• 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.

NRA or Grassroots: which one to join?

Doble Troble

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2011
Messages
58
Location
Greenville
If you have to choose...

...and it's between GRNC and NRA - GRNC hands down. If its between GOA and NRA - GOA hands down. I'm not saying NRA is bad, it just sometimes isn't good.

For example, last year they sold-out First Amendment rights after they were carved-out an exception to the Disclose Act. This demonstrates politics are more important than principle and the Constitution to them.

They also promoted Heath Shuler and Hugh Holliman over clearly pro-gun candidates.

They also floated support for Harry Reid of all people - they withdrew at the bitter end due to a deluge of protest.

They arrogantly claim to be playing "complicated political games" that ordinary gun owners aren't capable of understanding. What we don't understand is what is so complicated about "shall not be infringed" and how can you trade political favors (i.e. not opposing Disclose/Harry Reid, trying to torpedo Heller...) for concessions on what "shall not be infringed"?

In addition, all the NRA senior management are pulling 6 or 7 figure salaries. Maybe this is why they were afraid of Heller? If the Second is affirmed to actually mean what it says, why would we need over-paid fat-cats to defend it for us? Answer: we wouldn't, but then maybe they could go back to their role in building ranges, publishing loading information, hosting matches so that every American can conveniently attend...
 

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,331
Location
Nevada
...They also floated support for Harry Reid of all people...

What exactly is your point here? Are we supposed to assume Harry Reid is anti-gun?

I don't know the other politicians you mentioned, so I won't pretend to know the stories there. But Senator Reid I know. I won't pretend to be his supporter, but he is the strongest pro-gun Senator we've had in a long time, and we are very fortunate that he is the Senate Majority Leader if we are being forced to deal with a Democrat-controlled Senate.
 
Last edited:

Doble Troble

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2011
Messages
58
Location
Greenville
Yes, Reid is pro-gun in the "common sense-restriction/photo-op with a shotgun over the shoulder bird hunting" sense, but not in the pro-freedom sense.

Reid is so completely anti-freedom/Constitution on other issues that he can't be trusted.

He is only fit for loathing. NRA was dealing with the devil considering endorsing him.
 

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,331
Location
Nevada
Reid is a socialist. I'm not making apologies for him. I did not support his reelection. But please show me where he was not a strong pro-gun senator. Name another socialist that voted against the AWB. Obama and Clinton pull the shotgun photo-ops; don't lump them together just because it's convenient to do so. Reid is one of the reasons Obama has been impotent regarding gun control. We can at least acknowledge that truthfully.

IIRC, the NRA did not endorse him. If you say they wanted to or were about to, I'd like to see some proof of that, or it's just gossip to be ignored. It is true that they did not endorse his opponent, an equally pro-gun candidate that was also a conservative. But the truth remains we are overall stronger pro-gun for having Harry Reid in office, knowing he would be the Majority Leader in a Democrat-controlled Senate.
 

Doble Troble

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2011
Messages
58
Location
Greenville
Google is your friend, Reid is not...

A couple of seconds produced dozens of mainstream articles.

Here's one that quickly caught attention: http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-national/nra-controversy-flares-up-again-over-harry-reid

If you think it is Reid and not re-election that has held Obama back, just wait. You may get what you have been convinced will not be such a bad outcome.

Then again, maybe you've been stockpiling ammo, primers and hi-cap magazines just waiting for the second coming (I mean term).

And REALLY (after some time to carefully consider the issue)...ARE WE REALLY CALMLY DISCUSSING HOW A FRICKIN' UNEQUIVOCAL *SOCIALIST* IS THE SENATE MAJORITY LEADER OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA? Do you *REALLY* think for more than a nanosecond that this WONK really respects any God-given right you have?
 
Last edited:

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,331
Location
Nevada
Yes, I've read those before.

So:
me said:
Reid is a socialist. I'm not making apologies for him. I did not support his reelection. But please show me where he was not a strong pro-gun senator.

Yes, he has voted on some anti-gun stuff, AS HAVE MOST of the Republican "gun-friendly" darlings. My statements are limited to his gun votes, not his freedom or Constitution votes. It is debatable if we'd be better off (strictly gun-wise) if Nevada had elected tea-party conservative Sharon Angle, as we almost did in Reid's closest re-election in probably forever. We'd also have anti-gun leadership in the Senate, one of these other guys probably (and I don't mean the guy from Alaska): http://democrats.senate.gov/leadership/

I'm not saying I wish it wasn't that way. I'm just saying that's debatable.

Did the NRA endorse Harry Reid? No. Was he worth "considering?" Was he noteworthy in his pro-gun votes and attitudes that he merited the thought? Yes. In the end, however, I agree with not actually endorsing him. But you can't deny his pro-gun stance, as much as we can hate him for socialism. He's actually a bit of a contradiction. Overall, I don't like him, but I will not pretend he hasn't been pro-gun.

Obama's staff made an statement when he first took office that they were looking at gun control as one of their priorities. Harry Reid went on record saying it wasn't going to happen, much to Pelosi's chagrin.

