NRA just called

kimbercarrier · Apr 24, 2011

It takes time but, keep on fighting and you will see good results. Here inVa. we have what is called Lobby Day at the General Assembly of Va. It's on MLK day every year and we meet at the General Assembly building and lobby our state reps. We had about 600+ this year and about 1000 last year.

We wear round orange Guns Save Lives stickers as we lobby. They pretty much all know our organization. We have printed talking points about up coming bills printed that we use to address them and leave them a copy also. It has bills listed as strongly support, support, neutral, oppose, and strongly oppose.

We also have a great leader Philip Van Cleave, and lots of tireless volunteers. and we also have tables for our organization set up at gun shows, political events and anywhere we can spread the word.

wolverine1856 · Apr 24, 2011

detroit_fan said:
I tend to agree with you. The fact is the NRA has the ears of the politicians, and without them we would be much worse of then we are. I have never herad a politician say they are afraid of GOA, SAF, or MOC, but I know a lot that are scared of ******* off the NRA. Instead of bailing on them and trying to create something equally as powerful(which would take a REALLY long time and a LOT of money) I think it's best to try and transform them into what we want.

Has the NRA made some bad moves? Absolutely, but they have also done a lot of good. I think we all fall into that category.

Yeah that!!!

smellslikemichigan · Apr 24, 2011

Michigander said:
Similarly, Venator and others did a hell of a nice job organizing the second amendment march with as far as I know a complete refusal to help from the NRA. But then the NRA decided to set up booths at the event.

Here in Michigan, actually having our rights recognized has been almost completely a matter of grass roots as well. Getting shall issue passed was done almost exclusively by MCRGO before it became nearly worthless. The NRA jumped on board only after it was almost a sure thing, and afterwards tried to take credit for it.

Here, now, we're basically on our own as a grass roots effort, standing alone with our comparatively meager resources, taking on the crooked politicians, judges and cops which get in the way of the constitution. For our size and resources, we're doing a hell of a job. As an organized group of people, MOC is about 2 years behind VCDL, but there is no reason why we can't get to the point soon where we directly lobby law makers and get laws passed. And I'm sure, true to form that if we get anything done the NRA will jump on board. Or maybe they won't, because as open carriers we have the potential to expose the worthless nature of NRA CCW type classes, and this is strongly evident to piss them off.

grass roots, you're absolutely right. what we see in michigan is quit literally people taking to the streets with guns. you rarely hear any group taking credit or even being named in news reports. even when MOC members are interviewed, the name of the group takes a back seat to the common goal of educating the public.

Michigander · Apr 25, 2011

kimbercarrier said:
We also have a great leader Philip Van Cleave, and lots of tireless volunteers. and we also have tables for our organization set up at gun shows, political events and anywhere we can spread the word.

I'd been a fan of Phillip's work for quite a while before I finally got to meet him just over a year ago at the second amendment march. I was actually a lot more excited to meet him than Dick Heller and Suzanna Hupp.

Didn't know that part about MLK day. This is the sort of thing Michigan needs, for sure.

Haman J.T. · Apr 27, 2011

Michigander said:
It would seem that way, until you take a closer look at how they operate.

The bottom of their pyramid scheme is a huge grass roots army or instructors and members who have the potential to get together and get things done and be publicized just like the small but formidable core group of folks on this site do. But their grassroots actions are backed by fancy lawyers and all the money they need to get things done, and they have political contacts we can only dream of for the time being.

If they had being pro gun in mind more so than their primary goal of being a money making business, they'd do a hell of a lot more with their resources.

Every year they submit their expenses publicly so you can see where the money goes.Check it out if you like.

Michigander · Apr 27, 2011

hamaneggs said:
Every year they submit their expenses publicly so you can see where the money goes.Check it out if you like.

Their expenses are not what I am referring to. What I am referring to is that they have managed to structure there way in to almost every part of American life which could involve guns, and focus heavily on expanding profit making, while doing a rather half assed job at either lobbying for freedom or teaching people to shoot.

How much they spend vs how much they take in isn't really important, because we already know they earn considerably more than they take in. And in fact I'd have nothing at all against them having twice the profits they do. Capitalism, to a point, is a wonderful thing. I only wish they'd do a better job.

wolverine1856 · Apr 28, 2011

Michigander said:
Their expenses are not what I am referring to. What I am referring to is that they have managed to structure there way in to almost every part of American life which could involve guns, and focus heavily on expanding profit making, while doing a rather half assed job at either lobbying for freedom or teaching people to shoot.

How much they spend vs how much they take in isn't really important, because we already know they earn considerably more than they take in. And in fact I'd have nothing at all against them having twice the profits they do. Capitalism, to a point, is a wonderful thing. I only wish they'd do a better job.

Well you can wish in one hand and complain about it, or you can do something to make them more effective.

