Be Wary of NRA Bashers
This rant is not directed at the occasional, casual and sincere critic of the NRA. You know who you are.
As a long time NRA supporter I have been noticing suspicous activity here on GB.com regarding the same people who constantly bash the NRA. These strange things are:
1. It is usually the same handfull of people time after time, day after day and week after week. I am frankly astounded at the amount of time and effort the same people continually exhibit in their NRA bashing. I am starting to wonder if the NRA killed their dog, kidnapped their child or raped their wife to make these people hate the NRA so badly.
2. There are 3 or 4 posters who seem to work as a " tag team" in their NRA bashing. Keep a record of poster names and how often they bash the NRA and how often they do it at about the same time. You will find they appear to be doing their bashing almost as part of their "job" assignment.
3. Even though these posters try to talk you "out" of the NRA, they never, or rarely try to talk you "into" another pro-gun rights organization. Which is odd. Because in the gun rights war, few people would claim that we pro-gun people can do without any national pro-gun rights groups at all working for us. And the only way those groups can do any good is if we gun people join up and support those groups.
4. GB.com has a permanent advertisment to "join the NRA" on their website. Yet these same NRA bashers come on to GB.com as guests and abuse their guest rights by loudly and longly conducting a seemingly coordinated anti-NRA campaign. If they hate the NRA so badly, why don't they start their own website or visit an anti-gun web site and bash the NRA?
5. We never ever seem to have the known anti-gun people visit GB.com and preach to us. I've always wondered about that absence of the anti-gun people. You know they know where we are and what we are doing. It astounds me that we don't get frequent visits from them where they bitch at us, critize us, tell us how bad guns and the NRA are, and try to get us to change our ways.
Wait! M-a-y-b-e they.......are among us........in disguise.
As a long time NRA supporter I have been noticing suspicous activity here on GB.com regarding the same people who constantly bash the NRA. These strange things are:
1. It is usually the same handfull of people time after time, day after day and week after week. I am frankly astounded at the amount of time and effort the same people continually exhibit in their NRA bashing. I am starting to wonder if the NRA killed their dog, kidnapped their child or raped their wife to make these people hate the NRA so badly.
2. There are 3 or 4 posters who seem to work as a " tag team" in their NRA bashing. Keep a record of poster names and how often they bash the NRA and how often they do it at about the same time. You will find they appear to be doing their bashing almost as part of their "job" assignment.
3. Even though these posters try to talk you "out" of the NRA, they never, or rarely try to talk you "into" another pro-gun rights organization. Which is odd. Because in the gun rights war, few people would claim that we pro-gun people can do without any national pro-gun rights groups at all working for us. And the only way those groups can do any good is if we gun people join up and support those groups.
4. GB.com has a permanent advertisment to "join the NRA" on their website. Yet these same NRA bashers come on to GB.com as guests and abuse their guest rights by loudly and longly conducting a seemingly coordinated anti-NRA campaign. If they hate the NRA so badly, why don't they start their own website or visit an anti-gun web site and bash the NRA?
5. We never ever seem to have the known anti-gun people visit GB.com and preach to us. I've always wondered about that absence of the anti-gun people. You know they know where we are and what we are doing. It astounds me that we don't get frequent visits from them where they bitch at us, critize us, tell us how bad guns and the NRA are, and try to get us to change our ways.
Wait! M-a-y-b-e they.......are among us........in disguise.
0
-
Long ago I dimissed the bashers as either folks who didn't have the extra money for dues and talked crap to cover it up, or people actually for gun control.
Either way it's doesn't matter much to me. I'm still with the NRA.0 -
Some people simply have a different vision and feel the NRA has failed them. Others do seem to be particularly hateful towards the organization but that's their right. I don't agree with them but I don't think it's any great conspiracy.
But really, how many more threads about the NRA do we need?0 -
I'm with GOA and I think you should break out the tin-foil hats. 0 -
I don't know about bashing them....I don't like them and I no longer support them....
I do support a couple groups, but not a dime to the NRA!!!!
Fact is I have now blocked the NRA as SPAM!!!0 -
quote:As a long time NRA supporter I have been noticing suspicous activity here on GB.com regarding the same people who constantly bash the NRA. These strange things are:
1. It is usually the same handfull of people time after time, day after day and week after week. I am frankly astounded at the amount of time and effort the same people continually exhibit in their NRA bashing. I am starting to wonder if the NRA killed their dog, kidnapped their child or raped their wife to make these people hate the NRA so badly.
