The Good the NRA did Saturday
Daughter and I finally got around to taking our KS CCW class on Sat. Don't know why we waited so long since we both have been a CCW supporter for years, spent time, money and effort helping to get it passed effective Jan. 1, 2007.
We had two great instructors during the 8 hour class. The presented a good lecture, gave us a three ring binder, to keep, with course material in it. They of course went over a lot of the material in the binder. Gave us some great manuals and other information as well as had us watch a great video produced by the NRA. Had class discussions, etc. Nautrally we went out for live fire exercise at which time if one of the students had harmed/killed anyone the instructers would have been facing some liability issues.
We had about 10 people in the class and, just as most places you go to where you are surrounded by gun-type people, everyone was great to be with. I think CCW is great since it helps introduce society more and more to the idea of the common, lawful, average citizen havng a firearm when needed. In addition, the more people that have a CCW, the more likely they are to start paying attention to the various entitites that are always trying to take away their gun rights.
In regards to the NRA doing some good, both instructors were qualified solely by having graduated an NRA training class. Had those instuctors not had that NRA indorsement, I frankly do not know how/where they would have become qualified to teach and qualify us to become CCW holders. In addition, one instructor told me that the only place he could obtain insurance to protect him in case of a firearm accident in class/range was through the NRA.
I have already mentioned all the printed material and video provided a low/no cost from the NRA. There was little or no attempt to get anyone to join the NRA nor was there any NRA "propaganda" in the class. At $100 per student, over 8 hours divided by two instructors, even if the $100 per student was 100% pure profit, each instructor was only making about $62.00 per hour. So when you figure in their material costs, insurance, etc. they weren't exactly getting rich off an occassional CCW class. This also means that the "money grubbing NRA" (as some many here accuse) was not making a bundle either.
For those here who critize the NRA as being only a "hunting organization", I want to point out to them that when you go "hunting" you have little or no need to have a CCW. Nor when hunting do you need a right to carry concealed on city streets. Yet the NRA helps and supports CCW. In addition, in many states (KS & MO for sure) the NRA helped get CCW passed. For those unable to think for themselves, this is known as "expanding" your gunrights. It is not known as "selling you out" or giving away your gun rights.
And yes, it would be far better to just to be able to go by a strict interpertation of the US 2A (as well as some state constitutions) in order protect our gun rights. But if you look at the success the anti-gun crowd has made in the last 30 or so years, that hasn't been working very well.
Although I belong to a few other national pro-gun rights groups, I cannot name even one that is as visible in helping gun owners as the NRA
Yet many here constantly find fault and howl for the demise of the NRA.
Go ahead, you usual complainers, start howling. While you are howling, the NRA is helping your fellow gun owners expand and enjoy ALL their gun rights.
We had two great instructors during the 8 hour class. The presented a good lecture, gave us a three ring binder, to keep, with course material in it. They of course went over a lot of the material in the binder. Gave us some great manuals and other information as well as had us watch a great video produced by the NRA. Had class discussions, etc. Nautrally we went out for live fire exercise at which time if one of the students had harmed/killed anyone the instructers would have been facing some liability issues.
We had about 10 people in the class and, just as most places you go to where you are surrounded by gun-type people, everyone was great to be with. I think CCW is great since it helps introduce society more and more to the idea of the common, lawful, average citizen havng a firearm when needed. In addition, the more people that have a CCW, the more likely they are to start paying attention to the various entitites that are always trying to take away their gun rights.
In regards to the NRA doing some good, both instructors were qualified solely by having graduated an NRA training class. Had those instuctors not had that NRA indorsement, I frankly do not know how/where they would have become qualified to teach and qualify us to become CCW holders. In addition, one instructor told me that the only place he could obtain insurance to protect him in case of a firearm accident in class/range was through the NRA.
I have already mentioned all the printed material and video provided a low/no cost from the NRA. There was little or no attempt to get anyone to join the NRA nor was there any NRA "propaganda" in the class. At $100 per student, over 8 hours divided by two instructors, even if the $100 per student was 100% pure profit, each instructor was only making about $62.00 per hour. So when you figure in their material costs, insurance, etc. they weren't exactly getting rich off an occassional CCW class. This also means that the "money grubbing NRA" (as some many here accuse) was not making a bundle either.
