Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Posted: 2/23/2007 3:33:41 PM EST
[Last Edit: 2/23/2007 3:39:37 PM EST by 57Strat]
Glad to see my membership dues are working for me. This is exactly what I hoped would result from the Zumbo ordeal. NRA saw our power and is acting. This is a great first step.

NRA Publications Suspends Ties to Jim Zumbo

Link


(FAIRFAX, VA) – The following statement was issued by the National Rifle Association of America.

Comments expressed by outdoor writer Jim Zumbo reflect neither the opinions of the National Rifle Association and America’s gun owners, nor are they an accurate portrayal of facts in regard to semi-automatic firearms lawfully owned by millions of citizens. Therefore, NRA Publications has suspended its professional ties with Mr. Zumbo.

The ensuing wave of grassroots response in support of the Second Amendment is a clear indication that America’s gun owners will act swiftly and decisively to counter falsehoods or misrepresentations perpetuated by any member of the media – whether it is one of the major networks or a fellow gun owner.

That depth of feeling and the unanimity of the response from the nation’s firearms owners sends a message to the new Congress. It says that millions of people understand the issue of semi-autos and will resist with an immense singular political will any attempts to create a new ban on semi-automatic firearms.

At the root of this grassroots response is the basic truth that ‘gun control merely makes the innocent pay the price for the guilty’ and our folks fully understand that their rights are at stake. It says that for the enemies of the Second Amendment there is no chance that the kind of divide and conquer propaganda strategy which preceded the 1994 ban on semi-auto firearms will ever succeed again.

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



Link Posted: 2/23/2007 3:41:20 PM EST
Join up people!!! I just joined yesterday for 5 years. The NRA is really our only hope.




Dear 57Strat,

Thank you for joining the NRA. We appreciate your interest in protecting and preserving our Second Amendment rights and promoting safe, responsible gun ownership.

Your credit card will be billed for $125.00* for a 5 Year Membership in the National Rifle Association with "American Rifleman" as your magazine choice.

If you have any questions regarding your order, please email us at membership@nrahq.org. Or you may call our Toll Free Membership Account Information Hotline at 1-877-NRA-2000.

Thanks again for your interest in the National Rifle Association!

NRA Membership Services
Link Posted: 2/23/2007 3:50:03 PM EST
[Last Edit: 2/23/2007 3:55:04 PM EST by ANGST]
From the NRA's latest e-mail

THE MOST SWEEPING GUN BAN EVER INTRODUCED IN CONGRESS;
McCarthy Bill Bans Millions More Guns Than The Clinton Gun Ban

On Feb. 14, 2007, Representative Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.) introduced H.R. 1022, a bill with the stated purpose, "to reauthorize the assault weapons ban, and for other purposes."

McCarthy's verbiage warrants explanation. Presumably, what she means by "assault weapons ban" is the Clinton Gun Ban of 1994. Congress allowed the ban to expire in 2004 for multiple reasons, including the fact that federal, state and local law enforcement agency studies showed that guns affected by the ban had been used in only a small percentage of crime, before and after the ban was imposed.

With the nation's murder rate 43% lower than in 1991, and the re-legalized guns still used in only a small percentage of crime, reauthorizing the Clinton Gun Ban would be objectionable enough. But McCarthy's "other purposes" would make matters even worse. H.R. 1022 would ban every gun banned by the Clinton ban, plus millions more guns, including:

. Every gun made to comply with the Clinton ban. (The Clinton ban dictated the kinds of grips, stocks and attachments new guns could have. Manufacturers modified new guns to the Clinton requirements. H.R. 1022 would ban the modified guns too.)

. Guns exempted by the Clinton ban. (Ruger Mini-14s and -30s and Ranch Rifles; .30 cal. carbines; and fixed-magazine, semi-automatic, center-fire rifles that hold more than 10 rounds.)

. All semi-automatic shotguns. (E.g., Remington, Winchester, Beretta and Benelli, used for hunting, sport shooting, and self-defense. H.R. 1022 would ban them because they have "any characteristic that can function as a grip," and would also ban their main component, called the "receiver.")

. All detachable-magazine semi-automatic rifles-including, for example, the ubiquitous Ruger 10/22 .22 rimfire-because they have "any characteristic that can function as a grip."

. Target shooting rifles. (E.g., the three centerfire rifles most popular for marksmanship competitions: the Colt AR-15, the Springfield M1A and the M1 "Garand.")

