Results 1 to 25 of 25

Thread: ASre we the NRA's 3 legged pig?

  1. #1
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961

    ASre we the NRA's 3 legged pig?

    If you are not familiar with the metaphor, it is explained in the link.

    Link: http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/new...le-1932159.php

    Are open carriers the heart of the 2nd A, or are we just their 3 legged pig?
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  2. #2
    Regular Member rushcreek2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs. CO
    Posts
    924
    My observation is that those who are currently at the helm of the NRA have determined that the UNLICENSED open carry movement threatens progress towards the enactment of "right to (concealed) carry " licensing laws, and "selling" universal reciprocity throughout the 50 states.

    This is a respectable goal. The most pressing goal is to address the most agregious transgressions upon the right to keep & bear arms in certain jurisdictions, and the concealed carry reciprocity foot-dragging by many "right to carry" states.

    The NRA has thus far opted out of an active role in the OC effort, paying occassional lip-service to the effort, but offering no tangible lobbying support. This posture may be politically pragmatic by not opening up an additional "front" requiring the diversion of its resources. It still suggest a certain timidity , and unwillingness to support the "front-line" right to actually BEAR ARMS troops (OC'ers) who are wondering ..."Where is the NRA?"

    I think the open carry movement is still perceived by many politicians, their advisors, AND THE NRA as a sort of "third-rail" of the effort to restore respect for the right to bear arms. It is political expediency - pure and simple, and ironically publicly BEARS a naked ignorance regarding the historic, linguistic, and constitutional reality surrounding the right TO BEAR ARMS - that being the fact that TO BEAR ARMS is to DISPLAY ARMS- not keep them hidden under the clothing.

    The BEAR one's soul, to BEAR news, to BEAR a child into this world, or TO BEAR ARMS each involves the necessity of a REVELATION.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Urban Skeet City, Alabama
    Posts
    897
    In the firearms world, OC is the "hard right" perspective. The NRA seems to lean as close to "hard left" as possible in their actions.

    I'd say OC is the three-legged pig, but to be perfectly honest, we're the ones playing by the rules and we're often harassed for it by people who simply don't understand the dynamics of crime and arms. We're honest about the fact that we're carrying, and it's not simply a form of phallic free speech.

    Surround yourself with great people, and you'll feed off of that positive energy and make your quality of life better. Surround yourself with bad or negative people and that negative energy will seep into you. Police work around people who are incredibly negative, and some turn into bad apples. Some start that way.
    It takes a village to raise an idiot.

  4. #4
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Reno, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    1,713
    Quote Originally Posted by rushcreek2 View Post
    historic, linguistic, and constitutional reality surrounding the right TO BEAR ARMS - that being the fact that TO BEAR ARMS is to DISPLAY ARMS- not keep them hidden under the clothing.

    The BEAR one's soul, to BEAR news, to BEAR a child into this world, or TO BEAR ARMS each involves the necessity of a REVELATION.
    I disagree. I believe the right to bear arms is not limited to open carry. Bear does not by necessity involve revelation.

    See the dictionary definiton of bear:
    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dicti...1&t=1313515837

    Some definitions might indicate a presentation or revealing, but in context it pretty clearly means to carry and without any specification that they must be displayed or concealed.

    In the past people have been more wary of concealed arms than openly carried ones, but a ban on concealed arms is also a violation of rights just as a ban on openly carried arms would be.

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Let's go back to the author's concerns about dealers "selling in bulk" for a moment. There are no wholesale lots going over the counter, as far as I've read anywhere. And yes, I do check even the most rabid sites to see what they are drumming up for the folks who feed on/off of paranoia. I also do not see the cartels favoring semiautomatics when they seem to have a ready supply of full auto weaponry available.

    But as for the NRA selling out its membership piecemeal - that's been happening for a long time. Anybody that claims to be unaware of how that has been taking place really needs to come up for air.

    My concern here is that this thread deteriorates from a possible discussion of how to pull back from being the "three-legged pig" and move the NRA towards goals that are more in keeping with its original intent into a full-on bashing of them.

    At the moment I am pretty much stumped for an answer to that one. The only thing I can come up with is to replace them as the "voice" of gun owners with one of the other national organizations that seem to be oriented more in the direction I favor. The question is, which one? And the other question is, how do we get everybody else to agree at the same time? The answer, I fear, involves allowing a large opening for our opponents to exploit.

