The NRA

Bailey Guns,
Here is the information you requested.

(((edit 12-13-09)))
Since Bailey Guns is offering a life membership on another thread, and he does not want to debate the merits of the NRA and their involvement with our right to bear arms on that thread, I will respect his wishes.

I think it only fair that any potential NRA members have the knowledge contained in this thread before giving their hard earned money to an organization that has, since it's inception, HELPED to infringe on our rights to bear arms.

Lets get this part out of the way first, as I have heard this before.
If you don’t like it, change it, or start your own organization.

The “idea” of changing from within, or starting your own group, is nothing new, as seen below. These people spent YEARS trying for change from within, and for various reasons, they COULD NOT!

Now, some expect a few lowly PEON members, to be able to walk in off the street, and effect change? If these "insiders" couldn't do it, is it even remotely realistic to expect "regular" members to be able to? Do we even have the time left, to re-invent the wheel?

Lets start with H. L. Richardson. He was a board member of the NRA for 10 years. Did he see a problem with their policies? When he found he could NOT change it from within, he left and started the Gun Owners Of America. What is now, the second largest gun rights activist organization in the country. Which is also known by MOST as the “NO COMPROMISE” gun lobby.

Then we can turn out attention to Neal Knox, a career gun rights activist. A board member, as well as serving four years for the NRA, as the Executive Director of the Institute For Legislative Action. Which is the lobbying arm of the NRA. He TOO must have had a problem with the policies of the NRA, found it impossible to change from within, as he went on to found the Firearms Coalition. Another well known “NO COMPROMISE” organization.

When Neal Knox was on the board, there was a vote to see if Executive Vice President (LaPierre) should be suspended or removed from office. It was supported by a solid 39-30 majority, but short of the two-thirds which was required for passage. At that time, what the Board majority didn't know, was that the previous week LaPierre and his supporters had secretly ordered the placement of a full page ad in the ballot issue of the NRA magazines-six weeks after the published deadline for election ads. Thereby preventing any counterpoint ad. Knowing that the voting members could take ONLY the information presented to them, the ONE SIDED ad worked. Five of the nine were defeated, tipping the balance of power on the Board back into LaPierre‘s favor. (sheeple being spoon fed propaganda....again)

Nancyann Rutledge, who was the President of the Santa Barbara NRA Members Council, later to become the Citizens Gun Rights Alliance. What happened to her? After refusing to support the NRA’s gun control positions, and anti-gun candidates, she was decertified by the NRA.

Dave Edmondson, a 2-term NRA Director. Another in a long line of past Directors, board members, etc. which are vocal critics of the NRA's leadership and direction. Dave went on to be founder of the “State Association Coordinating Committee.”

Neil Smith, a life member of the NRA, is an outspoken gun rights activist who is NOT happy with the NRA. He is founder of International Coordinator of the Libertarian Second Amendment Caucus.

A few other facts.

What about Clarence Lovell, an ex-member of the NRA Board of Directors for 14 years. He left because, “he could no longer stomach the falsity of those heading the NRA.”

Albert Ross, former NRA Directors, and second Vice President. Who is now Texas State Rifle Association Director, strongly CONDEMNS the NRA’s very own program, Project Exile. Sighting Project Exile as laws that are unconstitutional violations of the Second Amendment.

Other Board Directors, board members, life members, endowment members, etc that condemned the NRA for Project Exile. Former Chairman, NRA High-power Committee, David Gross, Larry R. Rankin, Arthur Nichols, H.S. "Gunnie" Reagan, Chris BeHanna, Robert T Fanning, Jr., Don Loucks, Jim Ramm, Anthony Brian, Jack H. Stuart, Arnold Gaunt, Clarence Lovell, Richard L. Carone, and more.

Some of the comments C. Russell Howard made when he resigned from the NRA board.
“The unholy alliance of NRA leaders, vendors, and Republican elements is the reason why NRA is declining in stature.