For those here who critize the NRA as being only a "hunting organization", I want to point out to them that when you go "hunting" you have little or no need to have a CCW. Nor when hunting do you need a right to carry concealed on city streets. Yet the NRA helps and supports CCW. In addition, in many states (KS & MO for sure) the NRA helped get CCW passed. For those unable to think for themselves, this is known as "expanding" your gunrights. It is not known as "selling you out" or giving away your gun rights.
And yes, it would be far better to just to be able to go by a strict interpertation of the US 2A (as well as some state constitutions) in order protect our gun rights. But if you look at the success the anti-gun crowd has made in the last 30 or so years, that hasn't been working very well.
Although I belong to a few other national pro-gun rights groups, I cannot name even one that is as visible in helping gun owners as the NRA
Yet many here constantly find fault and howl for the demise of the NRA.
Go ahead, you usual complainers, start howling. While you are howling, the NRA is helping your fellow gun owners expand and enjoy ALL their gun rights.
0
-
And while you were attending the ccw class I was getting all the ammo bargins at the gun show.hahaha Not every organization can be or will be everything to everybody but the NRA is the best we have for all of us. Day in and day out they have a very big job and we can't squabble over different things we need to fight together. NRA Endowment member and Proud.[:D][:D][:D][^] 0 -
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
For those unable to think for themselves, this is known as "expanding" your gunrights. It is not known as "selling you out" or giving away your gun rights.
Please explain to me how the NRA's actions towards Parker vs. D.C expanded my gun rights?0 -
quote:Originally posted by Rack Ops
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
For those unable to think for themselves, this is known as "expanding" your gunrights. It is not known as "selling you out" or giving away your gun rights.
Please explain to me how the NRA's actions towards Parker vs. D.C expanded my gun rights?
I am not really qualified to explain that to you since D.C. and that case is far removed from me. You seem to have already taken a side on the issue, so kindly explain the situation to me.0 -
Rack -
+ many.
Doug0 -
We've been over this before, fox.....do you really want me to rehash the whole damn thing? 0 -
Why doesn't the NRA fight for a Vermont or Alaska style concealed carry law? I would go along with that. You know, where if you can legally BUY a gun, you can legally CARRY a gun. Considering that Alaska's law was passed in recent years, the argument about it not happening in this day and age, doesn't hold water.
You can praise the NRA for "expanding" our gun rights all you want. On the other hand (as stated) when they HELP (as well as support) the government taking a CONSTITUTIONALLY GUARANTEED RIGHT, and turning it into a REVOCABLE PRIVILEGE, "ALLOWED" by the government, saddled with government imposed waiting periods (for some areas) training, FEES, an issued "PERMIT" etc.
Law abiding citizens shouldn't' have to beg, get fingerprinted, photographed, pay fees, and registered to exercise their 2nd amendment rights.
Well, each reader will make up their own mind.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Rack Ops
We've been over this before, fox.....do you really want me to rehash the whole damn thing?
Just give me the highlights. All I remember is that some pro-gun people were totally in favor of the recent D.C. lawsuit's success and I think I remember that the NRA spoke out against it. Somethng about regardless how good the gun rights wind looked in the short run, actually in the long run the anti-gun side would be able to use that "win" against us.
From what I posted above orginally, I believe my description shows that the NRA wants people to have, enjoy and use their guns. All kinds of guns. Handguns as well as hunting guns. So if that is indeed the case, why would the NRA then turn around and, in DC for example, do something that would harm citizens gun rights? How does that make sense?
Besides, as we all know, every person and organization, even with the best of intentions, will sometimes come down on the wrong side of something. Or, if you have a disagreement with whatever it is/was that the NRA is doing in DC, it is possible that they know more about the situation than you or I do. Strangely, if indeed the NRA is way wrong in their position about the DC lawsuit, I haven't read any DC residents that have posted any complaints about it. Unless you yourself are a DC resident.0 -
quote:Originally posted by pickenup
Why doesn't the NRA fight for a Vermont or Alaska style concealed carry law? I would go along with that. You know, where if you can legally BUY a gun, you can legally CARRY a gun. Considering that Alaska's law was passed in recent years, the argument about it not happening in this day and age, doesn't hold water.
