• 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.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • 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.

Damn, the NRA sure is SQUARE sometimes…..

MichaelWDean

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2009
Messages
185
Location
Casper, Wyoming, USA
imported post

Damn, the NRA sure is SQUARE sometimes…..
http://www.libertarianpunk.com/2010/03/damn-the-nra-sure-is-square/

Article about how the NRA doesn't mention open carry in their article about Brady Campaign trying to ban Open Carry in Starbucks.

MWD
===
(I tried to post this in "Open carry in the news", guess I haven't been here long enough....is almost a year long enough? Well, to be fair, the article is not about open carry in the news. It's about open carry NOT in the news when it should be in the news!)
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
2,381
Location
across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsi
imported post

The NRA cannot allow the passage/expansion/liberalization of open carry of weapons by legally armed citizens because the organization and many of its subscribers depend on the income from their sale of exceptions to infringements on the RKABA.

NRA training counselors teach that class fees are a pedagogical tool to inculcate deeper the lessons of the NRA.

The NRA is an Emperor with no clothes, its subscribing sycophants are chamberlains carrying its chamberpots and the BCPGV its best commensal.
 

MichaelWDean

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2009
Messages
185
Location
Casper, Wyoming, USA
imported post

Master Doug Huffman wrote:
The NRA cannot allow the passage/expansion/liberalization of open carry of weapons by legally armed citizens because the organization and many of its subscribers depend on the income from their sale of exceptions to infringements on the RKABA.
You nailed it, Doug. Very succinct.

MWD
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
imported post

It appears that the NRA is afraid of its own shadow.

Were they to support OC and it would gain more acceptance faster - I think their membership roll would swell accordingly.

Everybody needs knowledge of the respective laws in their state and all need training; many will still want to carry concealed. Therefore an even greater opportunity for instructors than now exists.

The NRA is missing the boat, missing a great opportunity.

I might even renew my expired membership if they embraced OC.........well that and a few other things. :quirky

Yata hey
 

demnogis

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2008
Messages
911
Location
Orange County, California, USA
imported post

I'm an NRA member. Honestly I believe they support Concealed Carry via permits the "right to carry" because many of the officials and the organization itself generates a LOT of income from certification and training courses. Why would you put your cash cow out to pasture? It could also be said theh are representing the majority of their members by following ccw-only.

However, if they had a large insurgence of pro-OC members, it is quite possible that could change.
 

Basic

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2010
Messages
11
Location
, Montana, USA
imported post


People should keep in mind that the NRA stands for National RIFLE Association. They are under no obligation to lobby or fight for the rights of HANDGUN owners. I never thought much of the NRA before Brady and after they showed their hand during Brady 1, I certainly do not think much of them now. Until the members of the NRA start slinging their rifles over their shoulders and walking down main street with them in a manner of open display, they will never support the efforts of the American people to open carry anything. All the NRA cares about is protecting there right to hunt with a single shot bolt action rifle or shotgun.

For a better recommendation of a group to support financially that is better suited to defend the rights of all firearms owners, I feel the Second Amendment Foundation would be a better choice. http://www.saf.org/
 

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
imported post

Basic wrote:

People should keep in mind that the NRA stands for National RIFLE Association. They are under no obligation to lobby or fight for the rights of HANDGUN owners. I never thought much of the NRA before Brady and after they showed their hand during Brady 1, I certainly do not think much of them now. Until the members of the NRA start slinging their rifles over their shoulders and walking down main street with them in a manner of open display, they will never support the efforts of the American people to open carry anything. All the NRA cares about is protecting there right to hunt with a single shot bolt action rifle or shotgun.

For a better recommendation of a group to support financially that is better suited to defend the rights of all firearms owners, I feel the Second Amendment Foundation would be a better choice. http://www.saf.org/
You do realize they are on McDonald v. Chicago, right? It is a lawsuit to overturn a handgun ban.
 

Basic

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2010
Messages
11
Location
, Montana, USA
imported post

wrightme wrote:
Basic wrote:

People should keep in mind that the NRA stands for National RIFLE Association. They are under no obligation to lobby or fight for the rights of HANDGUN owners. I never thought much of the NRA before Brady and after they showed their hand during Brady 1, I certainly do not think much of them now. Until the members of the NRA start slinging their rifles over their shoulders and walking down main street with them in a manner of open display, they will never support the efforts of the American people to open carry anything. All the NRA cares about is protecting there right to hunt with a single shot bolt action rifle or shotgun.