(Addressing LaPierre)
Compared to Mr. Knox's influence, you run the Board like a concentration camp commandant

The struggle for the right of the people to keep and bear arms is at the core of a fundamental struggle for freedom........In any conflict, if those on the front lines cannot trust and rely on the honor of their comrades, the cause is doomed. While there are many good and honorable people on the Board with various stands on the current power struggle, there are some who cannot be trusted and are without honor.”

******

What has the NRA done to RESCIND ANY
UNconstitutional laws?
No CCW BS, that is just MORE infringement.
No laws with a built in "expiration date."
No "fight for this, help with that" but RESCIND.
Can you name even one law.

P.S.
Where would we be without the NRA?

POTENTIALLY BETTER OFF.

MILLIONS of gun owners would not have sent their dollars into a group that they THOUGHT were fighting FOR their gun rights, who in reality were SUPPORTING gun control laws. Instead, they might have been fighting the fight themselves. Granted, there was (and always will be) APATHY involved. But if people had not been complacent (because they sent their money in, thinking they did their part, and did NOTHING else) they quite possibly would/could have been more ACTIVE in the fight. Rather than the SINGLE voice of the NRA, MILLIONS of emails, phone calls, letters, could/would have made a more profound impact.

I firmly believe in the 2nd Amendment,
AS IT WAS WRITTEN.

What part of,
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
or
The right to keep and BEAR arms,
is hard to understand???

Next,
THE WHOLE TRUTH,
If an organization claims to SPEAK FOR ME, then I WANT TO KNOW what they are doing / saying. If they make the claim that they champion MY RIGHTS, then I want them to DO IT, NOT compromise MY RIGHTS away.

Or are some so afraid of the WHOLE truth? Only wanting to hear ONE SIDE of the story. Is the NRA supposed to be placed on a pedestal, given FREE REIGN, where NO ONE is supposed to question their actions? Are they NOT to be held accountable for their actions? Why not?

It is SO much easier to attack any person who has the unmitigated gall to say ANYTHING negative about the NRA. Calling them a backstabber, an anti-gunner, an advocate for the "other side" than it is to admit that this organization advocates laws that are UNconstitutional!

Even if you could work within "their system" to effect change, the problem is, as with politicians, if the bad guys are in there for any length of time, the damage they do, may be irreversible. Example, take a look at past and current gun laws. The NRA has played a large part in getting MANY of them passed.

Lastly,
Have they done some good? OF COURSE. They have to win some if they didn't, that 3-4 million membership number would fade away quickly. We had 2 terms of a republican president. How many gun laws did the NRA even TRY to have repealed? How many states have they fought for a Vermont/Alaska style CCW law in? How many states have they turned a CONSTITUTIONALLY GUARANTEED RIGHT (to bear arms) into a REVOCABLE PRIVILEGE (CCW) with the government deciding on who is ALLOWED to bear arms. (once the - fee - is paid, of course)

I for one, will NOT put them on a pedestal. I will NOT turn a blind eye to their actions. I WILL be watching. It's YOUR rights as well, shouldn't you be watching TOO?

*****

Compromise = A settlement of differences in which each side makes concessions.
What concessions has the other side made? Our side has to agree to incremental infringements of our constitutional rights now, rather than loosing them one all at once???
Where is the "compromise" in this?

A quote by Neil Smith.

"Worse than thieves, murderers, or cannibals, those who offer compromise slow you and sap your vitality while pretending to be your friends. They are not your friends. Compromisers are the enemies of all humanity, the enemies of life itself. Compromisers are the enemies of everything important, sacred, and true."
*****

What HARM can they do / have they done?

Let us first consider the "Uniform Machinegun Act of 1932" which provided for the registration of machine guns, that was adopted in a few states (Conn., Va., Md., Ark., and Montana and possibly others) which was developed with the support of the NRA, BEFORE the feds ultimately adopted the "National Firearms Act" in 1934. Which they also supported.

The reason this stands out, is that MANY people believe that the "National Firearms Act of 1934" was the pivotal law, the most referenced of the UNconstitutional laws. Thereby "starting" an ever widening path, allowing for further infringements. Not so, the NRA was first.