You can praise the NRA for "expanding" our gun rights all you want. On the other hand (as stated) when they HELP (as well as support) the government taking a CONSTITUTIONALLY GUARANTEED RIGHT, and turning it into a REVOCABLE PRIVILEGE, "ALLOWED" by the government, saddled with government imposed waiting periods (for some areas) training, FEES, an issued "PERMIT" etc.
Law abiding citizens shouldn't' have to beg, get fingerprinted, photographed, pay fees, and registered to exercise their 2nd amendment rights.
Well, each reader will make up their own mind.
Life is lived in varying degrees of fairness and success. We gun people need all the friends and help we can get. Here are some examples of what I mean regarding enemies:
Someone who wants to outlaw ALL your guns (long and hand) is your worst enemy.
Someone who wants to outlaw just your handguns is your second worst enemy.
Someone who wants to outlaw just your semiautos is a somewhat lessor enemy.
Someone who only wants each firearm purchase to go through a NICS check is, compared to the above, a pretty mild enemy. When fighting for gun rights, unless we pro-gun people have more time, energy, money and political power than we know what to do with, this last enemy should be the last one we spend much time on.
In regards to our friends:
A powerful and effective national gun rights organization that is very aggressive and fights for gun rights without compromise is your best friend IF THEY ALWAYS WIN.
A longtime, national, powerful gunrights organization that is aggressive when they can be or think they should be, but compromises when forced to, yet overall seems, to 4 million members, to make gun rights progress IS ALSO YOUR FRIEND.
We gun people need as few enemies as we can get and also need as many friends as we can get.
Now here is a message directly solely at the gun people here who have spent time, money and effort fighting for gun rights. This message is not directed at the slackers, free riding gun owners who do little or nothing for guns rights. Nothing except complain about the NRA for just one example. Now those gun rights active gun owners, when those do nothing gun owners come along and start shooting their mouth off, offering advice, complaints and criticism, why do you fail to tell them to shut up, go out and find some way to actually do some good for gun rights? Then come back and they can shoot their mouths off all they want since they will then have earned the right to do so?
Even if the NRA is now worthless (it isn't) at one time it did great things for gun owners (it still does). If we can agree on some of that, then the gun owning slackers here on GB.com have no right to come along and offer their criticsm of the NRA or any other gun rights organization. So why do you active gun owners put up with that?0 -
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
quote:Originally posted by Rack Ops
We've been over this before, fox.....do you really want me to rehash the whole damn thing?
Just give me the highlights. All I remember is that some pro-gun people were totally in favor of the recent D.C. lawsuit's success and I think I remember that the NRA spoke out against it. Somethng about regardless how good the gun rights wind looked in the short run, actually in the long run the anti-gun side would be able to use that "win" against us.
This is one of the most asinine quotes to ever be posted on this board.....
Anyways, here are the "highlights" as recorded by Robert Levy, the man behind the D.C suit
http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20030722-093717-6859r.htm
Battle of the gun ban
By Robert A. Levy/Gene Healy
Disarmed residents of the nation's capital, which is also the nation's murder capital, seem to have attracted a powerful ally in Sen. Orrin Hatch, Utah Republican. The D.C. Personal Protection Act, introduced by Mr. Hatch on July 15, would repeal the District's 27-year ban on handguns and lift prohibitions on carrying weapons in homes and businesses.
Yes, Congress has been through this before. For the first time, however, someone with the heft of Orrin Hatch is leading the charge. Why Mr. Hatch? And why his sudden preoccupation with D.C. after 27 years? As Council Member Kathy Patterson (Democrat of Ward 3) put it: "I can't believe a senator of his stature would waste time on something like that." Of course, defenseless Washingtonians, at the mercy of the local drug gangs, may have a different view of what constitutes wasted time. Still, that doesn't explain Mr. Hatch's sudden emergence as a crusader for repeal.