. Any semi-automatic shotgun or rifle an Attorney General one day claims isn't "sporting," even though the constitutions of the U.S. and 44 states, and the laws of all 50 states, recognize the right to use guns for defense.

. 65 named guns (the Clinton law banned 19 by name); semi-auto fixed-magazine pistols of over 10 rounds capacity; and frames, receivers and parts used to repair or refurbish guns.

H.R. 1022 would also ban the importation of magazines exempted by the Clinton ban, ban the sale of a legally-owned "assault weapon" with a magazine of over 10 rounds capacity, and begin backdoor registration of guns, by requiring private sales of banned guns, frames, receivers and parts to be conducted through licensed dealers. Finally, whereas the Clinton Gun Ban was imposed for a 10-year trial period, H.R. 1022 would be a permanent ban.

Please be sure to contact your U.S. Representative and urge him or her to oppose
H.R. 1022!

You can call your U.S. Representative at (202) 225-3121.
Link Posted: 2/23/2007 5:40:20 PM EST
Link Posted: 2/23/2007 5:43:28 PM EST
But the NRA hates EBRs! (Even though the latest Rifleman talks about building your own AR upper and reviews some LMT rifle.)

Link Posted: 2/23/2007 5:47:50 PM EST
There's no excuse not to be an NRA member. Don't like the magazines? Well you can get a membership with no magazine for $10 a year. C'mon people, they're the strongest gun lobby in Washington, let's build up their membership and give them even more power. They're our strongest voice and we should make them even stronger. I renewed my membership and I'm buying 2 memberships for family members. The more members, the stronger they are.
Link Posted: 2/23/2007 5:51:52 PM EST
[Last Edit: 2/23/2007 5:53:16 PM EST by WildBoar]

Originally Posted By Tomislav:
But the NRA hates EBRs! (Even though the latest Rifleman talks about building your own AR upper and reviews some LMT rifle.)



No you are wrong. I have been told time and time again here on this forums that the NRA is a FUDD only organization and they send you junk mail. They have pictures of guys duck hunting. OMG That right there tells you they are FUDDS and hate the EBRs.

they should be banned for the childrens sake.
Link Posted: 2/23/2007 5:54:03 PM EST

Originally Posted By txgp17:
ARFCOM mentioned on National Review.com
corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MWI0Y2YwNTMzNjVhM2Y0YmYwM2UyZDllOWE3MGRiM2Y=
awesome

Link Posted: 2/23/2007 5:55:43 PM EST
It's been 9 days since that cunt Cynthia McCarthy (D)umbass-NY seized the 'opportunity' of the Philly-SLC shootings and proposed HR 1022, and there is no mention of it in this release.
They are late off the mark and they better get on the gas.
Their performance in 1994 was ineffective, their public outreach / information campaign almost nil. They need to vastly improve on that performance to prevent a new and PERMANENT AWB/Semi ban from being enacted.

And our swift outcry only worked because Zumbo's dumbass remarks were sponsored by the very companies that rely on our monies. We won't get the same swift response to challenges for McCarthy to defend the blatant distortions presented in her HR1022 press release. She claimed that the '04 expiration is what allowed a muslim jihadist refugee to fire up some Valentine's shoppers.

btw, those that don't know, Cynthia McCarthy lost both her husband and her son was injured by "gun violence" - she's as insane as Cindy Sheehan, or Sarah Brady is on the issue. There will be no reasoning with her (not that there would have been anyway, D-NY)
Link Posted: 2/23/2007 6:01:24 PM EST

Originally Posted By txgp17:
ARFCOM mentioned on National Review.com
corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MWI0Y2YwNTMzNjVhM2Y0YmYwM2UyZDllOWE3MGRiM2Y=
awesome


*sniff*

I'm so proud...



Link Posted: 2/23/2007 6:07:10 PM EST
Ah just one thing

ARFCOM is what made the difference about JIM ZUMBO

If you have money for only one

ARFCOM or NRA

Spend it on ARFCOM

If you have enough for both

then BOTH are fine

Link Posted: 2/23/2007 6:16:38 PM EST
glad to see I will not bring shame upon my son..........considering his initials are NRA.
Link Posted: 2/23/2007 6:22:18 PM EST
I hope the best for my favorite hobby
Link Posted: 2/23/2007 6:23:34 PM EST
Has anyone ever stepped on their own dick quite this joker?