2. There are 3 or 4 posters who seem to work as a " tag team" in their NRA bashing. Keep a record of poster names and how often they bash the NRA and how often they do it at about the same time. You will find they appear to be doing their bashing almost as part of their "job" assignment.
3. Even though these posters try to talk you "out" of the NRA, they never, or rarely try to talk you "into" another pro-gun rights organization. Which is odd. Because in the gun rights war, few people would claim that we pro-gun people can do without any national pro-gun rights groups at all working for us. And the only way those groups can do any good is if we gun people join up and support those groups.
4. GB.com has a permanent advertisment to "join the NRA" on their website. Yet these same NRA bashers come on to GB.com as guests and abuse their guest rights by loudly and longly conducting a seemingly coordinated anti-NRA campaign. If they hate the NRA so badly, why don't they start their own website or visit an anti-gun web site and bash the NRA?
5. We never ever seem to have the known anti-gun people visit GB.com and preach to us. I've always wondered about that absence of the anti-gun people. You know they know where we are and what we are doing. It astounds me that we don't get frequent visits from them where they bitch at us, critize us, tell us how bad guns and the NRA are, and try to get us to change our ways.
Wait! M-a-y-b-e they.......are among us........in disguise.
1. I am frankly astounded at the amount of time spent defending an un-intelligable position.
2.When the subject comes up, people offer their opinions, the same people , on both sides. However, the pro side offer little in the way of facts while the con side offer substantial facts.
3.This is an outright lie. GOA, JFPO, RMGO and numerous other organizations are always suggested as real alternatives to the traitors in an attempt to bolster the numbers of groups who actually do what the NRA only claims to do.
4. GB is entitled to an opinion, as is everbody else, supposedly. Are you suggesting we visit the NRA's website. They are anti-2A. Just being pro-hunting rifle doesn't cut it.
5. You're right, they are among us. Anybody who supports an organization that blesses the chiseling away of a right and endorses government regulation of a right, is one of them. Time to call a spade, a spade.
If you truly believe you are helping preserve this right, I beg of you...Please stop helping!!! Here's the kind of "help" I'm talking about....This is the kind we don't need.
quote:pickenup
Moderator
USA
15226 Posts
Posted - 09/22/2007 : 12:35:31 PM
quote:
Originally posted by p3skyking
What can it hurt?
What can it hurt?
First,
I am an NRA member, and a gun owner. I firmly believe in the 2nd Amendment,
AS IT WAS WRITTEN.
What part of,
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
or
The right to keep and BEAR arms,
is hard to understand???
Second,
THE WHOLE TRUTH,
If an organization claims to SPEAK FOR ME, then I WANT TO KNOW what they are doing / saying. If they make the claim that they champion MY RIGHTS, then I want them to DO IT, NOT compromise MY RIGHTS away.
Or are some so "afraid" of the "WHOLE" truth? Only wanting to hear ONE SIDE of the story. Is the NRA supposed to be placed on a pedestal, given FREE REIGN, where NO ONE is supposed to question their actions? Are they NOT to be held accountable for their actions? Why not?
It is SO much easier to attack any person who has the unmitigated gall to say ANYTHING negative about the NRA. Calling them a backstabber, an anti-gunner, an advocate for the "other side" than it is to admit that your precious organization advocates laws that are UNconstitutional, and NEEDS to have members WORKING TO CHANGE which laws they support. Ya, lets KILL the messenger.
Third,
Am I advocating withdrawing your membership from the NRA......NO.
Work within the system to CHANGE it, if you don't agree with what they are doing. I DO. LET THEM KNOW if you don't agree with their actions. They CAN'T FIX IT, IF THEY DON'T KNOW IT'S BROKEN. (which by the way, neither can the members) VOTE the bad guys OUT. VOTE the good guys IN.
Only problem is "as with politicians" if the bad guys are in there for any length of time, the damage they do, may be irreversible. Example, take a look at past and current gun laws. The NRA has played a large part in getting "MANY" of them passed.