    I'm a tactical fighter. Anybody out there a strategic planner?

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Las Cruces, New Mexico
    Posts
    242
    Hmmmm, there's the argument they make saying that our individually-owned weapons are ineffective at repelling professional military, and therefore the insurrectionary purpose of the 2A is worthless and therefore it can all be tossed.

    But in their next breath they want to take the 'assault weapons' because they create instability south of the border.

    So which is it? Are our weapons worthless or are they dangerous?

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    Screw the NRA, I've had it with them.

  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by stainless1911 View Post
    Screw the NRA, I've had it with them.
    Fine. Great. No argument.

    But what are you going to replace them with? Because if you do away with them you are going to need something/someone to fill the void as the organization that Congress perceives as speaking for [all of] the gun owners of America.

    Or are you going to let the discussion be one-sided?

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    I dont want to let the discussion be one sided, but as I see it now, the NRA is the void.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    Let's go back to the author's concerns about dealers "selling in bulk" for a moment. There are no wholesale lots going over the counter, as far as I've read anywhere. And yes, I do check even the most rabid sites to see what they are drumming up for the folks who feed on/off of paranoia. I also do not see the cartels favoring semiautomatics when they seem to have a ready supply of full auto weaponry available.

    But as for the NRA selling out its membership piecemeal - that's been happening for a long time. Anybody that claims to be unaware of how that has been taking place really needs to come up for air.

    My concern here is that this thread deteriorates from a possible discussion of how to pull back from being the "three-legged pig" and move the NRA towards goals that are more in keeping with its original intent into a full-on bashing of them.

    At the moment I am pretty much stumped for an answer to that one. The only thing I can come up with is to replace them as the "voice" of gun owners with one of the other national organizations that seem to be oriented more in the direction I favor. The question is, which one? And the other question is, how do we get everybody else to agree at the same time? The answer, I fear, involves allowing a large opening for our opponents to exploit.

    I'm a tactical fighter. Anybody out there a strategic planner?

    stay safe.

    I think that is part of the "perception problem." They are the "voice of their membership." If enough of their membership makes their voice known as "OC is included in RKBA," then that will become part of their "got to work on" list.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    We have been letting them know. They don't care.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by stainless1911 View Post
    We have been letting them know. They don't care.
    Are you a member?

    How many other NRA members have been letting them know?
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    I am a member, I let them know, and didnt even get a response. This fall, Im sure I'll get a letter in the mail, asking me why I didnt renew, and probably asking me for more money.

    At that time, I'll be happy to remind them. I'll even give them the opportunity to contact me when they decide to loudly, publicly, and nationally support OC with more than just words. At that time, I'll renew gladly.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by stainless1911 View Post
    I am a member, I let them know, and didnt even get a response. This fall, Im sure I'll get a letter in the mail, asking me why I didnt renew, and probably asking me for more money.

    At that time, I'll be happy to remind them. I'll even give them the opportunity to contact me when they decide to loudly, publicly, and nationally support OC with more than just words. At that time, I'll renew gladly.
    Okay, there is ONE out of over 4milllion. What have the other 3,999,999 members been saying?

    Then, when you don't renew, now only the views of those 3,999,999 are going to be heard.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  15. #15
    Regular Member okboomer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Oklahoma, USA
    Posts
    1,164
    Voting members can and do have an effect on the board of directors which is where change will begin.
    cheers - okboomer
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Lead, follow, or get out of the way

    Exercising my 2A Rights does NOT make me a CRIMINAL! Infringing on the exercise of those rights makes YOU one!

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    I know that the OC crowd is considered a fringe element of the NRA, by a large percentage of NRA members because the NRA is a "rifle" association, they advocate for the protection of our right to hunt with a firearm.
    While the original organization does go by the moniker "rifle" association, it is not limited to working with hunting only.
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME
    We OC folks are those bitter clingers that Obama mentioned and the NRA seems to agree with Obama on this specific issue.
    No, Obama speaks to even those NRA members with that specific. And the NRA does not agree with him.
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME
    The NRA seems to only get involved in handgun issues if they believe that without their involvement, the issue will lead to the errosion of their members right to use a firearm to hunt.
    No, that is not accurate. Campus Carry is an area of interest by the NRA, and has nothing to do with hunting.
    If the NRA was only about hunting, they wouldn't have been involved in the McDonald cases at all. Those weren't about hunting.
    http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactShe...ad.aspx?id=245
    That link is to the NRA Fact Sheet about handguns. The FIRST item on that list is "Self Defense," not "Hunting."
    In Nevada specifically, the NRA rep was active with legislation...only TWO bills had anything to do about hunting. But, Castle Doctrine (self-defense), Campus Carry, and CC law changes WERE supported. Again, nothing to do with hunting.