For a better recommendation of a group to support financially that is better suited to defend the rights of all firearms owners, I feel the Second Amendment Foundation would be a better choice. http://www.saf.org/
You do realize they are on McDonald v. Chicago, right? It is a lawsuit to overturn a handgun ban.



I know that the Second Amendment Foundation is involved with the Chicago lawsuit as well as the District of Columbia, California and many more. How many legal actions are the NRA involved with to defend the rights of American citizens? At least the SAF isn’t afraid to roll up their sleeves and jump in the ring.
 

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
imported post

Basic wrote:
wrightme wrote:
Basic wrote:

People should keep in mind that the NRA stands for National RIFLE Association. They are under no obligation to lobby or fight for the rights of HANDGUN owners. I never thought much of the NRA before Brady and after they showed their hand during Brady 1, I certainly do not think much of them now. Until the members of the NRA start slinging their rifles over their shoulders and walking down main street with them in a manner of open display, they will never support the efforts of the American people to open carry anything. All the NRA cares about is protecting there right to hunt with a single shot bolt action rifle or shotgun.

For a better recommendation of a group to support financially that is better suited to defend the rights of all firearms owners, I feel the Second Amendment Foundation would be a better choice. http://www.saf.org/
You do realize they are on McDonald v. Chicago, right? It is a lawsuit to overturn a handgun ban.



I know that the Second Amendment Foundation is involved with the Chicago lawsuit as well as the District of Columbia, California and many more. How many legal actions are the NRA involved with to defend the rights of American citizens? At least the SAF isn’t afraid to roll up their sleeves and jump in the ring.
The NRA filed lawsuits as follows specifically to attempt to get handgun bans lifted:

NRA v Chicago & Oak Park

NRA v. Evanston

and NRA v. SFHA
Morton Grove settled, repealing their long-standing handgun ban. SFHA settled, allowing the residents of the housing project to own firearms. NRA V Chicago was merged with McDonald v. Chicago by the SCOTUS to hear.

Those are just the ones that I am currently aware of. Others here may not like the NRA, but it would be at least fair to present it honestly.
 

Basic

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2010
Messages
11
Location
, Montana, USA
imported post

wrightme wrote:
Basic wrote:
wrightme wrote:
Basic wrote:

People should keep in mind that the NRA stands for National RIFLE Association. They are under no obligation to lobby or fight for the rights of HANDGUN owners. I never thought much of the NRA before Brady and after they showed their hand during Brady 1, I certainly do not think much of them now. Until the members of the NRA start slinging their rifles over their shoulders and walking down main street with them in a manner of open display, they will never support the efforts of the American people to open carry anything. All the NRA cares about is protecting there right to hunt with a single shot bolt action rifle or shotgun.

For a better recommendation of a group to support financially that is better suited to defend the rights of all firearms owners, I feel the Second Amendment Foundation would be a better choice. http://www.saf.org/
You do realize they are on McDonald v. Chicago, right? It is a lawsuit to overturn a handgun ban.



I know that the Second Amendment Foundation is involved with the Chicago lawsuit as well as the District of Columbia, California and many more. How many legal actions are the NRA involved with to defend the rights of American citizens? At least the SAF isn’t afraid to roll up their sleeves and jump in the ring.
The NRA filed lawsuits as follows specifically to attempt to get handgun bans lifted:

NRA v Chicago & Oak Park

NRA v. Evanston

and NRA v. SFHA
Morton Grove settled, repealing their long-standing handgun ban. SFHA settled, allowing the residents of the housing project to own firearms. NRA V Chicago was merged with McDonald v. Chicago by the SCOTUS to hear.

Those are just the ones that I am currently aware of. Others here may not like the NRA, but it would be at least fair to present it honestly.
That still doesn't win me over to support the NRA. As stated above, they lost any chance of me ever giving them supportwhen they caved to the Brady bunch to start with. I have no respect for them what so every. you have the right to support them if you choose to do so, I choose not to.
 

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
imported post

Basic wrote:
wrightme wrote:
Basic wrote:
wrightme wrote:
Basic wrote:

People should keep in mind that the NRA stands for National RIFLE Association. They are under no obligation to lobby or fight for the rights of HANDGUN owners. I never thought much of the NRA before Brady and after they showed their hand during Brady 1, I certainly do not think much of them now. Until the members of the NRA start slinging their rifles over their shoulders and walking down main street with them in a manner of open display, they will never support the efforts of the American people to open carry anything. All the NRA cares about is protecting there right to hunt with a single shot bolt action rifle or shotgun.