Enter the National Rifle Association, a Hatch supporter (and vice versa), the organization most closely associated with vindicating gun-owners' rights. Now it gets really convoluted, because the facts suggest Mr. Hatch and the NRA are doing everything they can to prevent the Supreme Court from upholding the Second Amendment. Here's the untold story behind the Hatch bill: It was concocted by the NRA to head off a pending lawsuit, Parker vs. District of Columbia, which challenges the D.C. gun ban on Second Amendment grounds.
In February, joined by two other attorneys, we filed the Parker case, a civil lawsuit in federal court on behalf of six D.C. residents who want to be able to defend themselves with a handgun in their own homes. When we informed the NRA of our intent, we were advised to abandon the effort. Surprisingly, the expressed reason was that the case was too good. It could succeed in the lower courts then move up to the Supreme Court where, according to the NRA, it might receive a hostile reception.
Maybe so. But with a Republican president filling vacancies, one might expect the court's composition to improve by the time our case was reviewed. More important, if a good case doesn't reach the nine justices, a bad one will. Spurred by Attorney General John Ashcroft's endorsement of an individual right to bear arms, public defenders across the country are invoking the Second Amendment as a defense to prosecution. How long before the high court gets one of those cases, with a crack dealer as the Second Amendment's poster child?
Despite that risk, the NRA seems determined to derail our case. Nearly two months after we filed our lawsuit, the NRA filed a copycat suit on behalf of five D.C. residents and moved to consolidate its case with ours. Both suits challenged the same regulations, asked the same relief, and raised the same Second Amendment arguments. But the NRA included several unrelated constitutional and statutory counts, each of which would prolong and complicate our case and give the court a path around the Second Amendment.
Worse still, the NRA sued not only the District of Columbia but also Mr. Ashcroft, presumably because the Justice Department prosecutes felonies in D.C. Yet no NRA plaintiff is at risk of a felony prosecution. Joining Mr. Ashcroft simply adds months to the litigation so the court can decide whether he is a proper defendant. Regrettably, we now have two suits, one of which is unnecessary and counterproductive.
Thankfully, on July 8, federal Judge Emmet Sullivan, wishing "to avoid any protracted delay in the resolution of the merits in either case," denied the NRA's motion to consolidate. That means the NRA failed in its attempt to control the legal strategy. Just one week later, Mr. Hatch introduced his bill. The timing is suspicious, to say the least. If enacted, Mr. Hatch's D.C. Personal Protection Act could result in the dismissal of our lawsuit. After all, plaintiffs cannot challenge a law that no longer exists.
Everything points to an NRA effort to frustrate Parker. Why was the bill introduced by Mr. Hatch rather than some back-bencher? Why not wait for a court decision (the legislative option is always open, even if the court were to go the wrong way on the Second Amendment)? Why did the NRA file its suit at the outset? Why raise extraneous legal claims, then move to consolidate with Parker, a clean Second Amendment case? Why include Mr. Ashcroft when he is so obviously an improper defendant? Essentially, the NRA is saying, "If we can't control the litigation, there will be no litigation."
Yes, the rights of D.C. residents can be vindicated by either legislation or litigation. But a narrow bill aimed at the D.C. Code will have negligible impact on gun-owners' rights when contrasted with an unambiguous pronouncement, applicable across the nation, from the U.S. Supreme Court.
Robert A. Levy is senior fellow in constitutional studies and Gene Healy is senior editor at the Cato Institute.0 -
As soon as we get some money, The Wife and I decided to get our CCW. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
Someone who wants to outlaw ALL your guns (long and hand) is your worst enemy.
Someone who wants to outlaw just your handguns is your second worst enemy.
Someone who wants to outlaw just your semiautos is a somewhat lessor enemy.
Someone who only wants each firearm purchase to go through a NICS check is, compared to the above, a pretty mild enemy. When fighting for gun rights, unless we pro-gun people have more time, energy, money and political power than we know what to do with, this last enemy should be the last one we spend much time on.
Wrong. They are ALL enemies of gun rights.