It's good that it happened, for someone to pass themselves off as representing or having a deep knowledge of the hunting community, and to be completley ignorant of the use of AR type rifles used in various kinds of varmint and predator hunitng is beyond lame.

Link Posted: 2/23/2007 6:29:05 PM EST
The more guns McCarthy corrals with her bill the better. Let me explain...

The more ordinary guns she wants to ban, the more gun owners are affected, there is less chance of passage. People, even the Zumbos, will see how unreasonable the bill is and will not support it.

We have the Zumbos of the shooting community perfectly willing to throw AR-15's off the sleigh, as long as it doesn't affect their bolt action rifles and pump shotguns, it's OK with them.

When the Zumbos see it has an affect on them, too, and put the heat on elected officials, the bill will go down in flames.

Or even if it passes, there are millions more who will say, "From my cold dead hands."

The worse her bill is, the better for us.

Don't be lulled by "grandfather clauses" either. I am not willing to give away the rights of my children and grandchildren to own the same guns I own.

NO COMPROMISES... NONE!

NO REGISTRATION... NEVER REGISTER!!!

MOLON F------ LABE!
Link Posted: 2/23/2007 6:37:05 PM EST
I'm getting a NRA membership courtesy of BDeauman. Once the baby comes, and the hospital bills are paid, I'll do a contribution. They have like $13 ones, heck, that's cheaper than WWB 9mm.
Link Posted: 2/23/2007 6:37:53 PM EST
It seems interesting that hr1022 even wants to ban the 10/22.
Link Posted: 2/23/2007 8:59:25 PM EST
i've been incredibly short on cash lately, but this whole episode has motivated me to finally re-up my team membership. only bronze this time, but better than nothing.
Link Posted: 2/23/2007 9:07:08 PM EST
WooT
Link Posted: 2/23/2007 9:15:28 PM EST
Happy to see they put Zumbo out to pasture.
Link Posted: 2/23/2007 9:15:53 PM EST

Originally Posted By sirensong:
i've been incredibly short on cash lately, but this whole episode has motivated me to finally re-up my team membership. only bronze this time, but better than nothing.


are you also an NRA member? if not, IM me, I'll cover you for the year.
Link Posted: 2/23/2007 9:21:04 PM EST

Originally Posted By txgp17:
ARFCOM mentioned on National Review.com
corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MWI0Y2YwNTMzNjVhM2Y0YmYwM2UyZDllOWE3MGRiM2Y=
awesome


Impressive.
Link Posted: 2/23/2007 9:26:59 PM EST
Link Posted: 2/23/2007 9:34:50 PM EST

Originally Posted By A_Free_Man:
The more guns McCarthy corrals with her bill the better. Let me explain...

The more ordinary guns she wants to ban, the more gun owners are affected, there is less chance of passage. People, even the Zumbos, will see how unreasonable the bill is and will not support it.


We have the Zumbos of the shooting community perfectly willing to throw AR-15's off the sleigh, as long as it doesn't affect their bolt action rifles and pump shotguns, it's OK with them.

When the Zumbos see it has an affect on them, too, and put the heat on elected officials, the bill will go down in flames.

Or even if it passes, there are millions more who will say, "From my cold dead hands."

The worse her bill is, the better for us.

Don't be lulled by "grandfather clauses" either. I am not willing to give away the rights of my children and grandchildren to own the same guns I own.

NO COMPROMISES... NONE!

NO REGISTRATION... NEVER REGISTER!!!

MOLON F------ LABE!

Yes, I noticed the Hi-Point carbine and Mini-14.
Whe granpa gets sent to prison for his old wood stocked ruger, or joe blow gets sent for the cheap novelty plinker, more people will say "My lord, that's what they are calling an assault rifle!?!?!?"
Link Posted: 2/23/2007 10:04:22 PM EST

Originally Posted By ANGST:
From the NRA's latest e-mail

THE MOST SWEEPING GUN BAN EVER INTRODUCED IN CONGRESS;
McCarthy Bill Bans Millions More Guns Than The Clinton Gun Ban

On Feb. 14, 2007, Representative Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.) introduced H.R. 1022, a bill with the stated purpose, "to reauthorize the assault weapons ban, and for other purposes."