They are the most influential group fighting for our rights today. I am glad they are here and I am proud to be a member.

Michigander · Apr 28, 2011

Do something to make them more effective? Are you kidding me? They are a huge machine which both pro and anti NRA people agree is very hard to steer. I can, and have made a difference in Michigan politics. I have not, can not, and will not attempt to influence the NRA. They wouldn't care. People far more important than me in the gun business fail to influence the NRA, so it would be stupid and delusional for me to think I could change them.

Also, most influential? Maybe at publishing lists of varyingly pro gun politicians to vote for, and maybe at seeking to require their crappy "training" for being allowed to pay a state to carry, but even then, as I said earlier, it's not like they were the reason why shall issue got passed in Michigan. MCRGO, before they went to hell in a handbasket, did the leg work, and the NRA came in to take credit. Or how about the SAF's work in the SCOTUS which the NRA tried to act like it had such a huge part of? Need I mention them lobbying to block OC in liquor licensed restaurants in Arizona? How about pushing through the FOPA after the machine gun ban was tacked on, then bragging about the law for decades? That one pisses me off so much it would by itself prevent me from ever joining.

The hard work, the effective work, is seldom done by the NRA. Rather than think I can change them, or benefit anyone by supporting them, I will continue to work on my own, and with others here to change things.

stainless1911 · Apr 28, 2011

There lies the problem with the NRA.

stainless1911 · Apr 28, 2011

wolverine1856 said:
They are the most influential group fighting for our rights today. I am glad they are here and I am proud to be a member.

My above post was in response to this quote, Michigander posted before I clicked.

detroit_fan · Apr 28, 2011

Michigander said:
Do something to make them more effective? Are you kidding me? They are a huge machine which both pro and anti NRA people agree is very hard to steer. I can, and have made a difference in Michigan politics. I have not, can not, and will not attempt to influence the NRA. They wouldn't care. People far more important than me in the gun business fail to influence the NRA, so it would be stupid and delusional for me to think I could change them.

Also, most influential? Maybe at publishing lists of varyingly pro gun politicians to vote for, and maybe at seeking to require their crappy "training" for being allowed to pay a state to carry, but even then, as I said earlier, it's not like they were the reason why shall issue got passed in Michigan. MCRGO, before they went to hell in a handbasket, did the leg work, and the NRA came in to take credit. Or how about the SAF's work in the SCOTUS which the NRA tried to act like it had such a huge part of? Need I mention them lobbying to block OC in liquor licensed restaurants in Arizona? How about pushing through the FOPA after the machine gun ban was tacked on, then bragging about the law for decades? That one pisses me off so much it would by itself prevent me from ever joining.

The hard work, the effective work, is seldom done by the NRA. Rather than think I can change them, or benefit anyone by supporting them, I will continue to work on my own, and with others here to change things.

I can understand your frustration with them, but I don;t see how you can deny that they are BY FAR the most influential. Even a lot of the democratic reps and senators are scared to death of them, and that's why there was no AWB passed in 08-10. No one has the pull the nra does in dc.

stainless1911 · Apr 28, 2011

Thats why I think we should call a mutany, so we can regain control of the rudder.

Bikenut · Apr 28, 2011

People complain about the NRA... and so do I sometimes... and yet anti gunners and anti gun politicians are frequently heard to say something along the lines of............... "That damn NRA!"...... so, until I begin to hear the anti's begin to say..... "I like the NRA." I'll continue to support the NRA even with it's warts.

Haman J.T. · Apr 28, 2011

Bikenut said:
People complain about the NRA... and so do I sometimes... and yet anti gunners and anti gun politicians are frequently heard to say something along the lines of............... "That damn NRA!"...... so, until I begin to hear the anti's begin to say..... "I like the NRA." I'll continue to support the NRA even with it's warts.

I Agree Totaly! A HOUSE DIVIDED CANNOT STAND! CARRY ON! NRA Life,MCRGO,MOC Inc.,CLSD,GOA member J. Haman.

Michigander · Apr 28, 2011

detroit_fan said:
I can understand your frustration with them, but I don;t see how you can deny that they are BY FAR the most influential. Even a lot of the democratic reps and senators are scared to death of them, and that's why there was no AWB passed in 08-10. No one has the pull the nra does in dc.

Apparently the SAF does have the equivalent pull, since they spear headed the DC cases. That by itself, in my opinion over shadowed anything else the NRA has done since I've been alive. It is in fact the single biggest step I've seen taken to taking back the rights which the NRA negotiated away in the past 76 years.

In the sense that they suckle off of other peoples hard work to whatever goal they are looking for, they are the most influential. In the sense that they have managed to claim a part of just about every corner of lawful gun use in the USA (often times by name through laws themselves), they are the most influential. In the sense that this culminates to make them the default unified voice of shooters across the USA, they are the most influential. This does not change the fact that their message is often twisted and wrong, and as the iconoclasts of the gun rights community, I do believe you and I have an obligation to make sure people understand that.