Not sure where you've been the past 20 or so years...when was the last time gun owners GAINED anything? DC, more states passing CCW--that's just taking back what was taken from us--what is Constitutionally OURS. That is NOT a gaining jack squat.0 -
LMAO @ trfox . Even here among many, more liberal, types, you seem to have few supporters. While there MAY be SOME here fooled by the NationalRemovalAssociation, seems the MAJORITY are NOT fooled. Perhaps, just PERHAPS that explains WHY the majority DO NOT belong to a theif-in-the-night organization. 0 -
Ahmen brother!Some people seem to forget that.quote:Originally posted by p64mak
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
Someone who wants to outlaw ALL your guns (long and hand) is your worst enemy.
Someone who wants to outlaw just your handguns is your second worst enemy.
Someone who wants to outlaw just your semiautos is a somewhat lessor enemy.
Someone who only wants each firearm purchase to go through a NICS check is, compared to the above, a pretty mild enemy. When fighting for gun rights, unless we pro-gun people have more time, energy, money and political power than we know what to do with, this last enemy should be the last one we spend much time on.
Wrong. They are ALL enemies of gun rights.
Not sure where you've been the past 20 or so years...when was the last time gun owners GAINED anything? DC, more states passing CCW--that's just taking back what was taken from us--what is Constitutionally OURS. That is NOT a gaining jack squat.0 -
The battered wife syndrome.
Alive and well here in America. We pop the corks and slap each other on the back when big daddy brings a bauble home..after all, he didn't backhand us when he came in the door.did he ?
So we will ignore the fact that we must crawl on our knees and beg him to breath.or in this case, buy a gun..but at least we don't have to crawl to his little brother , too.Such a gain.
By safely ignoring the fact that WE ARE CRAWLING .to exercise a RIGHT..we can pretend that all is well.
We also can hate those pointing out that uncomfortable fact.
As stated above..gun controllers and their handmaidens are indeed enemies of freedom.and their way is greased by those owning guns yet promote gun control.0 -
quote:Originally posted by pickenup
Why doesn't the NRA fight for a Vermont or Alaska style concealed carry law? I would go along with that. You know, where if you can legally BUY a gun, you can legally CARRY a gun. Considering that Alaska's law was passed in recent years, the argument about it not happening in this day and age, doesn't hold water.
You can praise the NRA for "expanding" our gun rights all you want. On the other hand (as stated) when they HELP (as well as support) the government taking a CONSTITUTIONALLY GUARANTEED RIGHT, and turning it into a REVOCABLE PRIVILEGE, "ALLOWED" by the government, saddled with government imposed waiting periods (for some areas) training, FEES, an issued "PERMIT" etc.
Law abiding citizens shouldn't' have to beg, get fingerprinted, photographed, pay fees, and registered to exercise their 2nd amendment rights.
Well, each reader will make up their own mind.
Amen Brother pickenup, true words.
Some like to point only at the good that the NRA does and they indeed do some good things in isolated areas, primarily in the training area. Those same people refuse to acknowledge the NRA's history and their continuing underlaying actions of compromise, facilitation and support for gun-control.
Folks, you just can't get around the facts, in bold above. Anyone willing to turn a blind eye is a huge part of the problem, period.0 -
quote:Originally posted by p64mak
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
Someone who wants to outlaw ALL your guns (long and hand) is your worst enemy.
Someone who wants to outlaw just your handguns is your second worst enemy.
Someone who wants to outlaw just your semiautos is a somewhat lessor enemy.
Someone who only wants each firearm purchase to go through a NICS check is, compared to the above, a pretty mild enemy. When fighting for gun rights, unless we pro-gun people have more time, energy, money and political power than we know what to do with, this last enemy should be the last one we spend much time on.
Wrong. They are ALL enemies of gun rights.
Not sure where you've been the past 20 or so years...when was the last time gun owners GAINED anything? DC, more states passing CCW--that's just taking back what was taken from us--what is Constitutionally OURS. That is NOT a gaining jack squat.