    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME
    When the hunting only members see this that block of money is in peril. The NRA will not have any of that. We bitter clingers are left to fend for ourselves, except when the NRA deems it appropriate to throw us a bread crumb every now and then to keep our coin flowing their way.
    When too many "bitter clingers" as you call them leave the NRA, only the "hunters" will be left in the NRA to direct their efforts. Leaving the NRA is counter-productive, and self-fulfilling for those who do not believe the NRA does what they want the NRA to do.


    If you really believe that the NRA is "only about hunting," you aren't seeing their reality.
    Last edited by wrightme; 08-18-2011 at 10:58 AM.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  17. #17
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    These three are good starting points as an alternative to the NRA.
    Yes, any one of them would be suitable. But which one?

    The NRA is the 800-pound gorrila in the room. We are not debating about whether or not it should be replaced.

    I am asking what, specifically, it should be replaced with. I don't care if it's chocolate, vanilla or strawberry. but I want someone to make the decision because I can't make up my mind which one I want. I have a feeling there are many others like me.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    I know that the OC crowd is considered a fringe element of the NRA, by a large percentage of NRA members because the NRA is a "rifle" association, they advocate for the protection of our right to hunt with a firearm. We OC folks are those bitter clingers that Obama mentioned and the NRA seems to agree with Obama on this specific issue. The NRA seems to only get involved in handgun issues if they believe that without their involvement, the issue will lead to the errosion of their members right to use a firearm to hunt. When the hunting only members see this that block of money is in peril. The NRA will not have any of that. We bitter clingers are left to fend for ourselves, except when the NRA deems it appropriate to throw us a bread crumb every now and then to keep our coin flowing their way.
    Skidmark, if we knew that answer, what the NRA should be replaced with, we would be funding them, instead of feeding the gorilla, and slipping on the banana peels.

  19. #19
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524
    My choice has been made in two organizations.

    www.jpfo.org because they tell it like it is


    www.saf.org because it was not afraid to file Heller
    The thing about common sense is....it ain't too common.
    Will Rogers

  20. #20
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    From the article:

    Gun owners: You are the National Rifle Association's three-legged pig.

    ...

    The NRA, though highly dependent on you, has diminished you into a caricature, a punch line. The uncaring — my-cold-dead-hands — defender of the unrestricted right to pack as much firepower as you want, whenever you want, wherever you want. No need to balance this “right” against anyone else's rights.
    mySA Article Writer: You're nuts.

    The "my cold dead hands" line belongs to the NRA, not me. Furthermore, there is no need to balance our right to keep and bear arms against anyone else's rights, as there is no such thing as a right to be free from the presence of a firearm. Any citizen who wishes may work hard, by a lot of land, and live in relative seclusion to their heart's content. Finally, any restricting on buying a firearm, whether it be type, number, or waiting period, violates the Second Amendment which says the right to keep and bear arms may not be infringed!

    Nope, wait-a-minute, it's a bit stronger than that, actually. It says "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

    I'm thankful of the NRA's efforts to change all the "except for" laws out there, the ones drafted by legislators who're apparently unable to read the basic English of our Constitution.
    Last edited by since9; 08-18-2011 at 06:54 PM.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    saf

    As to not knowing what the NRA is all about. What they are all about is irrelevant if the majority of paying members are not self-defense folks but sporting shooting folks. Simulated home defense drills are not considered traditional sport shooting.
    Makes one wonder what the NRA is teaching you to hunt in the "PPIH/PPOH" course curriculums.......
    http://www.nrainstructors.org/CourseCatalog.aspx


    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME
    Hunters may or may not have a handgun for self defense in the home. If they do have one then it is just one and it never leaves the house. I know at least two dozen folks (anecdotal evidence), NRA members, back in South Carolina that fall in that category. You work against their 2A right to hunt with a gun, that's how they look at the 2A, then they get all riled up. You work against OC or CCW, they may never even notice, let alone care because they don't carry.
    So, you are basing your view upon what those people believe? What do they reply with when you let them know that the NRA teaches Pistol Self-defense courses? Those have nothing to do with hunting.
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME
    So, where does this leave us bitter clingers who are about self-defense first, hunting second? The minority in the eyes of the NRA. Campus carry? What is the average age of the NRA membership? I'll betcha that it is older than college age. Once again, a non-issue for those members. Maybe if they got kids going to college, maybe they may have some interest, would that interest rise to the level to change the course of the NRA, probably not.
    Taking the relevant NRA course curriculums, speaking to your NRA legislative people to get relevant laws passed. The course of the NRA isn't "all about the hunting, and nothing but the hunting," no matter how much you want to paint them to be such.

