-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
NRA members
- Thread starter JB
- Start date
HankT
State Researcher
imported post
I'ma member of the NRA and support it pretty strongly. The NRA is the greatest, most effective lobbying group in the history of this country. Better than the AMA, Better than AARP. Better than the tobacco lobbyists...,er, OK, the NRA is the greatest single lobbying group in the history of this country.
There would not be 80 million plus gun owners in the U.S. without the NRA.
There would not be 250 million-plus guns in the U.S. without the NRA.
There would not be CC laws in 40+ states without the NRA.
There would not be stand your ground laws in _?_ states (with more to come) without the NRA.
Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.
The NRA-bashers (spit!) that pop up to bitch and moan when the NRA fails again to support full auto machine guns for everyone including felons.are detestable. Doug Huffman-types don't understand that somebody on the national (and international, lately) scene has to play the adults in dealing with legislators, legislatures, and legislation in strategic contexts for all gun-owning constituencies. The NRA-natterers (spit!) who ungratefully enjoy the fruits of several decades of NRA successes are, more-often than not, just simplistic-minded freeloaders(spit!).
Too early to tell on the presidential campaign. Ron Paul has nearly perfect positions on gun issues. But he is a loon on almost all other issues. I wouldn't vote for him as dogcatcher in Doug Huffman's county (spit!).
I'ma member of the NRA and support it pretty strongly. The NRA is the greatest, most effective lobbying group in the history of this country. Better than the AMA, Better than AARP. Better than the tobacco lobbyists...,er, OK, the NRA is the greatest single lobbying group in the history of this country.
There would not be 80 million plus gun owners in the U.S. without the NRA.
There would not be 250 million-plus guns in the U.S. without the NRA.
There would not be CC laws in 40+ states without the NRA.
There would not be stand your ground laws in _?_ states (with more to come) without the NRA.
Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.
The NRA-bashers (spit!) that pop up to bitch and moan when the NRA fails again to support full auto machine guns for everyone including felons.are detestable. Doug Huffman-types don't understand that somebody on the national (and international, lately) scene has to play the adults in dealing with legislators, legislatures, and legislation in strategic contexts for all gun-owning constituencies. The NRA-natterers (spit!) who ungratefully enjoy the fruits of several decades of NRA successes are, more-often than not, just simplistic-minded freeloaders(spit!).
Too early to tell on the presidential campaign. Ron Paul has nearly perfect positions on gun issues. But he is a loon on almost all other issues. I wouldn't vote for him as dogcatcher in Doug Huffman's county (spit!).
Thors_Mitersaw
Regular Member
imported post
Keepandbear wrote:
Why dont you try to defend the search and approval crap the NRA allows and its approval of the ATF and its support for present gun laws? Anyone who supports the laws in place is not taking ground, they are only defending current losses.
The GOA and the JPFO give alot of resources to contact and link with locals and officials on many levels. They helps cut to the heart of legislation and makes sure its supporters know of is. They help fight court battles. And the JPFO creates alot of literature and movies which they have screned in a few places. The GOA makes NUMEROUS television and radioapperances. Many things the NRA ignores or supports, often times the only lobbying power to stop it is heard from these two groups! like the so-called juvenile crime bill. The NRA endorsed Bush for president... what a great success for gun rights hes been!I dont see the NRA doing anything to raech young people or educate anyone outside of its own members either like the JPFO does.
WE NEED TO TAKE THE OFFENSE. If the NRA is a army, then the JPFO and the GOA are the special forces!
interesting read here about how the NRA might be SCREWING shit up!:
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/119457.html
but its mainly about principle, which the NRA obviously lacks. I contribute to all three organizations but not so much to the NRA becauseI would rather give purists my money to attempt to make them into more of a force to be reconed with than contribute to a well established gun rights lite group.
Keepandbear wrote:
Why dont you try to defend the search and approval crap the NRA allows and its approval of the ATF and its support for present gun laws? Anyone who supports the laws in place is not taking ground, they are only defending current losses.