Fourth,
Have they done some good? OF COURSE. They have to win "some" if they didn't, that 3-4 million membership number would fade away quickly. We have had almost 2 terms of a republican president. How many gun laws has the NRA even TRIED to have repealed? How many states have they fought for a "Vermont/Alaska style" CCW law in? How many states have they turned a CONSTITUTIONALLY GUARANTEED RIGHT (to bear arms) into a REVOCABLE PRIVILEGE (CCW) with the government deciding on who is ALLOWED to bear arms. (once the - fee - is paid, of course)
I for one, will NOT put them on a pedestal. I will NOT turn a blind eye to their actions. I WILL be watching. It's YOUR rights as well, shouldn't you be watching TOO?
*****
Compromise = A settlement of differences in which each side makes concessions.
What concessions has the other side made? Our side has to agree to incremental infringements of our constitutional rights now, rather than loosing them one all at once??? Where is the "compromise" in this?
*****
What HARM can they do / have they done?
Let us first consider the "Uniform Machinegun Act of 1932" which provided for the registration of machine guns, that was adopted in a few states (Conn., Va., Md., Ark., and Montana and possibly others) which was developed with the support of the NRA, BEFORE the feds ultimately adopted the "National Firearms Act" in 1934.
The reason this stands out, is that MANY people believe that the "National Firearms Act of 1934 was the pivotal law, the first of the UNconstitutional laws. Thereby "starting" an ever widening path, allowing for further infringements. Not so, the NRA was first.
"The NRA supported The Federal Firearms Act of 1938, which regulates interstate
and foreign commerce in firearms and pistol, revolver ammunition.
The NRA supported legislation to amend the "Federal Firearms Act" in regard to handguns when it was introduced in August, 1963.
In 1965, the NRA continued its support of an expansion of the above legislation to include rifles and shotguns, as well as handguns.
Additionally the NRA supported the regulation of the movement of handguns in interstate and foreign commerce by:
1. Requiring a sworn statement, containing certain information, from the purchaser to the seller for the receipt of a handgun in interstate commerce;
2. Providing for notification of local police of prospective sales;
3. Requiring an additional 7-day waiting period by the seller after receipt of acknowledgement of notification to local police;
4. Prescribing a minimum age of 21 for obtaining a license to sell firearms and increasing the license fees;
5. Providing for written notification by manufacturer or dealer to carrier that a firearm is being shipped in interstate commerce, and;
6. Increasing penalties for violation.
NRA HELPED WRITE the 1986 federal law prohibiting the manufacture and importation of "armor piercing ammunition" adopted standards.
*****
The NRA has been hard at work, over the last few years, turning a RIGHT (guaranteed by our constitution) into a revocable PRIVILEGE. Many pro-gun people commend them for this. Others see it for what it really is.
The second amendment states. "The right of the people to keep and BEAR arms" It doesn't say "to keep and display arms" or "to keep and hide arms" or "to keep and lock up your arms" or "to keep and use arms" it says "to keep and BEAR arms" Look it up in the dictionary. To "bear something" means to CARRY it. Any attempt at "interpreting" the meaning of this, is clearly an anti-gun tactic.
*****
"Project EXILE" IS the NRA's very own project.
NRA'S project (EXILE) supports ALL UNconstitutional gun laws. Handgun Control Inc. supports it TOO. NRA-ILA Executive Director James Jay Baker commented, "I'm glad that the president has finally agreed with the NRA that enforcing federal firearms laws makes sense. We've been pushing for more enforcement of existing laws. Did anyone tell them that ALL of the 20,000 gun laws are UNCONSTITUTIONAL??? OF COURSE Handgun Control Inc. supports this NRA project.
*****
Schools
Then NRA Executive Vice President Wayne R. LaPierre, Jr., made these damaging statements during his nationally televised speech at the Denver NRA Members Meeting May 1, 1999. "First, we believe in absolutely gun-free, zero-tolerance, totally safe schools. That means no guns in America's schools, period ... with the rare exception of law enforcement officers or trained security personnel."
All across the country, school boards and state legislators started doing precisely what LaPierre suggested: shutting down school riflery programs, prohibiting historical firearms displays, forbidding hunter safety training with unloaded guns, and banning gun possession by teachers and other adults with carry licenses. A good example of the long range implications of what LaPierre endorsed back then, is the recent tragedy at Virginia Tech.
Making schools a "gun free zone" where lunatics can murder with impunity, was his response to the Columbine shootings? What happened to advocating responsible carry, by responsible citizens???