"The NRA supported The Federal Firearms Act of 1938, which regulates interstate
and foreign commerce in firearms and pistol, revolver ammunition.

The NRA supported legislation to amend the "Federal Firearms Act" in regard to handguns when it was introduced in August, 1963.

In 1965, the NRA continued its support of an expansion of the above legislation to include rifles and shotguns, as well as handguns.
Additionally the NRA supported the regulation of the movement of handguns in interstate and foreign commerce by:
1. Requiring a sworn statement, containing certain information, from the purchaser to the seller for the receipt of a handgun in interstate commerce;
2. Providing for notification of local police of prospective sales;
3. Requiring an additional 7-day waiting period by the seller after receipt of acknowledgment of notification to local police;
4. Prescribing a minimum age of 21 for obtaining a license to sell firearms and increasing the license fees;
5. Providing for written notification by manufacturer or dealer to carrier that a firearm is being shipped in interstate commerce, and;
6. Increasing penalties for violation.

NRA HELPED WRITE the 1986 federal law prohibiting the manufacture and importation of "armor piercing ammunition" adopted standards.

*****

The NRA has been hard at work, over the last few years, turning a RIGHT (guaranteed by our constitution) into a revocable PRIVILEGE. Many pro-gun people commend them for this. Others see it for what it really is.

The second amendment states. "The right of the people to keep and BEAR arms" It doesn't say "to keep and display arms" or "to keep and hide arms" or "to keep and disassemble and lock up your arms" or "to keep and use arms" it says "to keep and BEAR arms" Look it up in the dictionary. To "bear something" means to CARRY it. Any attempt at "interpreting" the meaning of this, is clearly an anti-gun tactic.

*****

"Project EXILE" IS the NRA's very own project.
NRA'S project (EXILE) supports ALL UNconstitutional gun laws. Handgun Control Inc. supports it TOO. NRA-ILA Executive Director James Jay Baker commented, "I'm glad that the president has finally agreed with the NRA that enforcing federal firearms laws makes sense. We've been pushing for more enforcement of existing laws. Did anyone tell them that ALL of the 20,000 gun laws are UNCONSTITUTIONAL??? OF COURSE Handgun Control Inc. supports this NRA project.

*****

Schools
Then NRA Executive Vice President Wayne R. LaPierre, Jr., made these damaging statements during his nationally televised speech at the Denver NRA Members Meeting May 1, 1999. "First, we believe in absolutely gun-free, zero-tolerance, totally safe schools. That means no guns in America's schools, period ... with the rare exception of law enforcement officers or trained security personnel.

All across the country, school boards and state legislators started doing precisely what LaPierre suggested: shutting down school riflery programs, prohibiting historical firearms displays, forbidding hunter safety training with unloaded guns, and banning gun possession by teachers and other adults with carry licenses. A good example of the long range implications of what LaPierre endorsed back then, is the tragedy at Virginia Tech.

Making schools a "gun free zone" where lunatics can murder with impunity, was his response to the Columbine shootings? What happened to advocating responsible carry, by responsible citizens???

*****

LaPierre also blessed gun show background checks by saying: "We will consider instant checks at gun shows when, and only when, this Administration stops (charging for NICS
checks) and stops illegally compiling the records of millions of lawful gun buyers."

The next day President Charlton Heston flatly said on ABC "This Week" that he was "in favor of" gun show background checks. Within weeks, bills for gun show background checks - and "youth gun access" bans - had been submitted in both houses of Congress!

*****

First amendment rights?
Was it the National Rifle Association that had ONE OF IT'S OWN MEMBERS, a pro-gun activist, ARRESTED at its national convention on, April 27, 2003 in Orlando, Florida for handing out PRO-gun freedom literature from an organization known as the Free State Project, Inc. The unlucky NRA member was Timothy Condon, a Marine Corps Vietnam veteran and Director of Member Services for the rapidly growing Free State Project.

*****

It was NRA PRESIDENT Dr. C.R. (Pink) Gutermuth, who saw "no problem with gun registration," and was head of the Wildlife Management Institute, who became NRA President in 1973.