I cannot understand how anyone here could think the in red above is a "bad" thing.0 -
I cheerfully accept the criticism, even the angry criticism, from gun owners here who have and are actually doing something to help fight for gun rights. However, for those here who are the free riders that only want to join in howling against the NRA, while doing nothing else, I direct you to part of my orginally statement copied below:
Now here is a message directly solely at the gun people here who have spent time, money and effort fighting for gun rights. This message is not directed at the slackers, free riding gun owners who do little or nothing for guns rights. Nothing except complain about the NRA for just one example. Now those gun rights active gun owners, when those do nothing gun owners come along and start shooting their mouth off, offering advice, complaints and criticism, why do you fail to tell them to shut up, go out and find some way to actually do some good for gun rights? Then come back and they can shoot their mouths off all they want since they will then have earned the right to do so?
Even if the NRA is now worthless (it isn't) at one time it did great things for gun owners (it still does). If we can agree on some of that, then the gun owning slackers here on GB.com have no right to come along and offer their criticsm of the NRA or any other gun rights organization. So why do you active gun owners put up with that?
But even at that, a few of the NRA critics here admit that someplaces, someways, the NRA does help gun rights. Yet they still wish for the demise of the NRA and have contempt for the NRA and its supporters. For those who have not noticed, we gun people have a shortage of friends. For the last few years it hasn't been nearly as bad as it is going to get. We need all the help and friends we can find. If someone/something is helping my situation, even a little, I am not stupid enough to just wish that help go away.
Maybe other people are.0 -
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
If someone/something is helping my situation, even a little, I am not stupid enough to just wish that help go away.
Tr, THAT statement is where the problem lays with you AND the NRA. When they pull out one sliver from your finger, THAT is what you remember, you forget about the limb they plunged into your back. You jump around and cheer how they saved you, yet blindly forget about (or ignore) the HARM they caused YOU and every CITIZEN. When you back/support/write unconstitutional laws that INFRINGE upon freedom, you become an enemy of LIBERTY. That would be like saying teddy kennedy was a real supporter if he helped pass legislation for universal CCW's , but afterword passed laws to remove handguns from the citizenry. Either you fully, unconditioally SUPPORT the second, or you don't. By their own actions, the NRA does NOT. It has never been about common sense (or what passes for it these days) it IS about right and wrong, unconstitutional or constitutional. There is not now/will be/ has beeen a middle road. Your either on one side or the other.
But after all I am such and NRA hater right? What would I know right?0 -
Here is a link I discovered for you NRA bashers who think you have made the right choice. It is a private company, not an NRA branch, who took a poll. In that poll, out of almost 1,000 replys, 82.94 of the voters were either an NRA member or thinking about joining the NRA.
I guess those people are not as smart as you NRA bashers. Here's the link:
http://www.jgsales.com/pollbooth.php?op=results&pollid=720 -
Please explain to me how the NRA's actions towards Parker vs. D.C expanded my gun rights? 0 -
I am glad to see someones state has really good cwp. I just took mine after years of toting around(legal in glove box or center console here).
Thought they would go over certain areas more than others. I would have rather heard more about "clean shoot" senarios than "this is a bullet,case,powder,primer,trigger,hammer,etc.0 -
What difference does it make if 9 out 10 people belong to the NRA ?
5 of them agree with gun control, and are happy with the organization...the other four are just too stupid to understand what "Shall Not Be Infringed" means.0 -
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
Here is a link I discovered for you NRA bashers who think you have made the right choice. It is a private company, not an NRA branch, who took a poll. In that poll, out of almost 1,000 replys, 82.94 of the voters were either an NRA member or thinking about joining the NRA.
I guess those people are not as smart as you NRA bashers. Here's the link:
http://www.jgsales.com/pollbooth.php?op=results&pollid=72
It isn't about intelligence, it is about IGNORANCE. Education and knowledge will eventually rule the day.[;)]
The NRA is NOT the answer to the survival of Amendment II. They will play a large part in its demise.0 -
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is considered crazy.
That's all I've got to say on this particular topic thread.0 -
quote:tr fox Posted - 08/29/2007 : 11:55:31 AM
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is considered crazy.
Yes, indeed, Tr;
One eye is enough to read the Second Amendment, and find therein no room for the Federal Government to make nor enforce gun laws.
Perhaps some day, a skilled surgeon will transplant at least ONE eye for you and the NRA to see with.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
25 comments