The GOA and the JPFO give alot of resources to contact and link with locals and officials on many levels. They helps cut to the heart of legislation and makes sure its supporters know of is. They help fight court battles. And the JPFO creates alot of literature and movies which they have screned in a few places. The GOA makes NUMEROUS television and radioapperances. Many things the NRA ignores or supports, often times the only lobbying power to stop it is heard from these two groups! like the so-called juvenile crime bill. The NRA endorsed Bush for president... what a great success for gun rights hes been!I dont see the NRA doing anything to raech young people or educate anyone outside of its own members either like the JPFO does.
WE NEED TO TAKE THE OFFENSE. If the NRA is a army, then the JPFO and the GOA are the special forces!
interesting read here about how the NRA might be SCREWING shit up!:
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/119457.html
but its mainly about principle, which the NRA obviously lacks. I contribute to all three organizations but not so much to the NRA becauseI would rather give purists my money to attempt to make them into more of a force to be reconed with than contribute to a well established gun rights lite group.
Saint
Regular Member
imported post
I am not an NRA member (yet)
Honestly I just haven't gotten around to figuring out what I have to do to sign up.
And as for president... RON PAUL!!!:celebrate
I am not an NRA member (yet)
Honestly I just haven't gotten around to figuring out what I have to do to sign up.
And as for president... RON PAUL!!!:celebrate
Dutch Uncle
Campaign Veteran
imported post
Regarding civian gun use versus tyranny: Imagine if only 1% of the gun owning adults in this country decided that cancellation of second amendment rights and confiscation of all civilian firearms was just too much. Even absent any coordinated or centralized command/control, imagine if each such person decided to take out just one government thug before buying the farm himself. That would cause 2 million casualties...more than in all our wars combined! If you think radical leftists aren't concerned about this possibility, you have to ask yourself why it is always one of the first things a tyrannical tinpot does when grabbing power. When the Gang of Five tried the coup against Gorbachev, one of their first edicts was that all hunters had to turn in thier hunting rifles to the police immediately. This was in the Soviet Union for God's sake! The number of (registered) rifles was miniscule from a tactical point of view but they still considered it a top priority. WHY???
Even a small number of citizens with arms is a significant threat to anti-freedom zealots. Perhaps the threat is more psychological than tactical, but significant nonetheless.
Regarding civian gun use versus tyranny: Imagine if only 1% of the gun owning adults in this country decided that cancellation of second amendment rights and confiscation of all civilian firearms was just too much. Even absent any coordinated or centralized command/control, imagine if each such person decided to take out just one government thug before buying the farm himself. That would cause 2 million casualties...more than in all our wars combined! If you think radical leftists aren't concerned about this possibility, you have to ask yourself why it is always one of the first things a tyrannical tinpot does when grabbing power. When the Gang of Five tried the coup against Gorbachev, one of their first edicts was that all hunters had to turn in thier hunting rifles to the police immediately. This was in the Soviet Union for God's sake! The number of (registered) rifles was miniscule from a tactical point of view but they still considered it a top priority. WHY???
Even a small number of citizens with arms is a significant threat to anti-freedom zealots. Perhaps the threat is more psychological than tactical, but significant nonetheless.
compmanio365
Regular Member
imported post
I was thinking about signing up as a member of the NRA, but after reading and hearing about how they are "compromising" with those that would take away our RKBA, trying to secure victory by digging the grave for our rights, and their inability to fight on the real issues that are being raised against gun ownership and not just those that pertain to "hunter's rights", I decided I could put my money to better use elsewhere. I could engage in homegrown pro-2A activism all by myself and my fellow OC'ers by just going out and showing people that responsible people with guns pose no threat to anyone except the "bad guys". NRA be damned for all the "good work" they do........