Part of the problem began during the unlamented regime of former Executive Vice President Warren Cassidy. NRA lobbyists under Cassidy stopped opposing gun control bills and started offering NRA-approved versions of the same legislation. The NRA started WRITING ANTI-GUN LEGISLATION. And they always have minions on board who will introduce these bills.

Politicians were lobbying their colleagues for the so-called "instant check" These pro-gunners were pushing a gun control bill that the NRA was strongly supporting.

Jim Baker of the NRA was quoted by USA Today on October 26, 1993 as saying: "We already support 65% of the Brady bill, because it moves to an instant check, which is WHAT WE WANT."

NRA spokesman Bill McIntrye said that the instant background check also in the bill "will be a victory for gun owners.

From NRA Board member Tanya Metaksa.
I think this agreement was a victory for those who see flaws in the current bill. This is a much different Brady bill. This bill sunsets into what we've been supporting for several years [the instant check]. If you look at it in the long range, IT'S OUR BILL in five years.

*****

Recently the NRA tried to derail a case in Washington DC. The "Parker v. District of Columbia" case. (later changed to "Heller") First by trying to have the case consolidated with NRA controlled litigation, which would have drug this case out for YEARS. When that failed, the NRA got behind, and was pushing for the "DC Personal Protection Act" bill, which would, in effect, remove the law that the "Parker v. District of Columbia" case was based upon. Thereby preventing the "Parker v. District of Columbia" case from going before the supreme court.

Why would they try to derail a case that ultimately DID overturned a gun ban, and potentially settle the long disputed "individual right v. the right of the militia" to keep and bear arms? Because they said it was "too good" and might actually make it before the supreme court? A supreme court (considering the make up of it at the time) where we had the best chance of them handing down a favorable ruling, than we have had in decades. With the very real potential, of the democrats gaining control in the next election (which they did, thereby giving them the opportunity to choose the next judges) if not then, WHEN?

People praise the NRA for this decision. The NRA presented an amicus brief to the court, JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE DID. It is a LONG list of organizations from BOTH sides of the issue. The NRA had NOTHING ELSE to do with this case. They did NOT provide attorneys OR FUNDS.

*****

Now we come to the Veterans Disarmament Act. H.R. 2640
Just looking at who was sponsoring/co-sponsoring this bill. Why was the NRA siding WITH the Brady bunch, Feinstein, Schumer, Boxer, McCarthy, etc. When every PRO-gun organization was against it, along with veterans organizations. Many members wanted to know WHY. To my knowledge, the NRA never did answer these inquires.

Nevermind the far reaching implications, with the potential of opening a Pandora's box, concerning the mental health issue regarding veterans, as well as anyone else that has seen some kind of mental issue. (children diagnosed with ADD? etc). You NO LONGER have to have a court judge you adjudicated, now ANY authorized person can take your rights away. Above all, the UNconstitutional NICS check should not be EXPANDED upon, in the first place.

*****

Lets not forget the NRA BOARD MEMBER (Joaquin Jackson) who indicated that assault rifles should only be in the hands of the military and/or law enforcement. But since they ARE legal for civilians to own, then civilians should be limited to 5 round magazines.

And I quote.....
I think these assault weapons basically need to be in the hands of the military and they need to be in the hands of the police, but uh, as far as assault weapons to a civilian, it's alright if you got that magazine capacity down to five.
.....end quote

*****

While reading the following, keep in mind that former NRA board member Russ Howard, RESIGNED from the board. His words, "In the past 5 years I've become increasingly concerned over NRA's penchant for giving UNDESERVED grades to politicians who TRAMPLE on the 2nd Amendment."

In California JOAN MILKE FLORES VS JANE HARMAN. 36TH CONGRESSIONAL
Flores is an anti-gun Republican who voted FOR the Los Angeles Assault Rifle Ban. Harman is an anti- gun Democrat who got an "A" rating from the NRA. Why an "A" rating? She was ANTI-GUN!!! Who later said that she supports the assault weapon ban.