Bring pro-gun is what saved Reid's reelection, on more than one occasion. He's from Nevada, after all. We have a high concentration of ex-Californians that have kept him in office despite his growing socialism. But if he was not pro-gun, we'd have dumped him for sure. We probably still will.
 

Doble Troble

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2011
Messages
58
Location
Greenville
Well, I guess that in the Socialist sense, we can both take comfort in not liking Reid.

Has he been pro-gun? Yes! In a pro- "stand there in the hunting field with a shotgun while your staff takes pictures of you" sense.

Has he been pro-gun-freedom? No. He is light-years from citizens freely bearing martial arms. This is in spite of the fact that martial arms are the only arms relevant to the Second Amendment.

Our definitions are different. Yours is easy. Mine is not.

But you seem to be making repeated efforts to support weak behavior. You also seem to think that standing up to even even less-principled electees like Pelosi and Obama bring some sort of value.

And you are attempting to be an active member of a pro-gun, pro-freedom, pro-self-defense forum?

One out of three IS bad.
 

cricketdad

Regular Member
Joined
May 29, 2010
Messages
381
Location
Fayetteville, North Carolina, USA
surely you jest crickdad, however, to clarify my position since you woke that dog up....how the organization obtained the addresses of gun owners in the state doesn't concern me, but rather the protection and security of said data does...

my last post centers around the cite mentioned....as the GRNC website pointed out...apparently w/GRNC around passing all the firearm statutes why have a NC General Assembly ?

Also as i have publicly stated on this and other platforms...GRNC is a fine firearm advocate but requires someone to proof their public copy as it comes across as egotisical (GRNC was the only contributor!) and advertising comes across as the 'the boy who cried wolf' or 'doom and gloom' mentality if you do not contribute/volunteer!

as mentioned in the past... what is being done for our contributions today? a suggestion organizationally someone might brief those manning your booths as they do not have a objective clue on objective goals. what was done in the past they can articulate from rote memory. (to be fair every booth person was asked the exact same guestion and i got wonderful tales of past quests but nothing on future objectives needing conquering by the organization.)

wabbit

ps; already know that answer cricketdad...some in your org have loose tongues as i got the same response from several different folk. :uhoh:

To steal a slogan, I am the NRA and I vote.
GRNC is not the small group that provides leadership. It is everyone that helps out by responding to the alerts. From your posts I can tell you are very intelligent. If you can't look at the landing page and tell what the goals are something is wrong. The biggest is the BIG RED BUTTON on the left side. Each of the alerts that goes out is a goal. The SOE lawsuit is a goal.
 

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,331
Location
Nevada
Well, I guess that in the Socialist sense, we can both take comfort in not liking Reid.

Has he been pro-gun? Yes! In a pro- "stand there in the hunting field with a shotgun while your staff takes pictures of you" sense.

Has he been pro-gun-freedom? No. He is light-years from citizens freely bearing martial arms. This is in spite of the fact that martial arms are the only arms relevant to the Second Amendment.

Our definitions are different. Yours is easy. Mine is not.

But you seem to be making repeated efforts to support weak behavior. You also seem to think that standing up to even even less-principled electees like Pelosi and Obama bring some sort of value.

And you are attempting to be an active member of a pro-gun, pro-freedom, pro-self-defense forum?

One out of three IS bad.

I'd better just shut up. All I did was admit he was not as bad as he is made out to be from a pure GUN standpoint. All I did was admit he does help when it comes to our GUNS. He is more pro-gun than George Bush I, I would wager. But what the hell does a voting record have to do with anything? My bad.

I NEVER defended his anti-freedom; quite the contrary. But put all the words in my mouth that you wish.

Again, I did not vote for him, nor support his candidacy in any way; quite the contrary. But I won't lie about him either.
 
Last edited:

bc.cruiser

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2011
Messages
786
Location
Fayetteville NC
Also, I can't remember the last time I got a mailing asking for more money. I think a lot of non-members keep spreading that around as an excuse not to join, like junk mail is something they don't get from every other source on the planet anyway.

Snipped.

Tell you what: Send me a PM with your address and I'll forward all the mailings I get from NRA, NRA-PVF, and NRA-ILA that seek donations.
Maybe if I quit donating, they'd quit asking. But then they might have to quit defending the 2A.
 

XD9mmFMJ

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2012
Messages
82
Location
Florida
Do you realize the people who run the NRA are related to those who have proposed all the anti-gun legislation in this country? Do you realize the NRA pushed for bills which actually limit gun rights?

The NRA helped bring about H.R. 2640, the "NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007" which:

The core of the bill's problems is section 101(c)(1)(C), which makes you a "prohibited person" on the basis of a "medical finding of disability," so long as a citizen or veteran had an "opportunity" for some sort of "hearing" before some "lawful authority" (other than a court). Presumably, this "lawful authority" could even be the psychiatrist himself.
src.

They're a lot more crafty than most of you think. Limiting rights while you pour money in their pockets for them to help protect your rights??!?!?! WHO WOULD HAVE THOUGHT!!! :shocker:
 
Top