I was thinking about signing up as a member of the NRA, but after reading and hearing about how they are "compromising" with those that would take away our RKBA, trying to secure victory by digging the grave for our rights, and their inability to fight on the real issues that are being raised against gun ownership and not just those that pertain to "hunter's rights", I decided I could put my money to better use elsewhere. I could engage in homegrown pro-2A activism all by myself and my fellow OC'ers by just going out and showing people that responsible people with guns pose no threat to anyone except the "bad guys". NRA be damned for all the "good work" they do........
1st freedom
Regular Member
imported post
example of a "compromise" ?
example of a "compromise" ?
imported post
WhenI go out to the Brady Bunch page and they are hell bent on putting down the NRA that is enough for me to support them all the way. Why are they so againstthe NRA if they are no good for pro gunners? The reality isbecause they are in the face of gun grabbers at every turn. Does JFPO or GOA get in the face of the Gun Grabbers? Sure they do. Is JFPO or GOAclimbing up the butt of politicians when they try to stray?????
Just because a person supports the NRA does not mean they are not serious about or do nto understandthe Second Ammendment. The NRA has political clout that has been built over years. I has been built as a political grassroots machine to influence lawmakers. Not a battering ram.
I doubt the US military isgoing to drop the big one on Texas or Missouri because they have guns. Beside many military and police are very progun. They are not all the BATF who want to shoot your wife and kid on the front porch.
They will simply legislate our rights away right under our noses just as in Austrailia, Canada andGB. And yes, it usually starts out with incrimental hunting bans, then certain types of firearms etc. When and ifthe time comes a handfull of gun owners will make the stand but most as in the past (including our own) will simply stand by and let a minority fight the fight.Or simply turn in there firearms.
I don't support the NRA for thier fight against Hunting Bans. I support the NRA because for the Gun grabbers, regulating hunting is an easy firststep in the whole picture of the Gun Grab. All you have to do is listen to the arguments against certain types of Guns. ( This is not a hunting rifle!) Hey if we get rid of hunting we don't need any of them !Bonus for the gun grabbers is the "don't hurt bambi" folks out there that don't give a hoot about guns or your second ammendment that have no problem in helping remove hunting for all.
Hunters, target shooters, skeet/trap shooters, black rifle shooters, handgunners,air riflers, black powder shooters, firearms collectorseven Bow Huneters and trappersall need to make a stand any manner any how at all times and in each others arena.
You can complain all you want, but you better be in the fight.
WhenI go out to the Brady Bunch page and they are hell bent on putting down the NRA that is enough for me to support them all the way. Why are they so againstthe NRA if they are no good for pro gunners? The reality isbecause they are in the face of gun grabbers at every turn. Does JFPO or GOA get in the face of the Gun Grabbers? Sure they do. Is JFPO or GOAclimbing up the butt of politicians when they try to stray?????
Just because a person supports the NRA does not mean they are not serious about or do nto understandthe Second Ammendment. The NRA has political clout that has been built over years. I has been built as a political grassroots machine to influence lawmakers. Not a battering ram.
I doubt the US military isgoing to drop the big one on Texas or Missouri because they have guns. Beside many military and police are very progun. They are not all the BATF who want to shoot your wife and kid on the front porch.
They will simply legislate our rights away right under our noses just as in Austrailia, Canada andGB. And yes, it usually starts out with incrimental hunting bans, then certain types of firearms etc. When and ifthe time comes a handfull of gun owners will make the stand but most as in the past (including our own) will simply stand by and let a minority fight the fight.Or simply turn in there firearms.
I don't support the NRA for thier fight against Hunting Bans. I support the NRA because for the Gun grabbers, regulating hunting is an easy firststep in the whole picture of the Gun Grab. All you have to do is listen to the arguments against certain types of Guns. ( This is not a hunting rifle!) Hey if we get rid of hunting we don't need any of them !Bonus for the gun grabbers is the "don't hurt bambi" folks out there that don't give a hoot about guns or your second ammendment that have no problem in helping remove hunting for all.