*****
LaPierre also blessed gun show background checks by saying: "We will consider instant checks at gun shows when, and only when, this Administration stops (charging for NICS
checks) and stops illegally compiling the records of millions of lawful gun buyers."
The next day President Charlton Heston flatly said on ABC "This Week" that he was "in favor of" gun show background checks. Within weeks, bills for gun show background checks - and "youth gun access" bans - had been submitted in both houses of Congress!
*****
First amendment rights?
Was it the National Rifle Association that had ONE OF IT'S OWN MEMBERS, a pro-gun activist, ARRESTED at its national convention on, April 27, 2003 in Orlando, Florida for handing out PRO-gun freedom literature from an organization known as the Free State Project, Inc. The unlucky NRA member was Timothy Condon, a Marine Corps Vietnam veteran and Director of Member Services for the rapidly growing Free State Project.
*****
It was NRA PRESIDENT Dr. C.R. (Pink) Gutermuth, who saw "no problem with gun registration," and was head of the Wildlife Management Institute, who became NRA President in 1973.
Part of the problem began during the unlamented regime of former Executive Vice President Warren Cassidy. NRA lobbyists under Cassidy stopped opposing gun control bills and started offering NRA-approved versions of the same legislation. The NRA started WRITING ANTI-GUN LEGISLATION.
Politicians were lobbying their colleagues for the so-called "instant check?" These pro-gunners were pushing a gun control bill that the NRA was strongly supporting.
Jim Baker of the NRA was quoted by USA Today on October 26, 1993 as saying: "We already support 65% of the Brady bill, because it moves to an instant check, which is WHAT WE WANT."
NRA spokesman Bill McIntrye said that the instant background check also in the bill "will be a victory for gun owners.
From NRA Board member Tanya Metaksa.
I think this agreement was a victory for those who see flaws in the current bill. This is a much different Brady bill. This bill sunsets into what we've been supporting for several years [the instant check]. If you look at it in the long range, IT`S OUR BILL in five years.
*****
Recently the NRA tried to derail a case in Washington DC. The "Parker v. District of Columbia" case. First by trying to have the case consolidated with NRA controlled litigation, which would have drug this case out for YEARS. When that failed, the NRA got behind, and was pushing for the "DC Personal Protection Act" bill, which would, in effect, remove the law that the "Parker v. District of Columbia" case was based upon. Thereby preventing the "Parker v. District of Columbia" case from going before the supreme court.
Why would they try to derail a case that ultimately DID overturned a gun ban, and potentially settle the long disputed "individual right v. the right of the militia" to keep and bear arms? Because they said it was "too good" and might actually make it before the supreme court? A supreme court (considering the make up of it at present) where we have the best chance of them handing down a favorable ruling, than we have had in decades. With the very real potential, of the democrats gaining control in the next election (thereby giving them the opportunity to choose the next judges) if not now, WHEN?
And when was the NRA fighting for our rights in this way? Oh ya...2007.
*****
Lets look at ANOTHER bill backed by the NRA. H.R. 2640, the "NICS Improvement Amendments Act" Admittedly, as always, there are some "supposedly" pro-gun people that are in favor of this. For me, to see the first red flags thrown up, are to look at who is sponsoring/co-sponsoring this bill. Carolyn McCarthy along with Barbara Boxer. Nevermind the far reaching implications, with the potential of opening a Pandora's box, concerning the mental health issue regarding veterans, as well as anyone else that has seen some kind of mental issue. (children diagnosed with ADD? etc). The UNconstitutional NICS check should not be EXPANDED upon, in the first place.
Oh, and this again IS happening in 2007
*****
Lets not forget the NRA BOARD MEMBER (Joaquin Jackson) who "indicated" that "assault rifles" should only be in the hands of the military and/or law enforcement. But since they ARE legal for civilians to own, then civilians should be limited to 5 round magazines.
quote:
I think these assault weapons basically need to be in the hands of the military and they need to be in the hands of the police, but uh, as far as assault weapons to a civilian, if you. if you. it's alright if you got that magazine capacity down to five.
*****
While reading the following, keep in mind that former NRA board member Russ Howard, RESIGNED from the board. His words, "In the past 5 years I've become increasingly concerned over NRA's penchant for giving UNDESERVED grades to politicians who TRAMPLE on the 2nd Amendment."