CHRISTINE REED VS TERRY FREIDMAN (State Assembly)
Reed was an anti-gun C-rated Republican Handgun Control Inc. member who had been mayor of Santa Monica. Reed who should have been an "F". Freidman was an F-rated incumbent Democrat who authored many anti-gun bills

TRICIA HUNTER: Hunter was state senator whose bid to retain office was based on high-profile attacks on "killer assault rifles". She was rated "A-" by the NRA.

Howard Dean got an A+ from the NRA while governor, he supported the assault weapons ban and Brady bill.

Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA). Did not vote when needed, but was helped by the NRA come re-election.

Rep. Elton Gallegly (R-CA) voted FOR the brady bill (3 times) then was helped by the NRA come re-election.

Congressman Elton Gallegly -- voted FOR the Brady bill and the assault weapon ban and got an A-, and an endorsement. NRA's Terry O'Grady said, 'Gallegly voted against us on Brady and the Crime Bill, but he's always been with us before. We've decided to forgive him, give him an A- and endorse him. [blue]SAY WHAT?[/blue]

In Virginia, 15 legislators were given A ratings after they voted FOR both the one-gun-a-month ban AND the shotgun ban. 41 legislators who voted for either or both bans got A ratings. 7 got exceptional, "above the call of duty" ratings.

In North Carolina, some districts have two senators. In the '94 elections, District 20 was represented by Ted Kaplan and Marvin Ward. Both favored assault weapon bans, handgun registration, and a one-gun-a-month ban. Their challengers were solid pro-gunners Ham Horton and Mark McDaniels (who fought tooth and nail for CCW). Nevertheless, ILA upgraded both anti-gun incumbents to "A" (one was initially a C), endorsed them, and supported them by mailing orange alert cards to NRA members in their district. Kaplan and Ward lost anyway, as incensed local groups like Grass Roots NC broke ranks with ILA and helped elect the pro-gun challengers.

In NC in 1995, Senator Fountain Odom betrayed the 2nd Amendment by gutting the CCW bill in his subcommittee. The bill had come over in more or less tolerable format from the house. Odom fixed it so that only a few police instructors could give the mandatory training. NRA instructors were prohibited. He also worked to move un-permitted CCW from a misdemeanor to a felony, prohibit CCW with any alcohol "remaining" in the body, prohibit CCW in financial institutions, mandate that all training be fully repeated for each renewal, and gut statewide preemption. Limited preemption was restored in the full judiciary committee, but Odom betrayed us again, fixing it so CCW could be prohibited in any "park". Later on the floor, to give ILA cover, Odom amended the training section to allow NRA instructors to do the training. In 1996, Tanya Metaksa gave Odom an A, an endorsement, and an orange ALERT postcard mailing telling NRA members, "Senator Odom has demonstrated his commitment to our right to self-defense...Here's how you can help re-elect Fountain Odom -- a dedicated supporter of your Second Amendment rights. Help the campaign...make a contribution...spread the word to family, friends, and fellow gun owners... Sincerely, Tanya K. Metaksa." Odom's still trampling on our rights. Now he's pushing for a CCW liability law.

In Virginia in 1996, extreme "F" rated gun grabber Congressman Jim Moran faced "A" rated, NRA life member John Otey. The American Rifleman carried the following message: "THIS IS YOUR OFFICIAL PRO-GUN BALLOT FOR THE FOLLOWING DISTRICT: VIRGINIA 8, US CONGRESS..NO ENDORSEMENT"
NO endorsement for an A rated NRA life member challenging an F- rated gun grabber???

In Virginia, 3 congressmen who voted many times against gun rights and supported the Lautenberg ban, kept their A+ ratings (part of a large club of turncoat A and A+ politicians). Tom Davis got an A after voicing support for Brady and the assault weapon ban and orchestrating a unanimous vote of support for the one-gun-a-month ban as a Fairfax County Supervisor.

In Pennsylvania (1993), then Republican Minority Whip Matt Ryan INTRODUCED an assault rifle ban. In 1994, he kept his A+ rating.