Hunters, target shooters, skeet/trap shooters, black rifle shooters, handgunners,air riflers, black powder shooters, firearms collectorseven Bow Huneters and trappersall need to make a stand any manner any how at all times and in each others arena.
You can complain all you want, but you better be in the fight.
imported post
The last Soviet coup failed, largely because they didn't enjoy the full support of the military. It wasn't the hunters that scared them. Most of the Soviet citizenry who qualified to own long guns were in remote areas and couldn't afford transportation. The junta wasn't in long enough to get their edicts through anyway.
-ljp
The last Soviet coup failed, largely because they didn't enjoy the full support of the military. It wasn't the hunters that scared them. Most of the Soviet citizenry who qualified to own long guns were in remote areas and couldn't afford transportation. The junta wasn't in long enough to get their edicts through anyway.
-ljp
imported post
Sadly, there is much for us to learn from Russia and from the insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan. I hate to think that it could ever come to that in America, and I would love to be able to convince myself that I am a crazy theorist, but I do believe the day may be coming that we must defend ourselves from our own military.
Sadly, there is much for us to learn from Russia and from the insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan. I hate to think that it could ever come to that in America, and I would love to be able to convince myself that I am a crazy theorist, but I do believe the day may be coming that we must defend ourselves from our own military.
Thors_Mitersaw
Regular Member
imported post
HankT wrote:
Why dont you spit on this? *points at crotch*
the felon legislation is horse shit.
(If you cant see that the second amendment isnt about defense, if you cant see that its about resistance to tyranny, then I can see why you would support it) THe felon legislation only makes it easier (with the plethora of laws that make it easy to become a 'criminal' in the eyes of big brother) to disarm people under the guise of 'public safety'.What of the wrongfully convicted? What of the black woman who recently got canned for defending herself with the ATTACKERS GUN! Should that 'felon' be barred from use of arms for her life?
You are givng the government the right to say who may own the means to destroy it.
HankT wrote:
Why dont you spit on this? *points at crotch*
the felon legislation is horse shit.
(If you cant see that the second amendment isnt about defense, if you cant see that its about resistance to tyranny, then I can see why you would support it) THe felon legislation only makes it easier (with the plethora of laws that make it easy to become a 'criminal' in the eyes of big brother) to disarm people under the guise of 'public safety'.What of the wrongfully convicted? What of the black woman who recently got canned for defending herself with the ATTACKERS GUN! Should that 'felon' be barred from use of arms for her life?
You are givng the government the right to say who may own the means to destroy it.
tarzan1888
Regular Member
![faint[1].gif](/data/attachments/0/284-4e77c724abf06f8afa81cdbf166674fc.jpg){kind=small}
Keepandbear
Regular Member
imported post
thorsmitersaw wrote:
Way to not address the challenge I presented. I'll address your challenge upon you answering mine.
Oh and Bush has done nothing for gun rights?!?! Maybe we should have gone with McCain or Gore instead:banghead:? Bush has only appointed two judges to the Supreme Court and that only has a 10-20 year effect? What about the Commerce in LawfulArms Act? What about the the Police Officer Carry Act? What about the destruction of federal firearms records?
thorsmitersaw wrote:
Way to not address the challenge I presented. I'll address your challenge upon you answering mine.
Oh and Bush has done nothing for gun rights?!?! Maybe we should have gone with McCain or Gore instead:banghead:? Bush has only appointed two judges to the Supreme Court and that only has a 10-20 year effect? What about the Commerce in LawfulArms Act? What about the the Police Officer Carry Act? What about the destruction of federal firearms records?
Keepandbear
Regular Member
imported post
HankT wrote:
But he is a loon on almost all other issues. I wouldn't vote for him as dogcatcher in Doug Huffman's county (spit!).
That is why he is unelectable.
HankT wrote:
But he is a loon on almost all other issues. I wouldn't vote for him as dogcatcher in Doug Huffman's county (spit!).