In California JOAN MILKE FLORES VS JANE HARMAN. 36TH CONGRESSIONAL
Flores is an anti-gun Republican who voted FOR the Los Angeles Assault Rifle Ban. Harman is an anti- gun Democrat who got an "A" rating from the NRA. Why an "A" rating? She was ANTI-GUN!!! Who later said that she supports the assault weapon ban.
CHRISTINE REED VS TERRY FREIDMAN (State Assembly)
Reed was an anti-gun C-rated Republican Handgun Control Inc. member who had been mayor of Santa Monica. Reed who should have been an "F". Freidman was an F-rated incumbent Democrat who authored many anti-gun bills
TRICIA HUNTER: Hunter was state senator whose bid to retain office was based on high-profile attacks on "killer assault rifles". She was rated "A-" by the NRA.
Howard Dean got an A+ from the NRA while governor, he supported the assault weapons ban and Brady bill.
Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA). Did not vote when needed, but was helped by the NRA come re-election.
Rep. Elton Gallegly (R-CA) voted FOR the brady bill (3 times) then was helped by the NRA come re-election.
Congressman Elton Gallegly -- voted FOR the Brady bill and the assault weapon ban and got an A-, and an endorsement. NRA's Terry O'Grady said, 'Gallegly voted against us on Brady and the Crime Bill, but he's always been with us before. We've decided to forgive him, give him an A- and endorse him. SAY WHAT?
In Virginia, 15 legislators were given A ratings after they voted FOR both the one-gun-a-month ban AND the shotgun ban. 41 legislators who voted for either or both bans got A ratings. 7 got exceptional, "above the call of duty" ratings.
In North Carolina, some districts have two senators. In the '94 elections, District 20 was represented by Ted Kaplan and Marvin Ward. Both favored assault weapon bans, handgun registration, and a one-gun-a-month ban. Their challengers were solid pro-gunners Ham Horton and Mark McDaniels (who fought tooth and nail for CCW). Nevertheless, ILA upgraded both anti-gun incumbents to "A" (one was initially a C), endorsed them, and supported them by mailing orange alert cards to NRA members in their district. Kaplan and Ward lost anyway, as incensed local groups like Grass Roots NC broke ranks with ILA and helped elect the pro-gun challengers.
In NC in 1995, Senator Fountain Odom betrayed the 2nd Amendment by gutting the CCW bill in his subcommittee. The bill had come over in more or less tolerable format from the house. Odom fixed it so that only a few police instructors could give the mandatory training. NRA instructors were prohibited. He also worked to move un-permitted CCW from a misdemeanor to a felony, prohibit CCW with any alcohol "remaining" in the body, prohibit CCW in financial institutions, mandate that all training be fully repeated for each renewal, and gut statewide preemption. Limited preemption was restored in the full judiciary committee, but Odom betrayed us again, fixing it so CCW could be prohibited in any "park". Later on the floor, to give ILA cover, Odom amended the training section to allow NRA instructors to do the training. In 1996, Tanya Metaksa gave Odom an A, an endorsement, and an orange ALERT postcard mailing telling NRA members, "Senator Odom has demonstrated his commitment to our right to self-defense...Here's how you can help re-elect Fountain Odom -- a dedicated supporter of your Second Amendment rights. Help the campaign...make a contribution...spread the word to family, friends, and fellow gun owners... Sincerely, Tanya K. Metaksa." Odom's still trampling on our rights. Now he's pushing for a CCW liability law.
In Virginia in 1996, extreme "F" rated gun grabber Congressman Jim Moran faced "A" rated, NRA life member John Otey. The American Rifleman carried the following message: "THIS IS YOUR OFFICIAL PRO-GUN BALLOT FOR THE FOLLOWING DISTRICT: VIRGINIA 8, US CONGRESS...NO ENDORSEMENT"
NO endorsement for an A rated NRA life member challenging an F- rated gun grabber???
In Virginia, 3 congressmen who voted many times against gun rights and supported the Lautenberg ban, kept their A+ ratings (part of a large club of turncoat A and A+ politicians). Tom Davis got an A after voicing support for Brady and the assault weapon ban and orchestrating a unanimous vote of support for the one-gun-a-month ban as a Fairfax County Supervisor. ?