For a better recommendation of a group to support financially that is better suited to defend the rights of all firearms owners, I feel the Second Amendment Foundation would be a better choice. http://www.saf.org/
You do realize they are on McDonald v. Chicago, right? It is a lawsuit to overturn a handgun ban.



I know that the Second Amendment Foundation is involved with the Chicago lawsuit as well as the District of Columbia, California and many more. How many legal actions are the NRA involved with to defend the rights of American citizens? At least the SAF isn’t afraid to roll up their sleeves and jump in the ring.
The NRA filed lawsuits as follows specifically to attempt to get handgun bans lifted:

NRA v Chicago & Oak Park

NRA v. Evanston

and NRA v. SFHA
Morton Grove settled, repealing their long-standing handgun ban. SFHA settled, allowing the residents of the housing project to own firearms. NRA V Chicago was merged with McDonald v. Chicago by the SCOTUS to hear.

Those are just the ones that I am currently aware of. Others here may not like the NRA, but it would be at least fair to present it honestly.
That still doesn't win me over to support the NRA. As stated above, they lost any chance of me ever giving them supportwhen they caved to the Brady bunch to start with. I have no respect for them what so every. you have the right to support them if you choose to do so, I choose not to.
And that is your choice. My main point is that others should at least be honest about what the NRA does support. In this case, they are supporting handgun owners on multiple fronts.
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
2,381
Location
across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsi
imported post

Master Doug Huffman wrote:
The NRA cannot allow the passage/expansion/liberalization of open carry of weapons by legally armed citizens because the organization and many of its subscribers depend on the income from their sale of exceptions to infringements on the RKABA.

NRA training counselors teach that class fees are a pedagogical tool to inculcate deeper the lessons of the NRA.

The NRA is an Emperor with no clothes, its subscribing sycophants are chamberlains carrying its chamberpots and the BCPGV its best commensal.
 

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
imported post

Master Doug Huffman wrote:
Master Doug Huffman wrote:
The NRA cannot allow the passage/expansion/liberalization of open carry of weapons by legally armed citizens because the organization and many of its subscribers depend on the income from their sale of exceptions to infringements on the RKABA.

NRA training counselors teach that class fees are a pedagogical tool to inculcate deeper the lessons of the NRA.

The NRA is an Emperor with no clothes, its subscribing sycophants are chamberlains carrying its chamberpots and the BCPGV its best commensal.
I am curious as to what mental gymnastics are required for you to rationalize your PoV when the NRA publicly denounces Open Carry bans?

http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum66/40078.html

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=5560



Thursday, March 11, 2010

On Tuesday, March 9, during a City Council work session, City attorney Kyle Smith and Police Chief Ron Miller proposed banning the open carrying of firearms in Topeka. In 2007, the city council repealed its ban on the open carry of firearms, so it’s unclear why these officials have now proposed reinstituting such an ordinance. Since then, there have been no instances of unlawfulness or violence regarding open carry. The claims and "what ifs" stated by the opponents are unfounded and not supported by any research or facts. They are simply using scare tactics to push more stringent gun restrictions on the citizens of Topeka. Please contact your City Council member and urge him or her not to consider this anti-gun proposal.
 

MamaLiberty

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2006
Messages
894
Location
Newcastle, Wyoming, USA
imported post

Sure would be nice if some of you folks put down your pitchforks and pointed sticks for a minute.

Up front... no, the NRA is not really the best friend gunowners ever had. Their political arm stinks in many ways...

That said, I am a Certified NRA firearms instructor for one, and one reason only. They have the best nationwide, affordable and recognized program available to teach NEW gun owners how to safely use their property and, potentially, use them for self defense. Not perfect, by any means, but that's what is available. Many people would get NO training at all otherwise.

As an NRA instructor, my sole purpose is to find and help train those who would probably otherwise be unsafe gun owners. It is not a "business" and I take in nothing beyond expenses. Oh, and I've spent more than $2,000. in the last three years on my own training and equipment, with more going out for class materials and support supplies.

The basic pistol class is all that is required to apply for a CC "permit" here in Wyoming, and information is available in class to assist them if this is what they want, but it is certainly not pushed or even encouraged. If the "permit" went away tomorrow, I would not have any trouble filling my classes afterwards.

Let's not tar everyone with the same brush, folks. Yes, there are some who live off the "permit" and would be very unhappy to see it go away. But not all NRA instructors fit that particular straight jacket. Thanks
 
Top