That is why he is unelectable.
tarzan1888
Regular Member
imported post
Keepandbear wrote:
Keepandbear wrote:
Hang in there Keepandbear, when you're right you're right. :cuss:
Thors_Mitersaw
Regular Member
imported post
Keepandbear wrote:
and his support of a federal "asault weapons "firearms ban?
how about his "patriot" act?
Attorney General, John Ashcroft, boasted of increasing resources to enforce gun control
"when gun owners submitted a Petition for the Enforcement of the Second Amendment, the Bush Administration attempted to intimidate them by only responding through the head of the Terrorism and Violent Crime Section of the Justice Department"
"...Judge Reggie B. Walton, of the D.C. District Court, tells us that the Second Amendment is not an individual right in Seegars v. Ashcroft. The Bush Administration opposed Supreme Court review of U.S. v. Emerson, with Assistant U.S. Attorney William B. Majeta claiming in open court that there is no individual Constitutional right to own firearms, the result of the Bush Administration's actions being that Dr. Tim Emerson was convicted of merely possessing a firearm while under a customary restraining order issued during his divorce. And Bush's Solicitor General, Ted Olson, aggressively prosecuted the case of U.S. v. Thomas Lamar Bean, permanently stripping Bean of his Second Amendment rights, merely for accidentally carrying a box of .22 shells across the Mexican border. "
Keepandbear wrote:
and his support of a federal "asault weapons "firearms ban?
how about his "patriot" act?
Attorney General, John Ashcroft, boasted of increasing resources to enforce gun control
"when gun owners submitted a Petition for the Enforcement of the Second Amendment, the Bush Administration attempted to intimidate them by only responding through the head of the Terrorism and Violent Crime Section of the Justice Department"
"...Judge Reggie B. Walton, of the D.C. District Court, tells us that the Second Amendment is not an individual right in Seegars v. Ashcroft. The Bush Administration opposed Supreme Court review of U.S. v. Emerson, with Assistant U.S. Attorney William B. Majeta claiming in open court that there is no individual Constitutional right to own firearms, the result of the Bush Administration's actions being that Dr. Tim Emerson was convicted of merely possessing a firearm while under a customary restraining order issued during his divorce. And Bush's Solicitor General, Ted Olson, aggressively prosecuted the case of U.S. v. Thomas Lamar Bean, permanently stripping Bean of his Second Amendment rights, merely for accidentally carrying a box of .22 shells across the Mexican border. "
mark edward marchiafava
Banned
imported post
I'm waiting for that "heavy door" to close.
Then, and ONLY then, will the long overdue correction occur.
I'm waiting for that "heavy door" to close.
Then, and ONLY then, will the long overdue correction occur.
Keepandbear
Regular Member
imported post
Please cite your sources. Your presenting quotes out of context.
Please cite your sources. Your presenting quotes out of context.
Thors_Mitersaw
Regular Member
imported post
HankT wrote:
Yea, hes looney for wanting to rid us of the federal reserves inflation tax grip, he is a loon for opposing the unconsituinal department of education, atf, IRS, and the ludicrous oversue of our military. Hes a loon for opposing protectionist economics and opposing increased regulation. Hes a loon for VOTING IN ACCORDANCE TO THE POWERS OF CONGRESS VIA ARTICLE 1 SECTION 8
of course when is the last time americans gave a shit about what the constitution? they all think government shoudl be able to do whatever it wants regardless of constitutional authority
HankT wrote:
Yea, hes looney for wanting to rid us of the federal reserves inflation tax grip, he is a loon for opposing the unconsituinal department of education, atf, IRS, and the ludicrous oversue of our military. Hes a loon for opposing protectionist economics and opposing increased regulation. Hes a loon for VOTING IN ACCORDANCE TO THE POWERS OF CONGRESS VIA ARTICLE 1 SECTION 8
of course when is the last time americans gave a shit about what the constitution? they all think government shoudl be able to do whatever it wants regardless of constitutional authority