In Pennsylvania (1993), then Republican Minority Whip Matt Ryan INTRODUCED an assault rifle ban. In 1994, he kept his A+ rating.
In 2006, the NRA rated Ron Paul (arguably the MOST constitutional representative we have in office) with a "B" because he did not follow along in lock step, when the NRA endorsed (what Ron Paul saw) as an UNconstitutional bill. One that the NRA supported. Instead, they endorsed his UNproved, UNtested, DEMOCRATIC opponent.
*******
John Dingell?
The NRA's Golden Boy? The former NRA Director? The same guy who voted in favor of the 1994 "Assault" weapons ban and then resigned from the Board of Directors the day after the vote? The same Dingell who received the NRA's Harlon B. Carter Award, despite voting FOR an outright gun BAN? The same Dingell that coined the term"jack-booted thugs" when referring to the BATF? THAT Dingell?
NRA Board of Directors member Larry Craig, was one of the co-sponsors of this bill, "Our Lady of Peace Act" Which was introduced by Caroline McCarthy, and supported by Chuck Schumer along with the usual band of anti Second Amendment slime like, Ted Kennedy, Blanche Lincoln and Richard Durbin.
Don't know what it is/was? Look it up.
Can't forget the "help" we got from the NRA. In the "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act." Not debating, if setting this kind of precedent with legislation, protecting industries, is right. Not debating whether the industry needed this protection. The point here is, that there was a CLEAN bill (800) on the floor, AT THE SAME TIME. Everyone agrees that either bill (397 or 800) would pass through the senate, with no problem. So it depended on the house. There are always more votes than there are co-sponsors of a bill. S. Bill 800 had over 250 signed on as co-sponsors. MORE than enough to pass it, CLEAN. Why did the NRA CHOOSE to back the anti-gun laden bill, when there was a CLEAN alternative? For a true PRO-gun advocate, this was a no brainer.
The NRA awarded Assemblyman Rod Wright its "Defender of Freedom" Award. This is the same Rod Wright who supported UNconstitutional limits on firearms purchases and background checks. This is the same Rod Wright who authored a bill to increase licensing fees from $3 to up to $100. Never mind the absurdity of bilking peaceable citizens of hundreds of dollars for making a constitutionally protected purchase. This champion of "freedom" apparently thinks it's perfectly acceptable to license and charge Americans for exercising their rights. The NRA's "Defender of Freedom" in 2001 voted against gun owners 62 percent of the time
Deborah Danuski, a Democrat from Lisbon, was endorsed by the anti-handgun group, while also receiving an "A-" from the NRA on its report card of candidates. As a matter of fact, in Maine, both the NRA and Maine Citizens Against Handgun Violence supported 18 of the same candidates!
In Colorado, where the NRA supported Senator Wayne Allard for office, and even boosted his pro-gun lobby contributions to $37,000 since 1990, Allard stated flatly that he would support federal legislation requiring gun registration for private gun sales at gun shows. Is a legislator who wants to expand gun registration someone who stands up for the rights of gun owners?
From Virginia, where the NRA Political Victory Fund touted the pro-gun "accomplishments" of Delegate Jack Rollison. This is the same Rollison who in a press release had the unmitigated gall to paint Gun Owners of America and the Virginia Citizens Defense League, who have endorsed his opponent Jeff Frederick, as extremists and "milita-esque" organizations. This is the same Jack Rollison who wants to ban your right to self-defense in any restaurant that happens to sell liquor. And this is the same Jack Rollison who voted correctly on only two out of eight issues important to Virginia gun owners.
The NRA also gave their "Defender of Freedom Award" to one Kevin Mannix, who ran for governor here in 2002. In 1999 Mannix was the architect of the worst piece of gun control legislation in 10 years, in the Oregon House.
Admittedly, some of this information is "historical" in nature. The present administration had nothing to do with it. On the same note, some of this information is CURRENT. (as in 2007) Does this information show a distinct pattern? An agenda? If so, it's one that I'm not happy with at all.
Is this the kind of "representation" that YOU want/expect? There are more anti 2nd amendment bills that the NRA HELPED WRITE, or WROTE themselves. Other ANTI_GUN candidates that they endorsed. But why, if this doesn't open your eyes, nothing will.
Why is it, that some NRA supporters will not accept the truth (even when presented with facts) about how the NRA has been selling our gun rights down the river for a VERY long time.