I humbly and respectfully submit to you that it wasn't the NRA that historically cleaned house in 1994, leading to future fear of refreshing the klinton ban, it was leftist gun owning voters who were furious, and crossed party lines. The fact that the NRA published lists telling people to do this does not make it their victory. It made it a victory for US gun owners. The NRA was there, and they certainly helped, but it wasn't their thing. It was a grass roots uprising at the polls. If anybody can take the credit for this historic shift, it should probably be the treasonous moron politicians who put the klinton ban into law.

Haman J.T. · Apr 28, 2011

Michigander said:
Apparently the SAF does have the equivalent pull, since they spear headed the DC cases. That by itself, in my opinion over shadowed anything else the NRA has done since I've been alive. It is in fact the single biggest step I've seen taken to taking back the rights which the NRA negotiated away in the past 76 years.

In the sense that they suckle off of other peoples hard work to whatever goal they are looking for, they are the most influential. In the sense that they have managed to claim a part of just about every corner of lawful gun use in the USA (often times by name through laws themselves), they are the most influential. In the sense that this culminates to make them the default unified voice of shooters across the USA, they are the most influential. This does not change the fact that their message is often twisted and wrong, and as the iconoclasts of the gun rights community, I do believe you and I have an obligation to make sure people understand that.

I humbly and respectfully submit to you that it wasn't the NRA that historically cleaned house in 1994, leading to future fear of refreshing the klinton ban, it was leftist gun owning voters who were furious, and crossed party lines. The fact that the NRA published lists telling people to do this does not make it their victory. It made it a victory for US gun owners. The NRA was there, and they certainly helped, but it wasn't their thing. It was a grass roots uprising at the polls. If anybody can take the credit for this historic shift, it should probably be the treasonous moron politicians who put the klinton ban into law.

You are assuming the NRA has the power to negotiate away rights over the power of the president and the two houses of congress,which is the same argument the anti's use,claiming this great power the NRA supposedly has. I'm sure if the NRA had the power they are assumed to have,there would be no anti-gun laws,at least thats what me and the other 3,999,999 members would do.It's the 4 mill plus members that make a difference with their votes and educating fellow citizens.The NRA is Grass Roots.How many people do SAF reach on a monthly basis with the facts?

DrTodd · Apr 28, 2011

Over on the Florida threads, posters seem to have "evidence" that the NRA essentially killed the OC bill AND made it even MORE difficult to OC.

Haman J.T. · Apr 29, 2011

DrTodd said:
Over on the Florida threads, posters seem to have "evidence" that the NRA essentially killed the OC bill AND made it even MORE difficult to OC.

All I saw there was mention of an NRA rep speaking to a commitee and posters anti-NRA opinions.No evidence,just opinions.

DrTodd · Apr 29, 2011

What would constitute evidence? From what I read, the NRA supported the OC provision specifically because Florida law was such that inadvertent display of a pistol could have been deemed illegal. The legislature then specifically added a provision allowing "inadvertent" OC... basically covering NRA's issue. I would believe.this based upon past NRA behavior... I mentioned national park carry where the NRA wanted it for people cc with permit. It further makes sense sense since the NRA is most likely to further it's own agenda by promoting cc permits rather than OC because they are a major certifying entity for trainers. Since OC does not require training, they would be almost cutting themselves off from people who want to he certified firearm instructors. So logically, I can see them doing what has been averred to protect their customers.

Haman J.T. · Apr 29, 2011

DrTodd said:
What would constitute evidence? From what I read, the NRA supported the OC provision specifically because Florida law was such that inadvertent display of a pistol could have been deemed illegal. The legislature then specifically added a provision allowing "inadvertent" OC... basically covering NRA's issue. I would believe.this based upon past NRA behavior... I mentioned national park carry where the NRA wanted it for people cc with permit. It further makes sense sense since the NRA is most likely to further it's own agenda by promoting cc permits rather than OC because they are a major certifying entity for trainers. Since OC does not require training, they would be almost cutting themselves off from people who want to he certified firearm instructors. So logically, I can see them doing what has been averred to protect their customers.

The "legislature" added the provision,not the NRA.What choice does the NRA have? They didn't write the bill. If the legislature covered "inadvertent display" ,thats the choice,which I would be for too.No where did the NRA state they are against OC,ever.If the legislature offered full OC I'm sure the NRA would go for that too. I'm sure if OC was passed there would still be those who choose to CC and they would still have training.

NRA just called

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

New member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Banned

Banned

Regular Member

Banned

Bikenut

Guest

New member

Regular Member

New member

Michigan Moderator

New member

Michigan Moderator

New member