McCarthy's verbiage warrants explanation. Presumably, what she means by "assault weapons ban" is the Clinton Gun Ban of 1994. Congress allowed the ban to expire in 2004 for multiple reasons, including the fact that federal, state and local law enforcement agency studies showed that guns affected by the ban had been used in only a small percentage of crime, before and after the ban was imposed.

With the nation's murder rate 43% lower than in 1991, and the re-legalized guns still used in only a small percentage of crime, reauthorizing the Clinton Gun Ban would be objectionable enough. But McCarthy's "other purposes" would make matters even worse. H.R. 1022 would ban every gun banned by the Clinton ban, plus millions more guns, including:

. Every gun made to comply with the Clinton ban. (The Clinton ban dictated the kinds of grips, stocks and attachments new guns could have. Manufacturers modified new guns to the Clinton requirements. H.R. 1022 would ban the modified guns too.)

. Guns exempted by the Clinton ban. (Ruger Mini-14s and -30s and Ranch Rifles; .30 cal. carbines; and fixed-magazine, semi-automatic, center-fire rifles that hold more than 10 rounds.)

. All semi-automatic shotguns. (E.g., Remington, Winchester, Beretta and Benelli, used for hunting, sport shooting, and self-defense. H.R. 1022 would ban them because they have "any characteristic that can function as a grip," and would also ban their main component, called the "receiver.")

. All detachable-magazine semi-automatic rifles-including, for example, the ubiquitous Ruger 10/22 .22 rimfire-because they have "any characteristic that can function as a grip."

. Target shooting rifles. (E.g., the three centerfire rifles most popular for marksmanship competitions: the Colt AR-15, the Springfield M1A and the M1 "Garand.")

. Any semi-automatic shotgun or rifle an Attorney General one day claims isn't "sporting," even though the constitutions of the U.S. and 44 states, and the laws of all 50 states, recognize the right to use guns for defense.

. 65 named guns (the Clinton law banned 19 by name); semi-auto fixed-magazine pistols of over 10 rounds capacity; and frames, receivers and parts used to repair or refurbish guns.

H.R. 1022 would also ban the importation of magazines exempted by the Clinton ban, ban the sale of a legally-owned "assault weapon" with a magazine of over 10 rounds capacity, and begin backdoor registration of guns, by requiring private sales of banned guns, frames, receivers and parts to be conducted through licensed dealers. Finally, whereas the Clinton Gun Ban was imposed for a 10-year trial period, H.R. 1022 would be a permanent ban.

Please be sure to contact your U.S. Representative and urge him or her to oppose
H.R. 1022!

You can call your U.S. Representative at (202) 225-3121.


I'm glad the pointed out that the very title of the bill is misleading at the least. This ban is an order of magnitude beyond the 1994 ban and is pretty much a completely different law.

Honestly, I am a bit dismayed that, with few exceptions, no bills are ever introduced to put the anti's on the defensive. Battles cannot be won by defense only. Even the "protection of lawful commerce in arms" is defensive in nature. I want to see at least one federal gun control law REPEALED. Personally, I will be satisfied with trashing the "sporting purposes" bullshit or the 1986 MG freeze.
Link Posted: 2/23/2007 10:12:25 PM EST

Originally Posted By PromptCritical:

Honestly, I am a bit dismayed that, with few exceptions, no bills are ever introduced to put the anti's on the defensive. Battles cannot be won by defense only. Even the "protection of lawful commerce in arms" is defensive in nature. I want to see at least one federal gun control law REPEALED. Personally, I will be satisfied with trashing the "sporting purposes" bullshit or the 1986 MG freeze.

I agree. As long as we are on the defensive, then we are in a position where we must rally our troops and win every single battle, while they can introduce the same (or worse) bills every year and only have to win once. Long term, that's a losing cause.
Link Posted: 2/23/2007 10:35:04 PM EST

Originally Posted By midwinter:

Originally Posted By sirensong:
i've been incredibly short on cash lately, but this whole episode has motivated me to finally re-up my team membership. only bronze this time, but better than nothing.


are you also an NRA member? if not, IM me, I'll cover you for the year.


i appreciate the offer, bud, but this is something i have to do on my own.

thanks, though.

Link Posted: 2/23/2007 10:35:36 PM EST
Cant this new bill get debated and changed into something "workable" before they push it into congress? By workable I mean boiling it down to only banning EBRs?
Top Top