies as well. I don't mean to come across as an "NRA basher". I fully support their pro-2A mission and hope to one day increase my involvement with their various efforts as my own children grow and allow me time to do so. And... Just to take one more swing at the analogy... I just hope we get the roof fixed because the basement needs some serious work after that. |
|
You guys are going after one of the most staunch advocates we have because you don't like the language in a fundraising letter.
This is ridiculous. He's been the most effective pro gun force in CO since he founded the RMGO, and he's been doing this since the early 90's. He's about as "non-fudd" as you can get, and he helps organize the biggest MG shoot in a 4 state area every year. An uncompromising, hardcore originalist conservative who breathes gun rights is an enemy because of a fundraising letter. Way to eat our own. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Is this one of those hunter's rights groups where the heads contribute millions to the democrats and even contribute to Handgun Control Inc.? That was my first thought too. I haven't got that impression from the emails I got from them before I had those emails redirected to my spam folder. |
|
Quoted:
You guys are going after one of the most staunch advocates we have because you don't like the language in a fundraising letter. This is ridiculous. He's been the most effective pro gun force in CO since he founded the RMGO, and he's been doing this since the early 90's. He's about as "non-fudd" as you can get, and he helps organize the biggest MG shoot in a 4 state area every year. An uncompromising, hardcore originalist conservative who breathes gun rights is an enemy because of a fundraising letter. Way to eat our own. That's good to know. Don't know why he can't endorse candidates though. Is his organization the type where you can deduct contributions on your tax return? ETA: If the answer is "yes", I would seriously advise Dudley to not try and circumvent the "no political endorsement" rule by attempting to find some "loophole". |
|
Quoted: You guys are going after one of the most staunch advocates we have because you don't like the language in a fundraising letter. This is ridiculous. He's been the most effective pro gun force in CO since he founded the RMGO, and he's been doing this since the early 90's. He's about as "non-fudd" as you can get, and he helps organize the biggest MG shoot in a 4 state area every year. An uncompromising, hardcore originalist conservative who breathes gun rights is an enemy because of a fundraising letter. Way to eat our own. I'm a member of RMGO and support 110% what they have been able to do here in Colorado and the surrounding states. But I had to unsubscribe from the NAGR emails... they get old and fast. Member of RMGO Member of NRA |
Join the Community
Your next conversation starts here.
Create your free account to join discussions, share your experience, save topics, and connect with the AR15.COM community.
- Join discussions
- Follow topics and replies
- Connect with fellow enthusiasts
Already a member? Sign in
Stay informed by subscribing to our Newsletter