I believe that everyone would agree, that the NRA is recognized as the 800 lb. Gorilla, in the fight for our gun rights. This is the very same organization that the NRA supporters have been paying money to for YEARS. Paying big bucks to be a "Life Member" Signing up their children/grand-children, almost as soon as they are born. Everyone KNOWS who the NRA is.
They are relying on the NRA to be supportive in the fight for our gun rights. They consider the NRA to be the last bastion of hope. If they find that the NRA is NOT actually on our side, then is there really.any hope?
Edited by - pickenup on 09/22/2007 3:48:35 PM
Are you going to throw up your weak CCW argument? Ok....
quote:
Originally posted by trfox
quote:
I have first hand knowledge that one of the main and only reasons we now have CCW in KS & Mo is because of the actions of the NRA. Do you consider CCW to be part of the "shooting Sports" or part of supporting the 2A.
For God's sake it only costs $25.00-$35.00 per year to provide that support.
You have had it for 231 years via #2 on the Bill of Rights. But now you have conceded that it must be "approved" by the government, so it is no longer a right, but a privelege.
Privelege: a special or peculiar benefit,favor, or advantage.
Right: A just and proper claim or title to anything.
Supporting the degradation of what you claim to defend??? Please stop "helping" us.
In Short: Who's the real anti gunner here?0 -
I think fox does have some interesting points, but I agree with Saxon. I don't think it's part of a bigger conspiracy.
I'm a NRA member and will rejoin. I don't aways agree with some of their politics, but I think overall they do a good job.
My advice to people is make up your own minds about the NRA or anything other organization for that matter. Do some web seaching/reading. Make your own decisions. Gun control is too important to let someone else decide for you.
If your not in the NRA, please join something and at least vote for the right people.
There's been alot of good happening for gun owners latily, but that came at the involvement of people like you and me. And if we want to see more we must keep doing our part.0 -
Yes TR some of the Gun-Grabbers have gone Mufti here, but I say an even greater number of Torries are members of the NRA itself so...
Join The Army of Arkadian Reparations[}:)]0 -
can anyone provide a link to where the nra actually helped the second amendment, proof that they first handed stopped a gun control bill from passing? 0 -
I am a NRA member and I wish they would do more, mainly a forum, such as this one, that was open to all members.
They will never be what they need to be without discussions between it's members.
IMHO,
DSM0 -
That's because they don't give a crap about their members opinions, only their money. If they did care about opinions other than their own, they would have a lot more than 4 million members. There are 90 million gunowners. That's saying something about what people think of the NRA. But a few will always buy into the propaganda they put out. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by phideaux4886
I am a NRA member and I wish they would do more, mainly a forum, such as this one, that was open to all members.
They will never be what they need to be without discussions between it's members.
IMHO,
DSM
Not a bad thought. That way these issues could be discussed in an open way with access/viewing by all members. That may get the org moving in some semblance of the right direction. Wouldn't fix everything, but it would shine the bright light of day on any shenanigans and make it more difficult to fool the members.0 -
There's no money in THE CURE.
Only in "the struggle".
And THAT'S why NRA tried to scuttle PARKER and why they'd do anything to keep an airtight resolution from ever being issued in our favor.
D.0 -
quote:Originally posted by AZEX
There's no money in THE CURE.
Only in "the struggle".
And THAT'S why NRA tried to scuttle PARKER and why they'd do anything to keep an airtight resolution from ever being issued in our favor.
D.
For the yearly membership fee ($25.00-$35.00) you surely don't think the NRA would get rich off your membership do you? That is if you bothered to join the NRA; or ANY pro-gun group.0 -
quote:either folks who didn't have the extra money for dues and talked crap to cover it up,
My street creds, for the uninformed drones out there...I am a life member of the NRA...been so since the early 90's. That was when I too was stupidly uninformed about the NRA...and I have LIVED thru much of the NRA's sell-outs on gun control.
quote:or people actually for gun control. Anther cop-out for choosing to ignore the facts.
What part of "ANY GUN, ANY TIME, ANY PLACE" is difficult to understand ? I assume one would have to have an I.Q. about shoe size to misinterpret that statement..made by me MANY times on this Board.
As far as the poster that started this thread.when ones' back is against the wall,and there are absolutely no facts left to support your position, one MUST start throwing rocks at those opposing you.