In 2006, the NRA rated Ron Paul (arguably the MOST constitutional representative we have in office) with a "B" because he did not follow along in lock step, when the NRA endorsed (what Ron Paul saw) as an UNconstitutional bill. One that the NRA supported. Instead, they endorsed his UNproved, UNtested, DEMOCRATIC opponent.

*****

John Dingell?
The NRA's Golden Boy? The former NRA Director? The same guy who voted in favor of the 1994 "Assault" weapons ban and then resigned from the Board of Directors the day after the vote? The same Dingell who received the NRA's Harlon B. Carter Award, despite voting FOR an outright gun BAN? The same Dingell that coined the term "jack-booted thugs" when referring to the BATF? THAT Dingell?

NRA Board of Directors member Larry Craig, was one of the co-sponsors of this bill, "Our Lady of Peace Act" Which was introduced by Caroline McCarthy, and supported by Chuck Schumer along with the usual band of anti Second Amendment slime like, Ted Kennedy, Blanche Lincoln and Richard Durbin.
Don't know what it is/was? Look it up.

Can't forget the help we got from the NRA. In the "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act" Not debating, if setting this kind of precedent with legislation, protecting industries, is right. Not debating whether the industry needed this protection. The point here is, that there was a CLEAN bill (800) on the floor, AT THE SAME TIME. Everyone agrees that either bill (397 or 800) would pass through the senate, with no problem. So it depended on the house. There are always more votes than there are co-sponsors of a bill. S. Bill 800 had over 250 signed on as co-sponsors. MORE than enough to pass it, CLEAN. Why did the NRA CHOOSE to back the anti-gun laden bill, when there was a CLEAN alternative? For a true PRO-gun advocate, this was a no brainer.

The NRA awarded Assemblyman Rod Wright its "Defender of Freedom" Award. This is the same Rod Wright who supported UNconstitutional limits on firearms purchases and background checks. This is the same Rod Wright who authored a bill to increase licensing fees from $3 to up to $100. Never mind the absurdity of bilking peaceable citizens of hundreds of dollars for making a constitutionally protected purchase. This champion of "freedom" apparently thinks it's perfectly acceptable to license and charge Americans for exercising their rights. The NRA's "Defender of Freedom" in 2001 voted against gun owners 62 percent of the time

Deborah Danuski, a Democrat from Lisbon, was endorsed by the anti-handgun group, while also receiving an "A-" from the NRA on its report card of candidates. As a matter of fact, in Maine, both the NRA and Maine Citizens Against Handgun Violence supported 18 of the same candidates!

In Colorado, where the NRA supported Senator Wayne Allard for office, and even boosted his pro-gun lobby contributions to $37,000 since 1990, Allard stated flatly that he would support federal legislation requiring gun registration for private gun sales at gun shows. Is a legislator who wants to expand gun registration someone who stands up for the rights of gun owners?

From Virginia, where the NRA Political Victory Fund touted the pro-gun "accomplishments" of Delegate Jack Rollison. This is the same Rollison who in a press release had the unmitigated gall to paint Gun Owners of America and the Virginia Citizens Defense League, who have endorsed his opponent Jeff Frederick, as extremists and "milita-esque" organizations. This is the same Jack Rollison who wants to ban your right to self-defense in any restaurant that happens to sell liquor. And this is the same Jack Rollison who voted correctly on only two out of eight issues important to Virginia gun owners.

The NRA also gave their "Defender of Freedom Award" to one Kevin Mannix, who ran for governor here in 2002. In 1999 Mannix was the architect of the worst piece of gun control legislation in 10 years, in the Oregon House.

Admittedly, some of this information is "historical" in nature. The present administration had nothing to do with it. On the same note, some of this information is CURRENT. Does this information show a distinct pattern? An agenda? If so, it's one that I'm not happy with at all.

Is this the kind of "representation" that YOU want/expect, ARE PAYING FOR? There are more anti 2nd amendment bills that the NRA HELPED WRITE, or WROTE themselves. Other ANTI_GUN candidates that they endorsed. But why, if this doesn't open your eyes, nothing will.