    Do you deny that the NRA backed HB294? What in that bill had to do with hunting?
    http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?id=6986
    Making it legal to buy and own transferable weapons isn't anything to do with hunting, why did they support that?
    Last edited by wrightme; 08-18-2011 at 08:59 PM.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    And....how many folks will the majority of this bills provision actually impact? Sorry to inform you but not very many. At best it may bump the CCW numbers in MO by 1 or 2 percentage points, three if we get lucky. Folks were not running into contiguous states to buy guns before and they like will not change their shopping habits after. Machine guns?, c'mon man, get real. Silencers? Still think these provisions are vitally important to your average gun owner in Missouri, let alone the rest of the country? There is a back story to HB294 which is way OT right now but suffice it to say that 23 to 21 is about the only good thing that came out of HB294.
    So, before it was that "the NRA is only for hunters," and now it is that "those other things they support don't affect enough people?"
    It should be sufficient to understand that the statements you have been making about the NRA are not accurate. Yet when this is pointed out, you just shift over to another imagined slight you see in them. So, it sure looks like to you, it isn't about what they are or are not, it is about finding something you can hold against them. That is not an honest method to review them and present them.
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME
    I clearly stated that those folks I mentioned were not concerned about self-defense "out side the home" and obviously considered themselves adequately trained to protect themselves "in side the home". Did they take any NRA PPIH or PPOH, I do not know and it does not matter because they are primarily focused on gun rights as it relates to hunting. If the "state" announces that all handguns are to be confiscated then they will get really riled up to be sure, but we ain't there and these folks don't see us getting there.
    Then why did you seem to try and make their view be the view of the NRA as a whole? It isn't.
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME
    Growing up on a farm in SC, raised with shotguns and rifles scattered around the house. My Daddy had one hand gun, in his night stand drawer and a little .22 4-shot pocket pistol with snake shot loaded that he carried around all the time. He never carried a hand gun for protection. Call it the rural lifestyle, country thinking or plain old comfort in the knowledge that crime was not a problem. Whatever you want to call it, the fact remains that far more folks are pro 2A mainly because they hunt. Being in the minority is not always a pleasant experience but it is what it is. If you have facts and figures from the NRA that contradict my line of thinking then I will glady accept this and change my line of thinking.
    I have no reason to counter your anecdote-based opinion with any facts. But, if you want to find some actual facts that you feel support your view that SD is second to hunting, I am ready.
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME
    The personal protection fixation that we have is not the norm in the "firearms q-munity", it is the exception, more so than any of us may think. If the general NRA membership were concerned about infringements that affect self-defense then I am fairly confident that politicians would not need the NRA to know this. I have seen very little evidence that indicates that the self-defense crowd is nothing more than a fringe element of the firearms owning public and it is not likely to change anytime soon.
    I have the opposite opinion, and your opinion isn't sufficient "proof."
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME
    I have asked folks I know, who are NRA members, why they do not carry, the response is almost identical in each case, I do not see a need to carry. The NRA will take anyones money, even sheeple money. I respectfully recommend that you take your self-defense blinders off and look around the country, most folks with guns just ain't into self-defense "everywhere" "all the time" like you and I are.
    Once again, you are conflating the view of some members that you met with the view of the NRA as a body.

    I don't hunt at all. I am an NRA member.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  23. #23
    Regular Member Superlite27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    God's Country, Missouri
    Posts
    1,279
    My opinion: We are, indeed, the NRA's three legged pig. I've been to several NRA Gun Rights Policy Conferences, and what I've encountered there is usually the same.

    I'm not going to bad mouth the NRA. They are HUGE and their goal IS, indeed, to promote firearms freedom. Bashing them is pointless as they DO promote our freedom. They're the good guys. I simply have a beef with their methodology and have an opinion on "why theyare the way they are".