His `Tag team B.S.is just that.B.S.
There is that tiny group hereabouts that actually HAVE taken the trouble to try and understand WHY we have 20,000 ++++ Gun Laws in this nation..when we have such a vaunted defender of gun liberty as the NRA.
These people have actually done the research needed to grasp the truth of the matter.
Those people, valuing their OWN freedoms..naturally wish to educate other people into the mindset of starting to value freedom ALSO.instead of the rank propaganda spewed out of the mouth of big organizations and media.
When I witness someone under attack for attempting to bring forth facts..I have this irresistible urge to jump in shoulder-to-shoulder with that person..and all you rock throwers can just bet it will continue.
Unless, of course..Trfox achieves his thinly veiled campaign of getting us "Anti-NRAers" kicked off the forum.
As with the Second, which FOX has no trouble with bring abridged..the First ALSO sticks in his craw..when it doesn't parrot the party line he loves so well.0 -
That's only 100 to 140 million dollars a year. That won't buy many hot dogs. 0 -
I was an NRA member for about 10 years. Then I quit about 30 years ago, and now support several other pro-gun organization.
I don't believe that the NRA any longer represents us, and, much like the union movement, has lived beyond its' time.
Doug0 -
"Over all the NRA does a good job." Thats sort like
"All in all Hitler did try to do a good job."
The problem lies in what ones point of view is.
"The above statement is not necessarly my personal point of view."0 -
[8D]--My point of view is 'Support the NRA"--
--I'm in for the long haul--
--JIMBO0 -
I am and have been an NRA member for several years.
I belong to a gun club that requires NRA membership.
I belong to a Gun Range that requires NRA membership.
Eddie Eagle Program should be mandatory teaching at all grade schools.
I don't plan on becoming anti NRA so all the NRA bashers roll off my back like water.0 -
It's not about bashing the NRA tr fox...it's more about principle and waking up to the fact that they might be doing more harm than good...we gun owners are shooting ourselves in the foot by supporting them. It's time we either take over the NRA and demand change...or find it elsewhere.
Please see my initial thread on this for some updated info in my last post.
I've only posted in 5-10 threads that had to do with the NRA, but I must admit, Highball was right...[^]0 -
quote:Originally posted by tr fox
quote:Originally posted by AZEX
There's no money in THE CURE.
Only in "the struggle".
And THAT'S why NRA tried to scuttle PARKER and why they'd do anything to keep an airtight resolution from ever being issued in our favor.
D.
For the yearly membership fee ($25.00-$35.00) you surely don't think the NRA would get rich off your membership do you?
$25 dollars won't make 'em rich......but multiply that by 3 million0 -
The title should read be wary of the NRA supporters; Believing the NRA supports the second amendment.
The name says IT ALLL!!111!
NRA
National RIFLE Association.0 -
0 -
0
-
plumber: [:D]
A picture really is worth a thousand words0 -
There's no money in THE CURE.
Only in "the struggle".
AZEK..With your permission I'll have this inscribed on my tomb stone.
There's more truth in those two lines than I've seen in a dozen letters from the NRA.
Sorry fox, I believes what I believes.0 -
0 -
Not get rich on the measly 20-35 dollars,, LMAO.. 2-3 million times 20-35 equals a lot of cash my friend, not to mention the other donations of hundreds of dollars, and the junk they sell, and the kick backs from the insurance company they tout for gun owners, Jeeez it doesnt take a rocket scientist to add up the obscene amount of money the NRA takes in every year...
Again I tell you, I have been a life member since the early 1950s, The NRA is selling you out, compromise here, compromise there, throw the dog a bone now and then to keep it hunting.. Yep. Common sense would dictate that if they havent done anything to REPEAL any UNCONSTITUTIONAL gun law and keep letting little peices of legislation slip through adding to these gun laws, they have not been doing what we been paying for.. Keep giving them your money as they let the gubment erode your rights..
Another alternative of which I know many people have taken advantage of is do the work yourself,, Most of the problems lie at the State level. You do the work, work with your state legislators, let them know what you feel and organize the people around you. Too much trouble??? sure let some one patting you on the back take upt "The Fight" as long as you keep sending them money.. Much easier that way, and you can say "Well I am doing my part" I am sending money to the NRA0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
28 comments