• 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.

Will not renew membership

James

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2008
Messages
100
Location
Bluefield, West Virginia, USA
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/06/AR2010100603363.html?nav=hcmodule




---Moderator Comment: please keep in mind --

(12) NO BASHING OF OTHER GUN RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS: Regardless of how convinced you are that another gun rights organization is not doing their job, this is not the place to air those concerns unless they are specifically related to an anti-open carry position taken by that organization. All other rants against other gun rights groups will be deleted or the thread locked.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA

zack991

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
1,535
Location
Ohio, USA
I never renewed mine for a long time now and have given money to other groups, I have gone over why i refute them as a group i could ever support them. It has gotten heated so I wont ruin a good thread with the NRA is this or that but I have lost all respect for them and stunts they pull in the name of gun rights.
 
Last edited:

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
The NRA Debacle

I have to admit, this has been a struggle for me. I am far from a shill for the NRA, and I even wrote them a very blunt letter a few weeks ago all but promising that my renewal was on hold until they decided on their much publicized possibility of a Reid endorsement.

After some thought, I think our "problem" is that we have had the luxury in the past of having candidates for whom the NRA endorsement tended to correlate very highly with our other values of interest. It used to be that the NRA endorsement would also indicate that the candidates' other social, economic and moral values tended to match our own.

In more recent times, and in what one must view as a very good development, holders of pro-gun views have expanded to include candidates that may not necessarily match our other values so closely!

The NRA has always claimed to be a one-issue organization. And yes, they also tend to look out for themselves (DISCLOSE Act), but what competent organization doesn't? If the NRA were to suddenly start to advocate for other social or economic issues, they would undoubtedly lose support from some members, and their core message would be diluted.

Thank goodness, the Senate had to vote on the recent SCOTUS appointments. That gave the NRA a valid excuse to not endorse Reid and the other lock-step Democrat Senators. With the House of Representatives, even though the same thing happens with the Leadership, the party-line votes are not as well publicized, so it's harder to give a concrete reason to withhold endorsement, especially in violation of a well-known incumbent-support criteria that has been in place for years.

Like it or not, pro-gun Democrats have saved the country from the full anti-gun wrath of President Obama and his Justice Department. If the NRA were to throw those Democrats under the bus, there would be no benefit for future Democrats to even consider a pro-gun position. And that would be a disaster.

The learning curve is on us, to evaluate candidates beyond the NRA endorsement, or lack thereof. Despite our collective passion, I suspect very few of us are truly one-issue voters. We've always had to pick candidates based on their total package. We're discovering that the NRA endorsement may not be the broad indicator that it once was.

I think it's so important, I'll say it again: It is a huge testament to the advance of the pro-gun agenda that we have NRA-endorsed candidates with such diverse views on other issues. As hard as it is to digest, this is the best thing that could happen.

JMHO.

TFred
 

markand

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2006
Messages
512
Location
VA
I support many second amendment groups

I support VCDL, GOA, Second Amendment Foundation and others. None of them have 4 million members, however. Indeed, I doubt all of them combined have 4 million members. We're all entitled to an opinion and we all make up our own minds as to which organizations we support. I've been a member of the NRA and there have been times when I've not renewed. One thing is certain, however. While members may or may not have influence over the organization, non-members have zero influence.
 

TFred

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
7,750
Location
Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
The NRA Debacle, Part II

In an election where the Democratic candidates are running as hard and fast as they can away from the current administration, my premise that the NRA-endorsements have typically indicated the more conservative candidate is well supported by the great pride these Democrats are taking in trumpeting these decisions. Harry Reid is all but shouting that the NRA even considered endorsing him.

The job we (and perhaps the NRA) have to do is to make a concerted effort to educate the voters that the NRA is indeed a one-issue organization, and that candidates have a plate full of positions, which must be thoroughly evaluated before casting that vote.

In fact, it would be a great PR campaign for the NRA to make a big deal out of this... the very fact that their one issue is ever increasingly crossing social and economic boundaries is a testament to the success of their work.

TFred
 

ixtow

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2006
Messages
5,038
Location
Suwannee County, FL
Bashing = telling the truth about any Elite/Statist who has granted only-one status to someone on this forum.

Hmm, I wear brown flip-flops, maybe that's the problem....
 

BJA

Campaign Veteran
Joined
May 4, 2008
Messages
503
Location
SOuth Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
I will not be renewing my NRA membership this year, this is because their preference towards a "permitting" system. Our oppurtunity is coming in Wisconsin and we want to solely remove the concealed carry ban, not implement a new government beaurocrocy to run our rights. I'll probobly spend the money I would have spent with the NRA with Wisconsincarry inc. and a different national gun rights group like GOA.
 

Daylen

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
2,223
Location
America
I'll be staying an NRA member since they have done well in the supreme court. I will not be getting the life membership I thought about a few years ago though. I'm looking at GOA for a possible life membership.
 

Daylen

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
2,223
Location
America
If you're referring to Heller and McDonald, those were both SAF cases. NRA refused to join in the Heller case and was given 10 minutes of SAF time in McDonald because they'd filed a similar case.

I do now. They seem like a decent organization.
 

Japle

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2009
Messages
74
Location
Viera, Florida, USA
The NRA is the most powerful/feared lobby in Washington. You might not think they're always doing the right thing, but you can be damn sure they know more about what they're doing than you do.

I've been a Life Member since 1976 and I'm an Endowment Member now. I send the ILA money every few months.
 

Funtimes

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2010
Messages
48
Location
Honolulu, Hawaii, United States
Alan was not happy with the NRA's interuption in Heller. They took 10 minutes of his oral argument time to argue something he felt was already understood and didn't warrant discussion during his alotted time.

The plaintiffs felt that the NRA was encroaching on their case. If you fought to bring a case to the Supreme Court, would you want a lobbyist -- litigating what your case?
 

Bookman

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 3, 2008
Messages
1,424
Location
Winston Salem, North Carolina, United States
Alan was not happy with the NRA's interuption in Heller. They took 10 minutes of his oral argument time to argue something he felt was already understood and didn't warrant discussion during his allotted time.

The plaintiffs felt that the NRA was encroaching on their case. If you fought to bring a case to the Supreme Court, would you want a lobbyist -- litigating what your case?

This actually happened in McDonald. The NRA didn't even want to TOUCH Heller and refused to support the case. That's how the SAF became involved. SAF was the leading NATIONAL org. on both cases.
 
Last edited:
Top