*****

Katrina,
Everyone was screaming, "Where is the NRA" when guns were being confiscated. Only AFTER the Second Amendment Foundation filed suit did the NRA jump in. Then after a favorable court decision, the NRA was sure proud of what they did. Follow up announcements from the NRA taking ALL of the credit, they seemed to LEAVE OUT the fact that the Second Amendment Foundation was involved at all. Hmmmm.....

*****

Why is it, that some NRA supporters will not accept the truth (even when presented with facts) about how the NRA has been selling our gun rights down the river for a VERY long time?

I believe that everyone would agree, that the NRA is recognized as the 800 lb. Gorilla, in the fight for our gun rights. This is the very same organization that the NRA supporters have been paying money to for YEARS. Paying big bucks to be a "Life Member" Signing up their children/grand-children, almost as soon as they are born. Everyone KNOWS who the NRA is.

They are relying on the NRA to be supportive in the fight for our gun rights. They consider the NRA to be the last bastion of hope. They will NOT admit that the NRA "might NOT" be on their side, because if they find that the NRA is NOT actually on our side,
then....is there....really....any....hope?

Wow! That's a lot of information.

Before I respond, I'd like to know from where that was cut/pasted and the origin of all that information. I noticed you posted the same thing on GunBroker forums several months ago. Since I don't have a reply I can readily cut/paste from, I'll need some time to do my own research.

So, the origin, please?

MANY different sources.
As you stated, you can do your own research.
I did.

Good information. There is lots of information here, and I feel like a lot of it can be fleshed out more, but thanks for taking the time to post up what you did. I look forward to seeing responses.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pickenup

MANY different sources.
As you stated, you can do your own research.
I did.

I'll at least give credit to my sources when I do.

fucking shit man....this is going to take me the rest of the year to read![Tooth]

anyways, I am a NRA member. I don't know the background, I haven't read into it. I am always hopeful my money goes to save my rights. I have been happy with some of their wins, unhappy with losses. I don't like compromises whatsoever. I think all the hoops we go through now are bullshit.
but I also think we would be a hell of a lot worse off if it wasn't for the NRA.

What I figure my money goes toward is the little bit of accident insurance and gun insurance. plus a bonus little multi tool or a bag or something doesn't hurt. putting my name on a list to tell some senator to go F himself is what I figure my dues are really for. the more name on the list, the more likely the guy will do what is wanted.

In the end, I think I should be in charge of all gun decision across the country, actually, just make that ALL decisions.[Flower]

No guys, it might make you mad, but Pickenup is right. The NRA is just another multi million dollar funded lobbying agency hell bent of lining their pockets with YOUR money. They could give a shit less about you and your rights.

If Wayne LaPierre really stood up for the second amendment, he'd be using your money to buy prime time TV ads to run EVERY night, stating that every one of the 20,000+ gun laws we have on the books is 100% unconstitutional, and the NRA will not rest until all of them are repealed.

But that would be bad for business wouldn't it?

Fuck the NRA, I sent them a request a long time ago to cancel my life membership, and they keep ignoring me.

The NRA is a classic "conservative" organization.

What do "conservatives" want to "conserve"? Generally, the status quo. Just like you don't see the GOP talking about rolling back social security, medicare, welfare, minimum wage, etc etc, you don't see the NRA talking about rolling back background checks, current silly gun laws, CCW regulations, etc. They want to preserve roughly the amount of gun freedom that existed in what its major members consider the 'good ol' days.'

I'm an NRA member, for insurance purposes. I pay my minimums and then give what money I want to donate to political causes to GOA. The NRA will generally fight to at least water down any new gun legislation, but more serious positive movements are not to be expected from the NRA.

In general, my advice on the whole issue is: don't expect the NRA to be something its not. Its mission is to 'conserve.' GOA and others are radicals for liberty when it comes to a particular issue. Radicals - ideologically consistent, intellectual and polite radicals - get things changed. The NRA buys gun owners time. So I support both, with the lion's share going to GOA.