    Every GRPC (both) I've been to has been filled to the brim with 80 year old duck hunters. I dislike the term "Fudd" as it connotes a diparaging view of them. They aren't all simply duck hunters trying to safeguard their Weatherby's and goose guns. There's a large portion that are, but those ALSO respect your desire to keep your gun for self defense. To call them "Fudds" is to discount their hard work in fighting for your self-defense rights, as well.

    The reason for the dislike of the NRA (I believe) is their methodology. They have become so used to gaining ground in small increments, they're afraid to rock the boat. Ever since they started fighting for our rights, they've been heavily opposed by anti-gunners AND public opinion. Through all of it, they've gained ground. They've done so in tiny little steps, and it's been successful.

    They are just simply afraid of the NEW. They've been so successful in winning, but winning in small steps, that they don't want to "rock the boat" by trying to take any giant leaps. Even when they can push their momentum and take advantage of a huge gain...they're still stuck in the ways of the past. They don't want to take the chance of getting behind something that even has the tiniest fraction of a chance of being opposed by the majority. They're old. Brash "damn the torpedoes!" young boldness is not going to be their warcry. Folks bash the NRA for not taking huge leaps of faith. Well, that just isn't their thing. They're not going to just come right out and say they're in favor of constitutional carry for every state. They're not going to support OC unabashedly. They don't want to alienate ANYONE because they're so used to winning by taking tiny little steps. As long as they keep going the right direction, I don't see anything wrong with it. It might not be the huge jumps of freedom we desire, but instead of deriding them for not being as bold as we desire, I say we just accept it and support the NRA for what it is. Yes, we're their three legged pig. We're not going to get fed steak tartar, but as long as we keep getting table scraps and aren't sold for bacon, it's fine with me.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    I am not making myself clear.
    I think you have that one correct.

    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    . The majority of NRA members are not as concerned about personal defense out side the home as you and I are.
    Yet you haven't presented any true data (beyond anecdote) to support that contention.
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME
    All NRA members are interested in advancing 2A issues or they would not be members of the NRA.
    Michael Moore is an NRA member. And?

    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME
    What the NRA is, is the voice of a great many people who are concerned about the errosion of our 2A right. What the NRA is not is the protector of the 2A, We The People are. I have consistently stated that the majority of NRA members are not as interested in SD as you and I are. I have stated that the gun q-munity is mostly folks who hunt and not that interested in SD. The NRA has the voice that any one individual does not have. This is good for all of us, yet not good for all of us because the NRA is not responsive to the individual, let alone a small group of individual, members or not.
    "Stating it" does not make it true.

    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME
    I asked you first. I know I do not know the numbers concerning the views of every NRA member as it relates to hunting or SD or both. I do not know if anyone does. I do know that MOAG has numbers on CCW. It is reasonable that this gives a good indicator of the number of folks that are concerned about SD out side the home.
    Then your claims to KNOW what a majority of NRA members think is false.


    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME
    I did not state that my opinion was proof. Your opinion is probably based on the same data or evidence that I have access to.
    Yet you appear to attempt to base your opinion upon the anecdotes of those you meet.

    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME
    That is a classic example of a poll. While mine was not scientific, it is reasonable to think that the view of a couple of dozen fellas ain't gunna be too far afield of the whole population.
    Actually, that IS unreasonable.


    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME
    Then you are the exception and not the rule in the law abiding, gun owning q-munity.
    Once again, what data do you present to support that empty claim?
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME
    I hunt, joined the NRA after I got out of the service, send them the 1-year membership each year. Big whoop, they do good in the Halls of Cngress, not so good at the state level. So, I do support them with a few coins each year, yet they are not always the friend they claim to be and I think, based on comments I have read on OCDO, many more folks have a similar relationship with the NRA. Can't live with them and ya can't live without them.
    What would you prefer them do at the state level? I presented some of what they worked towards just the last session were you live. Have you spoken to your state NRA rep about your views yet?


    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME
    So, where does this leave us? Two folks who have the same goal yet a differing opinion about the NRA. +1 to you Sir.
    Yes, yet your opinion appears to not take into account what the NRA actually DOES do, does it......
    Last edited by wrightme; 08-19-2011 at 02:19 PM.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  25. #25
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Nah. They're our third-legged pig.

    What cesspool does the media dredge these idioms out of, anyway?
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •