PDA

View Full Version : My complaint about NRA "fence sitters!"


oaklander
11-09-2008, 9:17 PM
No, I'm not complaining about the NRA!

What I am complaining about is people who still won't join the NRA.

Today I worked the membership booth at a local gun show. Needless to say, with the current political climate, we signed up a LOT of people. . .

BUT, there were still people who walked right by us, and just didn't want to join!

It simply amazes me that someone would walk in to a gun show, and buy hundreds of dollars worth of ammo and/or guns, and that same person won't spend a measly $25 for a discounted NRA membership.

For those of you who haven't yet joined, I would be curious to know what the reason is.

Standard disclaimer applies, I don't speak for the NRA - and I'm not speaking in my role as a CGF Board Member. I'm just speaking as someone who can't figure out what these people are thinking.

</rant off>

CalNRA
11-09-2008, 9:22 PM
BUT, there were still people that walked right by us, and just didn't want to join!

what if they were already members? I walked by NRA tables at gun shows without stopping sometimes since I already joined.

Barbarossa
11-09-2008, 9:22 PM
Maybe they were already members?

My grandfather bought me a life membership. I don't really give booths a second thought.

M. Sage
11-09-2008, 9:22 PM
https://membership.nrahq.org/forms/signup.asp

oaklander
11-09-2008, 9:23 PM
No, we got a lot of people who paused, appeared to think about it, then kept walking. Obvious non-members.

what if they were already members? I walked by NRA tables at gun shows without stopping sometimes since I already joined.

oaklander
11-09-2008, 9:24 PM
LOL, I was in disguise. I don't think I scared anyone off, but Sam might have. . .

are you asking why I wouldn't approach a table you were at or just why someone wouldn't join the nra in general?

Saigon1965
11-09-2008, 9:26 PM
Didn't scare me -

762cavalier
11-09-2008, 9:28 PM
Oaklander- I feel your frustration man. I see the same thing every time I work the gun shows here at Cal Expo. It just baffles me. And yes it is obvious which ones aren't already members. You watch them pause, think about it, then say no thanks and pay 11 dollars to get in the show. For fourteen more they could get in the show and support gun rights. It really just pisses me off sometimes.:mad:

sorensen440
11-09-2008, 9:30 PM
I tried to get my friends to join but they were tight on cash
I'm already a member of course
I wanna buy nra gift memberships for friends and family (well exept my sister who is about as anti gun as they get)

OCArmory
11-09-2008, 9:36 PM
I buy gift memberships for several members of my family that are anti gun. I love to see the look on their face at Christmas. Plus they get a magazine every month.

gotgunz
11-09-2008, 9:38 PM
Maybe they don't want to join and then get totally swamped with the NRA's constant and neverending barage of junk mail pleading & begging for more money, more money....

oaklander
11-09-2008, 9:38 PM
Just saw Aklon's other thread. Some of the excuses for not joining were pretty weak:

1) NRA doesn't do enough

2) I can't afford it

3) I can't deal with the mail

oaklander
11-09-2008, 9:41 PM
Two ways to fix that:

1) You can call up the NRA and ask not to get it, then you won't get any mail (except your renewal notice).

2) You can become a Life Member (or Easy Pay Life) and you won't get it.

Folks have to remember that NRA works on donations from members. The mail seeking those donations is important, and it works. ANTI groups, like the Brady Bunch, work on "corporate" grants.

Maybe they don't want to join and then get totally swamped with the NRA's constant and neverending barage of junk mail pleading & begging for more money, more money....

oddball
11-09-2008, 9:59 PM
Yep, the cost of joining the NRA at a gun show is cheaper than buying a round of beers for your buddies at the local watering hole.

I'm not an expert in lobby issues, but I would think there would be more strength in larger membership.

Coffee
11-09-2008, 10:20 PM
Sam scared them off! :D


Just kidding...


...ANTI groups, like the Brady Bunch, work on "corporate" grants.

At some point in another thread on another day - it would be good to find out why this is the case and the NRA is not getting $ from the gun manufacturers.

oaklander
11-09-2008, 10:22 PM
LOL!

Yes, I think there's some industry support. . . But nothing like the Bradys - where MOST of their money comes in the form of large grants. . .

Sam scared them off! :D


Just kidding...




At some point in another thread on another day - it would be good to find out why this is the case and the NRA is not getting $ from the gun manufacturers.

csmintel
11-09-2008, 10:40 PM
Oaklander- I feel your frustration man. I see the same thing every time I work the gun shows here at Cal Expo. It just baffles me. And yes it is obvious which ones aren't already members. You watch them pause, think about it, then say no thanks and pay 11 dollars to get in the show. For fourteen more they could get in the show and support gun rights. It really just pisses me off sometimes.:mad:

because the nra advertises itself as a bunch of old men touting guns. nra needs fresh faces and new ideas, not them old f..ts who collect our membership fees and git themselfes an S550 leases. Then maybe more people will join. Others just dont trust nra.....can't blame them now can ya...

hoffmang
11-09-2008, 10:43 PM
because the nra advertises itself as a bunch of old men touting guns. nra needs fresh faces and new ideas, not them old f..ts who collect our membership fees and git themselfes an S550 leases. Then maybe more people will join. Others just dont trust nra.....can't blame them now can ya...

So you want a gun organization run by guys who can't command real salaries in the marketplace?

NRA has done a very good job keeping Congress on the short leash and is very active in expanding on Heller.

You seem to have a problem with them that sounds a lot like certain president elect's problem with successful people too.

-Gene

oaklander
11-09-2008, 10:46 PM
OK, I'll bite. . .

because the nra advertises itself as a bunch of old men touting guns.

I think you meant "toting," but setting that aside, I have no idea what you are talking about. Do you have any examples?

nra needs fresh faces and new ideas, not them [sic] old f..ts who collect our membership fees and git [sic] themselfes [sic] an [sic] S550 leases. Then maybe more people will join.

Are there any particular people you would like to see replaced? If so, whom?

Others just dont [sic] trust nra.....can't blame them now can ya... [sic]

Who are the "others?"

Two Shots
11-09-2008, 10:47 PM
Some of the gun owners believe that the NRA has turned thier backs on Calif gun owners, 2nd is they think that the NRA is not in favor of AR's and only want to protect sporting guns. Those are the two I here from fellow gun owners.

oaklander
11-09-2008, 10:54 PM
I've heard those complaints as well. Totally unfounded. The NRA is the only gun rights organization that has a full time legislative liaison (lobbyist) in Sacramento. And California is the only state where the NRA does this. As a direct result of the NRA's intervention, we've had favorable laws passed, and unfavorable laws defeated. We've won court cases as well (such as the one surrounding SF's handgun ban).

With respect to EBR's, I've detected nothing in my dealings with the NRA to indicate that it "prefers" sporting rifles over EBR's.

The NRA in California is truly grass-roots. Any member (or non-member, for that matter) can call up the point man in the state and voice their concerns.

At the NRA mini convention in OC over the Summer, all Calgunners were invited, and Wayne LaPierre even showed up to give the keynote.

So much of what I hear is founded on mis-perceptions that aren't rooted in fact.

Some of the gun owners believe that the NRA has turned thier backs on Calif gun owners, 2nd is they think that the NRA is not in favor of AR's only want tp protect sporting guns. Those are the two I here from fellow gun owners.

forgiven
11-09-2008, 11:01 PM
An old friend of mine was so pissed when I bought him a membership that it cost us our friendship. We were friends since the age of 10 and 8. He owns guns and he hunts. When I asked him why he was so mad, he said he made it clear that he wanted nothing to do with the NRA. I guess he wanted nothing to do with me also.:(

oaklander
11-09-2008, 11:02 PM
LOL Gene. Don't tell him about your car, or he will hate you as well.

Come to think of it, I guess I shouldn't mention my new motorcycle. . .

:rolleyes:


So you want a gun organization run by guys who can't command real salaries in the marketplace?

NRA has done a very good job keeping Congress on the short leash and is very active in expanding on Heller.

You seem to have a problem with them that sounds a lot like certain president elect's problem with successful people too.

-Gene

csmintel
11-09-2008, 11:07 PM
you just don't get it, do you?

hoffmang
11-09-2008, 11:09 PM
i have a problem when I as a member cannot vote to remove that old men from director's board.

You are either not a Life member or haven't been a member long enough, but I get a ballot and can vote. I guess you're not a member?

And the class warfare crap is just amateur. I'm sure the NRA could pay less for less effective people. You get what you pay for.

-Gene

CavTrooper
11-09-2008, 11:10 PM
Wait, wait, wait...

CS, you dislike the NRA so much that you have thier seal as an avatar?

Are you playing devil advocate here or are you here is disguise?

oaklander
11-09-2008, 11:12 PM
I did a search for "S550" and found that you mention that car is every NRA-related thread. I *think* you are trying to say that because someone at the NRA might drive an S550, it is not a good organization?

What kind of car should that person drive in order to make you happy?

you just don't get it, do you?

nick
11-09-2008, 11:14 PM
He has a point. Never liked S550 myself. As such, driving one shows a poor taste unacceptable in a public figure.

oaklander
11-09-2008, 11:21 PM
LOL, they are OK, the roof-line is a little low, and there's not a lot of room in the backseat. But they have a lot of power, and the woman in the nav-system has a slight German accent!

:p

Setting that aside, I have absolutely no idea what anyone at the NRA drives. Nor do I care. When Wayne spoke in OC, he arrived in a cheap rental car, if that makes anyone feel better.


He has a point. Never liked S550 myself. As such, driving one shows a poor taste unacceptable in a public figure.

csmintel
11-09-2008, 11:22 PM
they spend our membership fees to buy themselfes gifts...you got to be blind not to see what's going on...or you must refuse to see what's going on or you have to be in on it...

which one of you boyscouts snitched on me to moderators? I d like to:90: you.

leelaw
11-09-2008, 11:27 PM
which one of you boyscouts snitched on me to moderators? I d like to:90: you.

It was an on-view. You can try to :90: me all you wish. Good luck. :43:

nick
11-09-2008, 11:27 PM
and the woman in the nav-system has a slight German accent!


It's that German accent that should bother the true patriots of this country!

oaklander
11-09-2008, 11:28 PM
Please outline the "gifts" that "they" bought themselves. You are starting to sound kind of paranoid at this point, BTW. . .

they spend our membership fees to buy themselfes gifts...you got to be blind not to see what's going on...or you must refuse to see what's going on or you have to be in on it...

which one of you boyscouts snitched on me to moderators? I d like to:90: you.

oaklander
11-09-2008, 11:28 PM
ROFL!

Good one!!!

It's that German accent that should bother the true patriots of this country!

Shane916
11-09-2008, 11:33 PM
they spend our membership fees to buy themselfes gifts...you got to be blind not to see what's going on...or you must refuse to see what's going on or you have to be in on it...


You're correct to a certain extent. I wouldn't doubt they purchase gifts or other items with our money, but at the same time they are full time salaried employees of the NRA and are paid for what they do. Therefore them purchasing gifts is nothing unusual. I guarantee any higher ups of any large organization in America collect salaries and use money to purchase gifts.

hoffmang
11-09-2008, 11:45 PM
Let's compare the NRA to Boy Scouts of America.

BSA national has about 80% of the revenue of NRA. It pays its top three guys as follows:
Roy Williams - Chief Scout Executive - $589,143
David J. Ross II - Assistant Chief Scout Executive - $888,583
Kenneth L. Connelly - Assistant Chief Scout Executive - $750,472

Those darn Scoutmasters - stealing from Boy Scouts and buying themselves presents. They probably drive BMWs so they are better... :rolleyes:

-Gene

nick
11-09-2008, 11:49 PM
How come Chief Scout Executive makes less than Assistant Chief Scout Executive, unless there's a 1 missing in front of it?

hoffmang
11-09-2008, 11:51 PM
How come Chief Scout Executive makes less than Assistant Chief Scout Executive, unless there's a 1 missing in front of it?

It's total comp - base plus bonuses and commissions. I'd assume that the guys under him have some variable comp that he isn't getting.

Data source here: http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=7655

-Gene

oaklander
11-09-2008, 11:52 PM
Ha!

I reread some of csmintel's previous posts (I'm guessing: Command Sergeant Major, Intel). He actually doesn't know what the folks at the NRA drive. He just started speculating in a previous thread. Not that it matters.

The larger point, as Gene has pointed out, is that the leaders of large organizations get paid a salary that matches their responsibility. It appears that csmintel works at an investment bank, so he should be no stranger to this simple principle.

JDay
11-10-2008, 1:54 AM
[U]It simply amazes me that someone would walk in to a gun show, and buy hundreds of dollars worth of ammo and/or guns, and that same person won't spend a measly $25 for a discounted NRA membership.

You must be psychic if you can tell just by looking at someone that they're not already a member of the NRA. It would surprise me if most of the people who go to gun shows aren't already members.

JDay
11-10-2008, 1:56 AM
I tried to get my friends to join but they were tight on cash
I'm already a member of course
I wanna buy nra gift memberships for friends and family (well exept my sister who is about as anti gun as they get)

All the more reason to sign your sister up.

csmintel
11-10-2008, 2:11 AM
you sound like paranoid gun nuts, specially this oaktown kid. you fixed on me and even went on to find out what I posted elsewhere. Im flatered.

Instead of giving money to old f..ts at nra I'd rather buy this:
:80:

JDay
11-10-2008, 3:20 AM
Let's compare the NRA to Boy Scouts of America.

BSA national has about 80% of the revenue of NRA. It pays its top three guys as follows:
Roy Williams - Chief Scout Executive - $589,143
David J. Ross II - Assistant Chief Scout Executive - $888,583
Kenneth L. Connelly - Assistant Chief Scout Executive - $750,472

Those darn Scoutmasters - stealing from Boy Scouts and buying themselves presents. They probably drive BMWs so they are better... :rolleyes:

-Gene

Strange that the assistants make more than the chief.

Ford8N
11-10-2008, 5:48 AM
No, I'm not complaining about the NRA!

What I am complaining about is people who still won't join the NRA.

Today I worked the membership booth at a local gun show. Needless to say, with the current political climate, we signed up a LOT of people. . .

BUT, there were still people who walked right by us, and just didn't want to join!

It simply amazes me that someone would walk in to a gun show, and buy hundreds of dollars worth of ammo and/or guns, and that same person won't spend a measly $25 for a discounted NRA membership.

For those of you who haven't yet joined, I would be curious to know what the reason is.

Standard disclaimer applies, I don't speak for the NRA - and I'm not speaking in my role as a CGF Board Member. I'm just speaking as someone who can't figure out what these people are thinking.

</rant off>

Let's get back on topic

There will always be a certain element in society that wants something for nothing. But I think membership will go up now that the election is decided and folks see where we are going. Obama's history on gun control is pretty clear, no matter what he said during the campaign.

DedEye
11-10-2008, 6:34 AM
I did a search for "S550" and found that you mention that car is every NRA-related thread. I *think* you are trying to say that because someone at the NRA might drive an S550, it is not a good organization?

What kind of car should that person drive in order to make you happy?

He mentioned it in my WTB thread as well. He must really hate Mercedes.

you sound like paranoid gun nuts, specially this oaktown kid. you fixed on me and even went on to find out what I posted elsewhere. Im flatered.

Kid?

Have you considered maybe it's the complete ignorance you're demonstrating in your posts that have caused everyone to "fix on you?"

Instead of giving money to old f..ts at nra I'd rather buy this:
:80:

That's not an S550.

oaklander
11-10-2008, 9:40 AM
When I ask someone if they would like to join the NRA, and they pause for a minute, or ask how much it is, or ask "what is the NRA?," or say they will join "on the way out," it doesn't require too much thinking to reason that they aren't members.

You must be psychic if you can tell just by looking at someone that they're not already a member of the NRA. It would surprise me if most of the people who go to gun shows aren't already members.

oaklander
11-10-2008, 9:43 AM
Don't be flattered. It was more like me slowing down to look at a car wreck.

EDIT: to be more specific - you came in to a thread that I started, and instead of offering real dialog, you simply repeated some vague and unfounded accusations that you had posted in earlier threads. When I and others called you out on it, you started in on personal attacks, to the point that you were contacted by a moderator.

At this point, I'm trying to determine if you are simply trolling this thread (and other NRA threads), or if you have some valid and verifiable points that you wish to make.

Simply saying things like (and I'm paraphrasing):

1) they make too much money
2) they spend the money on gifts
3) they are old
4) they don't have good ideas

. . . simply does not fly as rational analysis on this board.

Raise your points in a clear, literate, and concise manner, and then we can talk about them. If you can't do that, my only logical assumption is that you are trolling this thread (and the board).

you sound like paranoid gun nuts, specially this oaktown kid. you fixed on me and even went on to find out what I posted elsewhere. Im flatered.

Instead of giving money to old f..ts at nra I'd rather buy this:
:80:

Coffee
11-10-2008, 9:44 AM
Let's compare the NRA to Boy Scouts of America.

BSA national has about 80% of the revenue of NRA. It pays its top three guys as follows:
Roy Williams - Chief Scout Executive - $589,143
David J. Ross II - Assistant Chief Scout Executive - $888,583
Kenneth L. Connelly - Assistant Chief Scout Executive - $750,472

Those darn Scoutmasters - stealing from Boy Scouts and buying themselves presents. They probably drive BMWs so they are better... :rolleyes:

-Gene


I must have missed what the compensation for the NRA people is.

nick
11-10-2008, 9:51 AM
I must have missed what the compensation for the NRA people is.

Wayne LaPierre, Exec. VP/CEO & Trustee National Rifle Association & Fdn., respectively $726,245

http://www.charitywatch.org/Top25.html

Outrageous what those fat cats make. We should hire selfless public servants in their stead. I say, any DMV worker could do at least as good a job.

Two Shots
11-10-2008, 9:53 AM
I did a search for "S550" and found that you mention that car is every NRA-related thread. I *think* you are trying to say that because someone at the NRA might drive an S550, it is not a good organization?

What kind of car should that person drive in order to make you happy?

1974 Ford F100 long bed two tone (Rust and Grey Primer) :)

Coffee
11-10-2008, 9:57 AM
Thanks for the link nick, I'll digest the info later.

tmuller
11-10-2008, 10:03 AM
Agreed. I let my membership expire but I'll sign up again next gun show:D

nick
11-10-2008, 10:13 AM
The cheapest way is life membership :)

bwiese
11-10-2008, 10:18 AM
Remember the NRA is essentially a Fortune 1000 company.

And its leadership needs to have the skill set to walk into a Senators', Congressmans', BATF Director's or even President's office.

Do you hire the local WalMart clerk to run the whole chain? Committment and spirit is good but practicalities override.

bigmike82
11-10-2008, 10:37 AM
I need to join up again.

But damn, it was nice not have my inbox flooded with NRA spam, and my mailbox empty without the weekly "Give us more money" letters.

CCWFacts
11-10-2008, 10:40 AM
Remember the NRA is essentially a Fortune 1000 company.

And its leadership needs to have the skill set to walk into a Senators', Congressmans', BATF Director's or even President's office.

Do you hire the local WalMart clerk to run the whole chain? Committment and spirit is good but practicalities override.

I agree. Whoever is the NRA guy needs to have the image of power that should be present at that level and that means he needs to drive the right car (an S-class MB) and have enough income that he doesn't appear weak. This is just the reality of the situation.

Whiskey_Sauer
11-10-2008, 11:34 AM
I will admit that I stayed away from the NRA for a long, long time because of the "jack booted thugs" comment by Mr. LaPierre.

Water under the bridge. Now I believe it is important to join, and advertise your membership, even if you don't agree with everything the NRA says or does.

bwiese
11-10-2008, 12:02 PM
I will admit that I stayed away from the NRA for a long, long time because of the "jack booted thugs" comment by Mr. LaPierre.

Water under the bridge. Now I believe it is important to join, and advertise your membership, even if you don't agree with everything the NRA says or does.

Trouble is, the Jack Booted Thugs comment does have accuracy especially in CA.

As BWO about the style of the Danner boots when he was arrested.

And didja ever see a picture of terminated DOJ employee Iggy Chinn when he was on a 'raid'?

bwiese
11-10-2008, 12:04 PM
I agree. Whoever is the NRA guy needs to have the image of power that should be present at that level and that means he needs to drive the right car (an S-class MB) and have enough income that he doesn't appear weak. This is just the reality of the situation.

Absolutely.

Hell, if paying for Wayne to have a harem helps NRA be seen as being a 'player' then it's good with me.

Looking like Ralph Nader never got any cause anywhere.

oaklander
11-10-2008, 1:36 PM
I've gotten a couple of very detailed, well thought-out, and informative PM's from people who don't wish to join the NRA for various reasons, some of them having to do with NRA's politics and/or policies.

I will reply to the PM's via PM, but my general reply is:

1) No organization (especially a large one) is going to make everybody happy.

2) It is possible to change things you don't like by getting involved.

3) The NRA is the biggest dog in the fight, and you need to support them, even if you don't always agree with them on 100 percent of all issues.

M. Sage
11-10-2008, 1:38 PM
You must be psychic if you can tell just by looking at someone that they're not already a member of the NRA. It would surprise me if most of the people who go to gun shows aren't already members.

Simple statistics are enough to suggest that he's right. 4 million NRA members, 43-45 million gun owners. That's only about 10% membership. Even though many gun owners don't go to gun shows, the odds are still at least even that each person walking by the NRA booth isn't an NRA member.

Looking like Ralph Nader never got any cause anywhere.

Sure as hell isn't working for Ralphy boy! :smilielol5:

CoinStar
11-10-2008, 4:46 PM
The cheapest way is life membership :)

I strictly pay annually and have no plans to ever deviate from that schedule. I do that so I retain the ability to easily and effectively rescind my membership at any time and for any reason.

*On a sidenote:
Their museum in VA is absolutely awesome and well worth visiting.

DB2
11-10-2008, 6:20 PM
Well here is my view in not being a member. I have not joined the NRA, due to a few of my views on them. My views are probably wrong, but there are many out there that have the same ones. Granted due to being on Calguns they are changing now, that I see information about what they do work on.

They are a business. And like any other business, all they want is my money. No thanks I'll keep it.

We keep getting laws against guns, what good is the NRA? No thanks I'll keep my money

There just another lobbiest in a corupt government. No thanks, I'll keep my money

All they seem to care about is the "hunters". I'm not a hunter. I'll keep my money.

They won't listen to me, like any other organization. Why bother. I'll keep my money

These are just a few views. Granted they are changing. But the average gun owner doesn't go online. Doesn't read gun forums. Doesn't have the time to do research on what the NRA does accomplish. We are to busy keeping food on the table, keeping a roof over our families heads, keeping the lights on. That $25+ I can spend on some ammo and have fun, instead of giving it away to some business that I'm not sure does any good.

I know these are not only my views but others.

Go ahead and flame away. But for the record I will join the NRA when I go to Reno next week. But if they drive me away, well I don't know.

singleshotman
11-10-2008, 7:17 PM
I too,was a member till i got married, my wife's a confirmed Democrat, we got into too many arguments over gun control.So i quit, but she never says a word about me buying as many guns as we can afford.Figure that out? As Freud said WHAT DO WOMEN WANT?

M. Sage
11-10-2008, 7:45 PM
Well here is my view in not being a member. I have not joined the NRA, due to a few of my views on them. My views are probably wrong, but there are many out there that have the same ones. Granted due to being on Calguns they are changing now, that I see information about what they do work on.

They are a business. And like any other business, all they want is my money. No thanks I'll keep it.

We keep getting laws against guns, what good is the NRA? No thanks I'll keep my money

There just another lobbiest in a corupt government. No thanks, I'll keep my money

All they seem to care about is the "hunters". I'm not a hunter. I'll keep my money.

They won't listen to me, like any other organization. Why bother. I'll keep my money

These are just a few views. Granted they are changing. But the average gun owner doesn't go online. Doesn't read gun forums. Doesn't have the time to do research on what the NRA does accomplish. We are to busy keeping food on the table, keeping a roof over our families heads, keeping the lights on. That $25+ I can spend on some ammo and have fun, instead of giving it away to some business that I'm not sure does any good.

I know these are not only my views but others.

Go ahead and flame away. But for the record I will join the NRA when I go to Reno next week. But if they drive me away, well I don't know.

Nothing there to flame. You already noted yourself that those are perceptions more than facts. :D

I've met the NRA lobbyist. He's a really great guy, and I wish he could sit down and talk to every gun owner in the US. I think he'd turn them all into NRA members.

I know what you're talking about with being short on dough. Wife's out of school and unemployed. The school loan folks don't care and want their money! Ugh...

dwtt
11-10-2008, 8:47 PM
They are a business. And like any other business, all they want is my money. No thanks I'll keep it.

We keep getting laws against guns, what good is the NRA? No thanks I'll keep my money

We, the members of the NRA are the NRA. We have been able to keep some bad bills from being passed in the last few years, but didn't stop all of them. Look at the ones we stopped and weigh them against the ones that we missed.


There just another lobbiest in a corupt government. No thanks, I'll keep my money

All they seem to care about is the "hunters". I'm not a hunter. I'll keep my money.
The NRA cares about gun owners whether they use the gun for hunting, competition, recreation, self defense, or for their job. I don't hunt but shoot recreationally and in IPSC matches and I'm part of the NRA.


They won't listen to me, like any other organization. Why bother. I'll keep my money
What do you want to say to the NRA? You should join the local member's council and you'll be able to voice your opinions to the NRA because you'll become the "they" you keep referring to above. Were you at the BWO dinner in San Carlos? Ed Worley was there and if you met him, you'll realize the NRA has a very capable representative in Sacramento.

I know what Oaklander is saying and his frustration, because I was at that table on Saturday and saw many people go by without even giving the NRA any consideration. There were also a few lifers who dropped off donations in the jar when they didn't have to. Maybe the two groups will end up balancing each other out some day, but for now the gunowners who won't join the NRA far outnumber those who are members.

DB2
11-10-2008, 9:27 PM
We, the members of the NRA are the NRA. We have been able to keep some bad bills from being passed in the last few years, but didn't stop all of them. Look at the ones we stopped and weigh them against the ones that we missed.

And if I was not on internet/Calguns, how would I know that any were stopped?


The NRA cares about gun owners whether they use the gun for hunting, competition, recreation, self defense, or for their job. I don't hunt but shoot recreationally and in IPSC matches and I'm part of the NRA.

But what is perceived by many, is that they go to bat for mainly hunters. It would be naive to think that is all they're for, but I know many peolple that believe that.



What do you want to say to the NRA? You should join the local member's council and you'll be able to voice your opinions to the NRA because you'll become the "they" you keep referring to above. Were you at the BWO dinner in San Carlos? Ed Worley was there and if you met him, you'll realize the NRA has a very capable representative in Sacramento.

I don't really know what I would like to ask right this moment. Local NRA council would be just one more thing to try and do and not enough time for. I was unable to get to san Carlos in time for the dinner. I was planning on meeting up with FEDUPWBS but didn't make it.


Oaklander stated he was dissapointed in fence sitters. I am trying to educate my self on the NRA. Just as I stated above, I am going to join. But what some people need to understand is people on this site, or others are a minority of gun owners. Most do not see what is going on, just what has happened. And they ask.........................

Where was the NRA?

This is an example: A good friend of mine, business owner, pilot, "gun nut". Doesn't want anything to do with the NRA. Thinks pretty much the way I do. BUT, he doesn't go on sites like this. He only sees the laws that get through, not what are stopped. Hell he thinks the '94 ban is what the law goes by. Last time I thought of joining the NRA, he asked why? And I thought good point.

LibertyGuy
11-10-2008, 10:10 PM
For those that feel like the NRA doesn't really help out Californians maybe you should join the CRPA? Just a thought.

oaklander
11-10-2008, 10:20 PM
Let me STOP the speculation that the NRA does not help out Californians.

As I've stated before, the NRA has a full time guy in Sacramento. His name is Ed Worley. He works closely with the legislators and other power centers to help us pass bills that are favorable to us, and defeat bills that are not favorable to us. (Remember AB2728, for example?)

No other guns rights organization has a full time lobbyist in Sacramento.

The NRA also has a very prominent law firm on retainer in California, and working with that firm, it was able to defeat San Francisco's handgun ban.

I have it from good sources that California is VERY HIGH on the RADAR with the NRA at a national level. This is because what happens here with respect to gun control tends to get propagated throughout the country.

nick
11-10-2008, 10:54 PM
And if I was not on internet/Calguns, how would I know that any were stopped?

Well, if you were an NRA member, they'd inform you. In fact, they'd probably send you more info than you'd want to read :)

nick
11-10-2008, 10:56 PM
This is an example: A good friend of mine, business owner, pilot, "gun nut". Doesn't want anything to do with the NRA. Thinks pretty much the way I do. BUT, he doesn't go on sites like this. He only sees the laws that get through, not what are stopped. Hell he thinks the '94 ban is what the law goes by. Last time I thought of joining the NRA, he asked why? And I thought good point.

If most people vote that way, which they do, it's a small wonder we keep electing morons. Is he expecting to have the information fed straight into his brain without doing anything to get it?

nick
11-10-2008, 10:57 PM
For those that feel like the NRA doesn't really help out Californians maybe you should join the CRPA? Just a thought.

Or both :)

Hoop
11-10-2008, 10:57 PM
If you are a gun enthusiast and refuse to be a member of the NRA you are just plain stupid, end of story.

s10rick
11-10-2008, 10:59 PM
My father is a NRA Life Member and I remember walking past the NRA booths at many gun shows over the years with him. Everytime we would walk by my father would spend the time we stood in line telling me about all the good things that the NRA does and how important it is to support them. After about a year of shows I finally just walked up to the booth and joined. To tell you the truth I am very proud to be apart of the NRA, and when Im doing ok with my bills at home I'll send them a 20 here and a 20 there. Its the right thing to do because in all honesty regardless if you like them or not, if they didnt exist, gunowners would have alot more to cry about than a stupid 25 dollar member fee. I enjoy shooting, and enjoy what rights I have regarding firearms and will do anything I can to ensure that people are fighting for those rights so that my children will be able to enjoy them as well.

Back to the Ops question...

I think the whole reason I waited so long to join was simply a lack of knowledge of the NRA. The same reason I dont empty my wallet for every bum I see on the streets...

Does that makes sense?

bwiese
11-10-2008, 11:01 PM
For those that feel like the NRA doesn't really help out Californians maybe you should join the CRPA? Just a thought.

Perhaps not. The CRPA leadership/Sacto lobbyists have actually been HARMFUL to gunrights in CA.

CRPA staff were a big part of why you have the 'Roster' of approved handguns, drop testing, mag discos, etc.

They were on a reform kick for awhile but some of the 'problem individuals' (Gerry Upholt & Kathy Lynch) are still affiliated.

bwiese
11-10-2008, 11:11 PM
Cuz Gerry needs more luv than Kathy can provide?

ghostwong
11-10-2008, 11:15 PM
I think you need to make a sign that reads " If you are not with the NRA, GOA, or SAF - Then you are helping B-HO, Biden, and Uncle Teddy" So Join the Fight for Freedom.

How is that for conviction?:D


" No, I'm not complaining about the NRA!

What I am complaining about is people who still won't join the NRA.

Today I worked the membership booth at a local gun show. Needless to say, with the current political climate, we signed up a LOT of people. . .

BUT, there were still people who walked right by us, and just didn't want to join!

It simply amazes me that someone would walk in to a gun show, and buy hundreds of dollars worth of ammo and/or guns, and that same person won't spend a measly $25 for a discounted NRA membership.

For those of you who haven't yet joined, I would be curious to know what the reason is.

Standard disclaimer applies, I don't speak for the NRA - and I'm not speaking in my role as a CGF Board Member. I'm just speaking as someone who can't figure out what these people are thinking.

</rant off>

Coffee
11-10-2008, 11:30 PM
And if I was not on internet/Calguns, how would I know that any were stopped?

Sounds like they might need to do some advertising. City Arms did some radio spots on 107.7 "The Bone" (SF Bay area) and that really got my attention.

"we stopped ___% of all bills introduced"
"___% of every dollar goes ___"

bwiese
11-11-2008, 12:28 AM
http://www.calnra.com

Join your local NRA Members' Council!

bulgron
11-11-2008, 8:32 AM
And if I was not on internet/Calguns, how would I know that any were stopped?


Well, we're at virtually every gun show around the state (and probably country), and we frequently have booths at county fairs, etc. At our MC's booth, I can tell you that we have a bunch of literature that talks about what the NRA has done and is doing. We'll also talk your ear off if you bother to stop by and say hello.

I don't know what else the organization can do. People have to be actually receptive to the message, and be willing to put 5 minutes time into research if they want to be informed.

Apparently there are a great many gun owners who cannot and will not do that.

hoffmang
11-11-2008, 10:34 AM
For those that feel like the NRA doesn't really help out Californians maybe you should join the CRPA? Just a thought.

CRPA has a worse record than NRA in California.

-Gene

Ugly Dwarf
11-11-2008, 11:13 AM
What I am complaining about is people who still won't join the NRA.

Today I worked the membership booth at a local gun show. Needless to say, with the current political climate, we signed up a LOT of people. . .

BUT, there were still people who walked right by us, and just didn't want to join!

It simply amazes me that someone would walk in to a gun show, and buy hundreds of dollars worth of ammo and/or guns, and that same person won't spend a measly $25 for a discounted NRA membership.


I shake my head and ask the same question myself about anyone I know who owns guns, enjoys shooting and hasn't joined the NRA.

I have a standing offer to friends / co-workers who know I shoot and show an interest in learning more:

I will provide the gun(s) and ammo. They show up and pay their range fee. I will show them how to shoot and let them try a few guns out, based on their interest.

IF they later go buy a gun (any gun) they promise to join the NRA for at least a year. Very few end up taking advantage of that offer, but it's something.

Anyone who can afford $400 or more for a gun and $100 (minimum) a year to feed it, but then claims poverty when it comes to a $25 membership to the NRA (you can get that deal with your Brownells order anytime, no need to go to a gunshow if that's not your thing), really needs to re-evaluate their priorities.

Even if you think the NRA doesn't do enough for California... tell me who does more.

Dwarf

Bowser
11-11-2008, 4:43 PM
The question is which magazine do I want? I already get both from work but rarely read them, so which one would be the better to have at home and flip through when I'm bored?

hoffmang
11-11-2008, 7:07 PM
The question is which magazine do I want? I already get both from work but rarely read them, so which one would be the better to have at home and flip through when I'm bored?

You can ask to not be sent the magazine or mailings except for the ballots.

-Gene

H Paul Payne
11-11-2008, 7:58 PM
And they ask.........................

Where was the NRA?

This is an example: A good friend of mine, business owner, pilot, "gun nut". Doesn't want anything to do with the NRA. Thinks pretty much the way I do. BUT, he doesn't go on sites like this. He only sees the laws that get through, not what are stopped. Hell he thinks the '94 ban is what the law goes by. Last time I thought of joining the NRA, he asked why? And I thought good point.

Sir, when was the last-time that a staff member from the NRA made himself available to members at all times (more-or-less) of the day and night???

It was, and is, standard procedure............for me. And anyone who knows me can verify that fact.

If you have any questions, and want the answers to come directly from me, give me a call. Until then, please consider joining the NRA. I think we should all stick-together and protect our Second Amendment rights.

Paul

AYEAREFIFTEEN
11-11-2008, 8:46 PM
You can ask to not be sent the magazine or mailings except for the ballots.

-Gene

While watching BHO's speech election day on the television I got a call from a very nice lady at the NRA. I asked her if I became a member if it was possible not to be sent their mailings as I don't like to advertise to the world that I have an arsenal. She said absolutely. The constant mailings was the reason I let my membership lapse the first time around. I signed up for another 5 years.

Lots of people like to complain about what the NRA hasn't done, but fail to see what the NRA has accomplished. Needless to say what they have done is by far worth your $50, $100, or $1000.

LibertyGuy
11-12-2008, 7:43 AM
CRPA has a worse record than NRA in California.

-Gene

Too bad I didn't know this before I joined... Oh well it's only a year membership. I think I'll join the NRA soon anyway.

deleted by PC police
11-12-2008, 7:58 AM
I let my membership laps because I was sick of them begging for money, I have since re-joined and still have issues with them. I'm not completely convinced they are fighting as hard as they should.

bulgron
11-12-2008, 8:10 AM
I let my membership laps because I was sick of them begging for money, I have since re-joined and still have issues with them. I'm not completely convinced they are fighting as hard as they should.

They're fighting a very smart game. In many cases, they have to do subtle things behind the scenes so that the press doesn't get wind of it and screw things up for all of us. Sometimes these subtle things involve getting just the right language introduced into gun control bills that they can't stop getting passed, but which are neutered because of the language they get introduced.

A case in point is the microstamping bill that got passed here in California last year. No one could stop it, but yet somehow language got put in that bill that prevented it from being implemented until the microstamping technology becomes available without patent encumbrances. Where did that language come from, I wonder? I can promise you that the people who authored and championed that bill didn't think that patent encumbrances are all that important.

motorhead
11-12-2008, 8:52 AM
i was contemplating rejoining. their miserable performance during the election convinced me i was right in the first place. during the entire course of the election i didn't see a single thing from the nra in print or vid.

bulgron
11-12-2008, 9:06 AM
i was contemplating rejoining. their miserable performance during the election convinced me i was right in the first place. during the entire course of the election i didn't see a single thing from the nra in print or vid.

So I assume you're joining that other pro-gun organization that peppered the airwaves and print media with massive, endless endorsements of McCain?

Or are you just going to sit back and let The Obama strip you of your 2A rights because the NRA didn't happen to advertise in places that you pay attention to?

ETA: For all the NRA fence sitters, what is your plan, anyway, for fighting for your 2A rights? I mean, if you won't cough up $25 bucks a year to the NRA to do this, what will you do?

CCWFacts
11-12-2008, 9:33 AM
ETA: For all the NRA fence sitters, what is your plan, anyway, for fighting for your 2A rights? I mean, if you won't cough up $25 bucks a year to the NRA to do this, what will you do?

I think their plan is to "give them the bullets first". They're brave and determined enough to give up their lives for the 2A, but not to give up $25.

i was contemplating rejoining. their miserable performance during the election convinced me i was right in the first place. during the entire course of the election i didn't see a single thing from the nra in print or vid.

HELLO, you're in California, a state that was not contested in the election. It has gone Democrat by a landslide for the past 15 years. Any dime the NRA spent on campaign ads in this state would be wasted. That's why you didn't see any. They were being smart with their (our) money and spending it in states that were in play. I would have been upset if I had seen NRA-sponsored pro-McCain ads in this state, because it would be a total waste.

Let me ask, did you see McCain spending any campaign money in this state? No, didn't think so. If McCain didn't think it was worth campaigning here in California, should the NRA?

They were being doubly smart by not spending very much, because within the last 4 weeks of the campaign, it was looking like no amount of money would change things at the presidential level. I presume they spent money wisely in House races that mattered.

Whiskey_Sauer
11-12-2008, 9:35 AM
i was contemplating rejoining. their miserable performance during the election convinced me i was right in the first place. during the entire course of the election i didn't see a single thing from the nra in print or vid.

I assume you live in California?

The NRA spent tons on ads in battleground states, where it actually would make a difference. California was (wisely) abandoned this cycle.

motorhead
11-12-2008, 9:46 AM
california always seems to be (wisely) abandoned. the nra was too timid to come out full force against obama. they could have, at the very least, made very public his 100% negative voting record on firearms. with communications what they are today we're not limited to local media.

oaklander
11-12-2008, 9:51 AM
You must not get any WRITTEN communications from the NRA. They came out in full force. Same with web. And TV in other states.

california always seems to be (wisely) abandoned. the nra was too timid to come out full force against obama. they could have, at the very least, made very public his 100% negative voting record on firearms. with communications what they are today we're not limited to local media.

CCWFacts
11-12-2008, 9:53 AM
They did that. They sent out a series of mail-blasts to all their members highlighting this. They created a sophisticated website devoted to Obama's gun ban ambitions (http://www.gunbanobama.com/).

These were the only things they could do to reach voters in California without spending money on it, and they did it.

What they didn't do was waste their members' money to buy ads in this state.

Actually paying for media exposure in this state would be as rational as running anti-Obama ads in Belgium. Any fool could have known that Obama, or whoever was the Democrat, would win this slide by a landslide. That prediction could have been made with certainty even years ago. The NRA are not fools.

csmintel
11-12-2008, 9:54 AM
bulgron quote "In many cases, they have to do subtle things behind the scenes so that the press doesn't get wind of it and screw things up for all of us."


Do you , yourself understand what you just typed?

:rofl::rofl:

Whiskey_Sauer
11-12-2008, 9:57 AM
california always seems to be (wisely) abandoned. the nra was too timid to come out full force against obama. they could have, at the very least, made very public his 100% negative voting record on firearms. with communications what they are today we're not limited to local media.

And where have you been hiding? Did you not see the website (http://www.gunbanobama.com/) that the NRA set up, or receive those issues of America's First Freedom Magazine (http://www.nramagazines.org/americasfirstfreedom.html) that spelled out his stance, or receive the multiple e-mail alerts that could have been forwarded to non-NRA gun owners?

Seriously, where were you all this time?

Sam1
11-12-2008, 10:04 AM
I haven't joined because I don't want to affiliate myself with any pro gun association or any other party that will affect my future career or my privacy.

fullrearview
11-12-2008, 10:05 AM
I havent joined yet:(....don't get me wrong I want to, but I can't afford it right now. As soon as I get picked up on a department I will join!

bwiese
11-12-2008, 10:13 AM
I haven't joined because I don't want to affiliate myself with any pro gun association or any other party that will affect my future career or my privacy.

If you have run into any situation where NRA membership or private political activity has or could truly effect your employment we'd like to hear about it, because that can be fixed.

artherd
11-12-2008, 11:43 AM
I haven't joined because I don't want to affiliate myself with any pro gun association or any other party that will affect my future career or my privacy.

If you've really run into this - I would love to know about it and so would NRA. We're talking several $million in your pocket here.

SkyStorm82
11-12-2008, 12:04 PM
I haven't joined because I don't want to affiliate myself with any pro gun association or any other party that will affect my future career or my privacy.

What future career are you talking about? Working for the Dems?

Being a member has never affected me in any kind of negative way.

Whiskey_Sauer
11-12-2008, 12:24 PM
If you've really run into this - I would love to know about it and so would NRA. We're talking several $million in your pocket here.

And sam, make sure you remember your old (attorney) pals here on Calguns! ;)

oaklander
11-12-2008, 2:31 PM
What are you implying?

A lot of stuff has to be done "behind the scenes." Do you want the Brady Bunch to get advance notice of everything that the NRA does?

bulgron quote "In many cases, they have to do subtle things behind the scenes so that the press doesn't get wind of it and screw things up for all of us."


Do you , yourself understand what you just typed?

:rofl::rofl:

FreedomIsNotFree
11-12-2008, 2:43 PM
Last time I checked, the NRA doesn't require you to be a member to donate. Additionally, there are a number of different ways to help support RKBA without personally naming yourself, if its that much of a concern.

bwiese
11-12-2008, 3:21 PM
If you have run into any situation where NRA membership or private
political activity has or could truly effect your employment we'd like
to hear about it, because that can be fixed.


Dan Cooper?

Chain, c'mon - that's kinda irrelevant - or rather, conversely irrelevant.

Dan Cooper was not an ordinary employee - he was founder-CEO of a company whose growth was funded by outside shareholders (i.e, not a sole proprietorship). His support for a virulently antigun candidate was a PR nightmare and cost shareholders money. He has a formal fiduciary duty to the shareholders to not bring financial harm to the company and should have had the social IQ skills to know that this could happen. His relationship to the company, especially given his name, is far more than the typical employer/employee one.

By contrast, the political stance of Joe Blow working on the milling line for, say, S&W, is fairly irrelevant to the formal position of the company and revelation of his stance would just elicit a "stoopid *** idiot" comment by gunnies - not a national "Take this friggin' company down!" sentiment.

[Nothing really different happened here w/Cooper than w/Smith & Wesson's former owners' sellout in the HUD settlement. The beneficial thing is that sales dropped in the toilet so much that Tompkins PLC wanted to unload that albatross - even below book value - so tiny Saf-T-Hamr company bought it for a song. It's now back to the S&W we know & love, making 8-shot 627s and excellent M&P 45s ;)

oaklander
11-12-2008, 4:32 PM
I'm trying to come up with a scenario where this would hurt you. The only thing I can think of is if you were a politician running as a very liberal candidate in a very liberal town in a very liberal state.

The other scenario would be if you were seeking a job with an anti-gun organization.

Please tell me your not planning on doing either of the above!!!

:p


I haven't joined because I don't want to affiliate myself with any pro gun association or any other party that will affect my future career or my privacy.

radioburning
11-12-2008, 7:18 PM
I was always under the impression the NRA also supported and endorsed many right wing conservative agendas(National Republican Association), but after doing a little research online I haven't found too much incriminating evidence of this.

I will be joining at the next show.

The second they start asking me support anything that has nothing to do with guns, I will cancel my membership.

DedEye
11-12-2008, 7:19 PM
I was always under the impression the NRA also supported and endorsed many right wing conservative agendas(National Republican Association), but after doing a little research online I haven't found too much incriminating evidence of this.

I will be joining at the next show.

The second they start asking me support anything that has nothing to do with guns, I will cancel my membership.

That was one of my biggest original reservations about joining the NRA. When I finally did the research I saw the number of Pro-gun Democrats they supported and I stopped letting perceived bias prevent me from joining the most effective RKBA association in America.

Anthonysmanifesto
11-12-2008, 7:26 PM
I have not seen the NRA deviate from their single issue stance.

bwiese
11-12-2008, 8:02 PM
The NRA will support any pro-gun politician regardless of party (given other obvious caveats that the guy can win, is not displacing another progun guy, etc.)

It's perceived as tilting to the right due to journalistic incompetence and simply because more Rs than Ds support maximum gunrights.

Sen. John Dingell from Michigan is fairly old-line-left-liberal and, hell, he's even been on the board of the NRA.

In CA, NRA supports Dems like new Senator (former Assemblyman) Rod Wright, who is very non-Republican.

Sometimes the NRA magazines are a bit preachy with a slight right bias but realize the general audience for fundraising.

mcubed4130
11-12-2008, 10:00 PM
No, I'm not complaining about the NRA!

What I am complaining about is people who still won't join the NRA.

Today I worked the membership booth at a local gun show. Needless to say, with the current political climate, we signed up a LOT of people. . .

BUT, there were still people who walked right by us, and just didn't want to join!

It simply amazes me that someone would walk in to a gun show, and buy hundreds of dollars worth of ammo and/or guns, and that same person won't spend a measly $25 for a discounted NRA membership.

For those of you who haven't yet joined, I would be curious to know what the reason is.

Standard disclaimer applies, I don't speak for the NRA - and I'm not speaking in my role as a CGF Board Member. I'm just speaking as someone who can't figure out what these people are thinking.

</rant off>

Well sir; reading through this thread... looks like it's all over the map.

I'll give you my story... grew up in non-entity gun household... no one opposed them; no one was for them... neither parent had one; neither parent had any discussion about guns. Vague recollections of being a very young kid helping my grandfather on his ranch; hunt evil ground squirrels that were eating the roots of his prune trees... my part - was drop the smoke bomb in the hole; and light the match on the fuse... he found the other hole nearby and waited with his 22 rifle for the squirrel to pop it's head up.

As for the NRA - I honestly never ever heard anything about them - perhaps because I'm born and raised in CA... On very rare occasions; some of my friends who owned guns would use the term - but to me it was just an arbitrary three-letter-acronym that had no meaning.

After 9/11 - I became a current events news junkie - via radio, internet - anything except newspaper or TV (as I had a bad taste of both as a youth - long story over a beer sometime).

I found... the aftermath of Katrina... I found... all those people who had their property stolen from them - by LEO acting on orders... I found... I lived in a country with no rights... I was appalled.

When I did more digging - I found some guys named the NRA - were working to get those people their rightful property back.

That day- I found their website; and signed up as an EPL lifetime member ($25/every 3 months or whatever is it...) less than my coffee bill, less than my phone bill, less than anything else... - and it helps provide resources to an organization that's out to help people live a life protected by the Constitution of the United States.

I told my wife the next morning... she looked at me like I was nuts; and asked if I was planning on loosing a few teeth, changing my name to bubba; and wearing flannel shirts for the rest of my life... she's from the midwest - and those are the only people she ever associated with being NRA people... over the years - we've found those images to be false; but that was the only image she ever had growing up.

-M3

Lee F. Smith
11-12-2008, 11:10 PM
california always seems to be (wisely) abandoned. the nra was too timid to come out full force against obama. they could have, at the very least, made very public his 100% negative voting record on firearms. with communications what they are today we're not limited to local media.

McCain-Finegold bill (campaign finance reform) prevents The NRA from mentioning anyone specifically in their ads 60 days before an election.

nick
11-12-2008, 11:12 PM
*He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named wants to take your guns!*

*You shouldn't vote for You-Know-Who*

sorensen440
11-12-2008, 11:14 PM
The NRA is not republican or democrat there just pro gun
it just happens that more republicans are pro gun the democrats

buff_01
11-13-2008, 5:29 PM
I will not join because:

1) The NRA wastes members' money. They need to cut overhead drastically.
2) The NRA compromises on ideas for which there should be NO compromise.
3) The NRA would rather support status quo politicians than ones with the best 2A rights record and platform.
4) The NRA is far too invested in the utterly corrupt two party system.
5) The NRA supports turds with despicable voting records like John McCain.
6) I already joined GOA.

bwiese
11-13-2008, 5:50 PM
You are full of it...

I will not join because:

1) The NRA wastes members' money. They need to cut overhead drastically.


Overhead? One building and some staff in VA, museum, a shooting center.

2) The NRA compromises on ideas for which there should be NO compromise.

Please tell me where this has happened.

Or please tell me how certain realities can be politically overcome.

You of course can't. We've done damned well in the last 10 years nationally,


3) The NRA would rather support status quo politicians than ones with the best 2A rights record and platform.

Pray tell, what good does it do to support a loser? What does that buy us, what leverage does that get us except making us look irrlevant & stupid?


4) The NRA is far too invested in the utterly corrupt two party system.


We go where the action is. No org is gonna change what the system is.
We have to deal with reality.


5) The NRA supports turds with despicable voting records like John McCain.


JMC's record has had some differences but compared to Obamicide he's an angel. Also, this election was all about judges.

6) I already joined GOA.

Well, tell us when you've joined a gun org with clout, because they ain't it.
GOA has never changed the course of a bill.
GOA has never changed the course of any election.
GOA misrepresents things.
GOA exists because its founders can make a salary from antiNRA idiots by yelling & screaming.

mcubed4130
11-13-2008, 6:04 PM
I will not join because:

1) The NRA wastes members' money. They need to cut overhead drastically.
2) The NRA compromises on ideas for which there should be NO compromise.
3) The NRA would rather support status quo politicians than ones with the best 2A rights record and platform.
4) The NRA is far too invested in the utterly corrupt two party system.
5) The NRA supports turds with despicable voting records like John McCain.
6) I already joined GOA.

Interestingly... I've heard this from anyone I know who is a GOA member... I think it's on a tape they send you to get you to join in the 1st place.

Myself... I don't listen to tapes... I go find out my own information.

-M3

M. Sage
11-13-2008, 6:06 PM
I will not join because:

1) The NRA wastes members' money. They need to cut overhead drastically.
2) The NRA compromises on ideas for which there should be NO compromise.
3) The NRA would rather support status quo politicians than ones with the best 2A rights record and platform.
4) The NRA is far too invested in the utterly corrupt two party system.
5) The NRA supports turds with despicable voting records like John McCain.
6) I already joined GOA.

And, besides collecting membership dues, what exactly has GOA actually accomplished? *Cues Jeopardy theme*

Mssr. Eleganté
11-13-2008, 6:20 PM
It's very easy to be "no compromise" when nobody will talk to you. Heck, I'm no compromise in my demands to have a three-way with Angelina Jolie and Jennifer Aniston. Brad Pitt is a spineless compromiser because he only has sex with them one at a time. But I don't sell out like that.

Can anybody recommend who I should vote for in the Gun Owners of America board of directors election? And can anybody help me find my ballot? :rolleyes:

grammaton76
11-13-2008, 6:55 PM
And, besides collecting membership dues, what exactly has GOA actually accomplished? *Cues Jeopardy theme*

Well, they stand firm with JPFO in giving anti-NRA folks an outlet so that they can feel like they did something for gun rights without joining the NRA "losers"... without actually accomplishing nothing of note.

oaklander
11-13-2008, 8:05 PM
All I can say is FAIL.

Others have said the rest much better than I could. . .

:D


I will not join because:

1) The NRA wastes members' money. They need to cut overhead drastically.
2) The NRA compromises on ideas for which there should be NO compromise.
3) The NRA would rather support status quo politicians than ones with the best 2A rights record and platform.
4) The NRA is far too invested in the utterly corrupt two party system.
5) The NRA supports turds with despicable voting records like John McCain.
6) I already joined GOA.

buff_01
11-13-2008, 8:13 PM
You guys sure got riled up. I guess I can clarify--

The GOA is not perfect. It isn't even close. But it is an organization who I can at least agree with regarding policy. Many of you argue that it is a small group, and it is. But all groups start out small before they become large.

I can no longer support political candidates or institutions who promote major policies that I disagree with. I will not support an organization that is OK with restricting _some_ of my natural right to self-protection. If this means I am an ineffective political outcast, then so be it-- at least I'm not paying into the system that is killing me.

"I think civilians need only five rounds" and "AWs should be in the hands of the military only" are completely unacceptable. Waiting periods for buying firearms are completely unacceptable. Any restriction of CCW in any state is completely unacceptable. The guns-are-for-hunters mentality makes me sick, and I simply cannot abide by it. Sorry for sticking to my principles. If the NRA ever changed their tune and supported true 2A rights, I would join in a heartbeat, but I don't expect it to happen.

hoffmang
11-13-2008, 8:16 PM
I can no longer support political candidates or institutions who promote major policies that I disagree with.

The funny part is that if GOA decided that it liked spending all your money to buy hello kitty crap and gifting it to Pelosi you could do nothing about it.

-Gene

grammaton76
11-13-2008, 8:19 PM
Y"I think civilians need only five rounds" and "AWs should be in the hands of the military only" are completely unacceptable.

I would really like to know when the NRA has made these quotes, if ever.

buff_01
11-13-2008, 8:21 PM
I would really like to know when the NRA has made these quotes, if ever.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSGySNLyACE

This is just one of MANY examples of NRA and its board supporting gun control over the years. There's plenty of info on the net if you dig.

bwiese
11-13-2008, 8:24 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSGySNLyACE

Damn, some people are friggin' dense.

I think you pulled this same crap about 6 months ago

That's not the NRA, that's one director on the board - out of many who feel 100% otherwise.

I assume J. Jackson won't do too well in reelection as he represents only the Zumbos.

Please learn how reality works and check back in.

csmintel
11-13-2008, 8:27 PM
You guys sure got riled up. I guess I can clarify--

The GOA is not perfect. It isn't even close. But it is an organization who I can at least agree with regarding policy. Many of you argue that it is a small group, and it is. But all groups start out small before they become large.

I can no longer support political candidates or institutions who promote major policies that I disagree with. I will not support an organization that is OK with restricting _some_ of my natural right to self-protection. If this means I am an ineffective political outcast, then so be it-- at least I'm not paying into the system that is killing me.

"I think civilians need only five rounds" and "AWs should be in the hands of the military only" are completely unacceptable. Waiting periods for buying firearms are completely unacceptable. Any restriction of CCW in any state is completely unacceptable. The guns-are-for-hunters mentality makes me sick, and I simply cannot abide by it. Sorry for sticking to my principles. If the NRA ever changed their tune and supported true 2A rights, I would join in a heartbeat, but I don't expect it to happen.


And they lavishly spend our memebership fees and git themselfes luxury car leases.

grammaton76
11-13-2008, 8:27 PM
Interesting. They've got a "clarification" statement here:

http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/InTheNews.aspx?ID=9899

I'd say that he's definitely hunter-focused and that the first part (5rd capacity max for hunting) of the clarification rings true.

I think that were he to repeat his statements today (the initial statement was back in 2005), he'd have been Zumboed off of the NRA board. EBRs have assumed a much, much higher profile since then.

buff_01
11-13-2008, 8:35 PM
Damn, some people are friggin' dense.

Great argument. I'm about to change my mind now.

Anthonysmanifesto
11-13-2008, 8:40 PM
"I think civilians need only five rounds" and "AWs should be in the hands of the military only" are completely unacceptable. Waiting periods for buying firearms are completely unacceptable. Any restriction of CCW in any state is completely unacceptable. The guns-are-for-hunters mentality makes me sick, and I simply cannot abide by it. Sorry for sticking to my principles. If the NRA ever changed their tune and supported true 2A rights, I would join in a heartbeat, but I don't expect it to happen.

please cite this quote- who said it, representing whom and what the result was.

grammaton76
11-13-2008, 8:41 PM
please cite this quote- who said it, representing whom and what the result was.

The info's in the Youtube link above. A Mr. Jackson from the NRA board of directors, in 2005. Apparently he wasn't Zumboed for it, but he did print a clarification statement that I dug up on nra-ila.org, which retracted his statements.

M. Sage
11-13-2008, 8:46 PM
And they lavishly spend our memebership fees and git themselfes luxury car leases.

Are you still whining about how people spend their paychecks?

hoffmang
11-13-2008, 8:48 PM
And they lavishly spend our memebership fees and git themselfes luxury car leases.

1. Literacy makes your argument more compelling.

2. You are clearly also economically illiterate.

-Gene

oaklander
11-13-2008, 8:52 PM
CSM,

You are starting to sound like a broken record. I keep asking you to elaborate, but the worst thing you can come up with is this.

Join the party and come up with something substantive.

EDIT: :gene:

And they lavishly spend our memebership fees and git themselfes luxury car leases.

hoffmang
11-13-2008, 9:07 PM
Here are just a couple of things that the NRA has done in the last two years.

AB 2728 (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/05-06/bill/asm/ab_2701-2750/ab_2728_bill_20060929_chaptered.html)

Amicus of Vice President Cheney, 55 Senators, 250 Members of Congress (http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parker/documents/07-290bsacMembersUSSenate.pdf)
Defeat the SF Handgun Ban (http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/a115018.pdf)
AB 1645 (http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2007/10/at_least_some_g.php)

That was just off the top of my head. Now, can someone show me where the NRA was wasting member's dues. Also, can anyone show me where GOA was doing anything like that in the last 24 months? BTW, there is more NRA positive stuff, I'm just tired of listing the really important items...

-Gene

grammaton76
11-13-2008, 9:12 PM
That was just off the top of my head. Now, can someone show me where the NRA was wasting member's dues. Also, can anyone show me where GOA was doing anything like that in the last 24 months? BTW, there is more NRA positive stuff, I'm just tired of listing the really important items...

You're tempting me to create a FAQ-ish "common anti-NRA attacks" page on thegunwiki... that way we can say, "Look, we heard all that crap before, here's why it's invalid, come back when you have something new to add to the list."

I noticed the guy didn't bring up what the misinformed vets scampering around Costa Mesa a while back thought (NRA was behind a bill to get them listed as mentally defective to get them banned from owning guns).

Or that the NRA wasn't initially pushing the Heller case.

Or that the NRA didn't support (insert-crackpot-bad-case-here)...

oaklander
11-13-2008, 9:31 PM
The ham-fisted tactics of other gun rights groups are the reason we have some of our bad laws. Bill can elaborate on this (*cough* microstamping *cough*).

DedEye
11-14-2008, 1:41 AM
CSM,

You are starting to sound like a broken record. I keep asking you to elaborate, but the worst thing you can come up with is this.

Join the party and come up with something substantive.

EDIT: :gene:

Can anyone find a SINGLE shred of evidence to support CSM's rants? I've not seen a single news article or web page (even a lone individual's :TFH: web site) making this claim.

bornproud
11-14-2008, 3:59 AM
I am a Proud Member of the NRA and the GOA. I believe the NRA is very important lobbiest that needs more support from the gun owners. The more members they have the stronger they become and the bigger voice they will have. I feel if we can get just 75% of gun owners to join, our voice will be so strong and make the anti's voice sound like mice.

Although I must admit I do have beef with the NRA because of the instant background check they endorsed. It supposedly banned a lot of military with PTSD form owning a gun. I am not sure on the facts of this and maybe someone will be able to set me straight on it. This if true hits hard with me because I am a veteran and still serving. I get pissed off when veteran right's are taken away from them to.

With saying that, I know the NRA needs to compromise with the anti's to get our agenda through. I think sometimes there's to much compromise. I like the idea of giving a new face to the NRA to spark peoples interest. Lets have commercials on major networks throughout the year to try to educate more people about are gun rights. This might cause the anti's have to make commercials themselves. Hopefully they'll spend more money doing it than the NRA did and not have the money come time election day. Thats my two cents.

CoinStar
11-14-2008, 1:27 PM
there you go talking about that vile system. the only one we have.

What is that even supposed to mean anyway?
How does it address the fact that the NRA did endorse a C-rated candidate like McCain... a candidate that the NRA relentlessly bashed for over a decade?

I'm not saying that's reason for anyone to cut up their membership card and tell the NRA to piss up a rope, but why is that not at least a legitimate criticism?

Hell, what is a legitimate criticism of the NRA? It seems that some of the "NRA fans" are so star-struck by the organization that they've intentionally blinded themselves to any imaginable flaws and thus their respective remedies too. That isn't exactly conducive to bettering the organization and pulling in more members which is what I imagine is a high priority.

bwiese
11-14-2008, 1:35 PM
What is that even supposed to mean anyway?
How does it address the fact that the NRA did endorse a C-rated candidate like McCain... a candidate that the NRA relentlessly bashed for over a decade?

I'm not saying that's reason for anyone to cut up their membership card and tell the NRA to piss up a rope, but why is that not at least a legitimate criticism?

Because the differences with McCain were, overall, small beans when compared to the danger of Obama - since this election for gunnies was all about judge/justice nominations and BATF regulatory excesses.

CoinStar
11-14-2008, 1:59 PM
Because the differences with McCain were, overall, small beans when compared to the danger of Obama -

That's still beside the point: McCain is a C-rated candidate that the NRA has lambasted since at least '96 if not prior to it.

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong about this, but I don't recall ever hearing that NRA/ILA is bound by their own rules to endorse anyone in any election.

Had the NRA been smart, they would've just stuck to concentrating their efforts of taking Obama to task and left it at that. By endorsing McCain while simultaneously ignorning their past smears against him, the NRA slapped the intelligence of long time members in the face.

There is just no getting around the fact.

since this election for gunnies was all about judge/justice nominations and BATF regulatory excesses.

It's been covered ad nauseum at this point and those "points" are just as much as a stretch now as they were when they first got placed on the table.

hoffmang
11-14-2008, 2:19 PM
It's been covered ad nauseum at this point and those "points" are just as much as a stretch now as they were when they first got placed on the table.

That is wildly incorrect. ATF rulings and rulemaking are a real risk of the Obama administration. Also it is certainly true that no judicial appointment of the Obama administration will improve the judiciary for gun rights.

Obama gets to appoint whoever he feels like as head of the ATF. He also gets to create new Judgeships and appoint left leaning judges to the existing and new openings at the Federal Courts below SCOTUS. Additionally, he'll get to appoint at least 2 SCOTUS justices from the losing 4 in Heller. If something unexpected happens to one of the Heller 5 majority, he could end the pro-2a SCOTUS.

-Gene

CoinStar
11-14-2008, 2:32 PM
That is wildly incorrect. ATF rulings and rulemaking are a real risk of the Obama administration. Also it is certainly true that no judicial appointment of the Obama administration will improve the judiciary for gun rights.

My opinion is incorrect? I beg to differ....

The same holds true for that "certainty" you espouse regarding Obama's judicial appointments and how they will spell doom for gun rights. Conversely, there was no "certainty" that McCain's would've been any better. It's all speculation no matter how you slice it.

It's also beside my point and moreso now since the election is over and done.

mcubed4130
11-14-2008, 2:46 PM
So... people are sitting on the fence now - because of McCain vs. Obama? hahahahah - whatever... people come up with crap reasons constantly... **** or get off the fence.

McCain sucked... we all knew that... but when given the opportunity in 1994 and again in 2004 - he voted against the gun bans. (and the LA times asked him if he could vote on another gun ban in 2000 or 2001 - I forget; and we see how he voted in 2004).

Obama... gezz man; every single gun-ban was good gun-ban... need more - no problem - grab Biden the father of the 1994 gun ban.

-M3

mcubed4130
11-14-2008, 2:49 PM
Oh and btw... I have yet to see anything - not previously covered when I asked the same question - over a year and a half ago.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=54271

-M3

dfletcher
11-14-2008, 2:55 PM
No, we got a lot of people who paused, appeared to think about it, then kept walking. Obvious non-members.

Although I'm a Life Member, I always walk close by the booth and am certain to make eye contact which of course results in "consider joining?" and my "already in for life" response. I suppose I'd just like the guys to know I support NRA.

Speaking of the guys, you (and by you I mean we) are of course wonderful examples of what happens to the human body after a life of beer, sausage and remote control TV. ;) But would a girl or two out front hurt the cause? Like most, the product doesn't change all that much but maybe the selling points should?

oaklander
11-14-2008, 3:00 PM
What should the NRA have done instead? Tell people to vote "against" Obama? Their only choice was to endorse the lesser of two evils.

I don't think anyone is saying the NRA is perfect. No large organization can be "perfect," since there are so many competing views on what that means.

The bottom line, however, is that the NRA is very good at doing what it is supposed to do - protecting our gun rights.

My opinion is incorrect? I beg to differ....

The same holds true for that "certainty" you espouse regarding Obama's judicial appointments and how they will spell doom for gun rights. Conversely, there was no "certainty" that McCain's would've been any better. It's all speculation no matter how you slice it.

It's also beside my point and moreso now since the election is over and done.

FastFinger
11-14-2008, 3:40 PM
In reviewing all these posts, one quote comes to mind..

"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
-Voltaire

No, the NRA isn't perfect, but what institution is? I would think that one way to help them get closer to perfection is to join their ranks.

That's brings me to another quote...
"Money talks, B.ll S..t walks"
-Voltaire's CPA

With that in mind, I guess it's time for me to pony up and join. Will you guys have a table at this weekends Glendale show? And if so, does membership come with complimentary entrance to the event?

Looking forward to advancing the cause, hope to see you there!

bulgron
11-14-2008, 3:48 PM
What should the NRA have done instead? Tell people to vote "against" Obama? Their only choice was to endorse the lesser of two evils.

I don't think anyone is saying the NRA is perfect. No large organization can be "perfect," since there are so many competing views on what that means.

The bottom line, however, is that the NRA is very good at doing what it is supposed to do - protecting our gun rights.

People want the NRA to wave a magic wand and make all the anti-gun politicians to go away. As if any organization can overcome 70 years of repeated anti-gun indoctrination of the public by the leftists that control our schools and press.

When you have presumably pro-gun people who hang out on a pro-gun website like CalGuns, and yet who insist on stumping for the most anti-gun politician to come along in our lifetimes, there isn't a damn thing the NRA (or anyone) can do to overcome that sort of a cultural shift.

At the end of the day, the NRA can only co-ordinate the fight for those of us who are still willing to fight. So if you don't like the way this last election worked out, don't blame the NRA; instead, blame the American gun owners who apparently lost their senses and decided to go along with an anti-gun politician's leftist agenda.

We will reap that which we have sown.

Ain't the next 4 years gonna be fun?

CoinStar
11-14-2008, 3:50 PM
Their only choice was to endorse the lesser of two evils.

No. There was no "only choice". They had the option to not to endorse anyone. And had they taken that path, the poster who cited McCain's endorsement as a reason not to join the NRA would have one less leg to prop up his argument. And in lieu of any endorsement for POTUS, I seriously doubt that the bulk of members would've voted for Obama.

It is a legitimate complaint against the NRA that they backed a C-rated candidate --one whom they spent a decade warning their membership to avoid (and worse).

I don't think anyone is saying the NRA is perfect.

Of course not and likewise, I'm not saying they "suck". In fact, I alluded to the idea that a little bit of constructive criticism (if they would take it to heart) might actually help a bit. That seemed to be the gist of your original post since you asked folks to share their reasons for not joining.

oaklander
11-14-2008, 3:52 PM
Good points.

No. There was no "only choice". They had the option to not to endorse anyone. And had they taken that path, the poster who cited McCain's endorsement as a reason not to join the NRA would have one less leg to prop up his argument. And in lieu of any endorsement for POTUS, I seriously doubt that the bulk of members would've voted for Obama.

It is a legitimate complaint against the NRA that they backed a C-rated candidate --one whom they spent a decade warning their membership to avoid (and worse).



Of course not and likewise, I'm not saying they "suck". In fact, I alluded to the idea that a little bit of constructive criticism (if they would take it to heart) might actually help a bit. That seemed to be the gist of your original post since you asked folks to share their reasons for not joining.

CoinStar
11-14-2008, 4:04 PM
People want the NRA to wave a magic wand and make all the anti-gun politicians to go away.

I don't sense that at all. I can only speak for myself though.

What I don't like is to feel that I'm being bull****ted and the NRA has a knack for assuming that their members suffer from frequent bouts of amnesia (McCain's endorsement is a good example -- George "I-would-renew-the-Fed-AWB-if-it-crossed-my-desk" Bush is another).

bwiese
11-14-2008, 4:16 PM
(McCain's endorsement is a good example -- George "I-would-renew-the-Fed-AWB-if-it-crossed-my-desk" Bush is another).

GWB could say that because Karl Rove wouldn't let it happen.

Anthonysmanifesto
11-14-2008, 5:34 PM
I don't sense that at all. I can only speak for myself though.

What I don't like is to feel that I'm being bull****ted and the NRA has a knack for assuming that their members suffer from frequent bouts of amnesia (McCain's endorsement is a good example -- George "I-would-renew-the-Fed-AWB-if-it-crossed-my-desk" Bush is another).

gwb could say that because the congress wasn't going to let it get to him.

hoffmang
11-14-2008, 5:46 PM
My opinion is incorrect? I beg to differ....

The same holds true for that "certainty" you espouse regarding Obama's judicial appointments and how they will spell doom for gun rights.

Maybe you have a hard time understanding me? I didn't say it would spell doom for gun rights - I'm generally one of a handful of people in this forum saying we are not doomed. What I said was that on balance, Obama's judicial appointments would be worse on respect for the Second Amendment than McCain's. Also, do not get me wrong - I'm no McCain fan as I happen to like the First Amendment too.

How can you seriously hold the opinion that an Obama administration does not increase the risks to the widening of the Second Amendment right? Do you really think that we could have won Heller if one of the 5 in the majority was gone and replaced with an Obama appointment?

Note that I'm not saying that it in the end matters, but you need to defend an opinion that it has no impact.

-Gene

H Paul Payne
11-14-2008, 7:05 PM
Although I must admit I do have beef with the NRA because of the instant background check they endorsed. It supposedly banned a lot of military with PTSD form owning a gun. I am not sure on the facts of this and maybe someone will be able to set me straight on it. This if true hits hard with me because I am a veteran and still serving. I get pissed off when veteran right's are taken away from them to.

That would be a bad thing..........if it were true. But its not!

It was a bunch of LIES promoted by another "gun" group. The truth is a very long story regarding abuses by Clinton Administration hold-overs and the need to pass the NICS Improvement Act, which the NRA helped do.

See:
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=219&issue=018

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=221&issue=018

http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/InTheNews.aspx?ID=10420

more if you want it...................

Paul

bornproud
11-14-2008, 7:17 PM
Thanks for setting me straight.

M. Sage
11-14-2008, 9:32 PM
It is a legitimate complaint against the NRA that they backed a C-rated candidate --one whom they spent a decade warning their membership to avoid (and worse).

I heard of them backing a F candidate for kicks in a CA race. It was against an F-, though, and the when the NRA took credit for the F rated's win, she supposedly about went through the roof.

CoinStar
11-15-2008, 1:22 AM
fair question- but it doesn't require a lot of explanation to say- that it was important to make a play at stopping obama from obtaining the white house.

not a compromise- a text book play in the system we have.

Do you honestly believe that in the absence of an NRA endorsement for McCain, this election would've been any different? More specifically, do you honestly believe that in the absence of that endorsement, the majority of truly undecided NRA members would've leaned towards Obama?

I have some bridges for sale if you do.

CoinStar
11-15-2008, 1:26 AM
gwb could say that because the congress wasn't going to let it get to him.

That misses the point by several miles.

Besides that, Bush Jr. made renewal of the AWB part of his 2000 campaign promises. He didn't simply pander to the antigun movement while treading safe congressional waters prior to its sunset.

There is no apologizing for his support of what is arguably the biggest national gun ban in recent history. None.


...and the NRA endorsed him --twice.

CoinStar
11-15-2008, 1:33 AM
How can you seriously hold the opinion that an Obama administration does not increase the risks to the widening of the Second Amendment right?

Because it's all speculation and hypothetical rambling at this point.

My point wasn't so much that Obama would or wouldn't increase any risks; it was that a McCain win would not have been a concrete guarantee of "safe" appointments either. That's why I said this is all a stretch (and an irrelevant issue at this point seeing as the election is clearly over).

H Paul Payne
11-15-2008, 9:04 AM
I heard of them backing a F candidate for kicks in a CA race. It was against an F-, though, and the when the NRA took credit for the F rated's win, she supposedly about went through the roof.

That was a true story! :D

Several years ago (2000, I think), Assemblyman Wally Knox was successful passing his "one-handgun-per-month" bill. That next election, after Tom Hayden was termed-out, Knox was running against Assemblywoman Sheila Kuehl for the State Senate seat. Although Kuehl had never voted with us, she had never carried an anti-gun bill. The same (obviously) couldn't be said for Knox.

The race was so close that it wouldn't take a lot to tip the race in favor of one-or-the-other, so we tipped. ;) Once the momentum gathered for Kuehl, there was no stopping her and she won.

For reasons of Op-Sec, I won't give away our techniques and tactics, but you can imagine how upset they both were (especially Knox) when we announced our public support for Kuehl. Of course she denied that she received assistance, but everyone knew that we were involved.

I guess the question really comes down to: "Oh my god! The NRA is admitting to endorsing an "F" rated candidate!"

Speaking for myself, I'm darn proud to have extracted some pay-back and ended the tenure of an anti-gun activist politician. And NO, there was no chance that a Republican could have won in that 50% D / 28% R district. Remember, that was the former Tom Hayden senate seat.

This is an example of something I like to call "PR-101." That stands for POLITICAL REALITY-101! We had to make a real-world choice between BAD & WORSE. We made our choice and made a difference.

And something else: This occurred several years ago, back when many people weren't yet aware of how active the NRA has been all along in California. Just because you couldn't see the French Resistance before the Normandy invasion didn't mean they weren't there. :p

So, some will continue to complain. But please be aware that the rest of us will continue to fight the good fight, where-ever we can find it. And sometimes that is a somewhat unconventional fight. But we fight it just the same. FIGHTING HARD is good, but to win - we must also FIGHT SMART!

Paul

P.S. -- No one believes that President Bush was ever going to sign an AWB.

hoffmang
11-15-2008, 10:31 AM
Because it's all speculation and hypothetical rambling at this point.


Facts:

1. Democratic control of all elected branches will lead to rapid judicial appointments.

2. The Democrats will expand the number of Judgeships on top of #1.

3. On balance, those Democratic judges will be less sympathetic to gun rights. I'm not saying that all of them will be against us, but I can tell you that it's probably an 80% indicator. On the McCain side you have to remember that he opposed Miers and championed our actual pro-gun justices for example. Even if he was "not that good" his judges would be biased at least 60% towards gun rights.

4. If one of the Heller majority is incapacitated, we will go from having a pro-gun majority to having an anti-gun or at best ambivalent SCOTUS. This is the core point you have to believable refute to hold your position.

Ignoring the reality of the situation to make some claim that the risks to gun rights are not increased under an Obama administration has a name. It's called confirmation bias (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias). It seems to me that you'd like to believe that an Obama administration doesn't raise the risks to gun rights and as such attempt to discount evidence that goes against your prior.

And remember all this is before we find out what kind of DOJ and ATF leadership Obama appoints. Do you really take the position that we'll get anything better than the current miserable leadership we've had in those areas?

-Gene

bwiese
11-15-2008, 10:38 AM
And remember all this is before we find out what kind of DOJ and ATF leadership Obama appoints.

That's the big worry - how bad the WOGD (War on Gun Dealers) goes.


Do you really take the position that we'll get anything better than the current miserable leadership we've had in those areas?At least we had a Veep who bypassed the Solicitor Gen'l in Heller, which was very very powerful.


But back to the subject: we knew Bush wouldn't reauthorize the AWB because Rove wouldn't allow it
and because it was trapped in Congress.

FastFinger
11-17-2008, 9:54 AM
Joined this weekend at the Glendale show table. Thanks for the prompt.

Sarkoon
11-17-2008, 10:41 AM
This NRA-provided Obama Fact Card is a reason why a lot of people I know will not join the NRA. I've never seen so much FUD and BS come from the NRA before, and it really makes them look bad.

http://images.politico.com/global/nra2.jpg

bwiese
11-17-2008, 11:25 AM
This NRA-provided Obama Fact Card is a reason why a lot of people I know will not join the NRA. I've never seen so much FUD and BS come from the NRA before, and it really makes them look bad.

http://images.politico.com/global/nra2.jpg

Every one of those assertions above is based on fact/statements by Obama, his campaign, or his prior positions he's supported in his legislative career, or by those with whom he's associated with (Joyce Foundation). These are, broadly, the Brady/NCPHV and/or Joyce Foundation dream list. (Obama was on board of Joyce Foundation). Show me where any are not correct - you can't.

CCWFacts
11-17-2008, 11:38 AM
Obama was on board of Joyce Foundation

That's the key fact there. They are more anti-RKBA than the Brady Campaign. In fact they provide the funding for Brady and others. They are no-compromise in their goals. And Obama was on their Board of Directors. He can't somehow undo that fact or change the significance of it.

yellowfin
11-17-2008, 11:45 AM
That's the key fact there. They are more anti-RKBA than the Brady Campaign. In fact they provide the funding for Brady and others. They are no-compromise in their goals. And Obama was on their Board of Directors. He can't somehow undo that fact or change the significance of it.And thanks to the leftist press this fact was never brought to daylight during the election. He should have been crucified for it. Even McWeasel didn't point it out...why?

Dr. Peter Venkman
11-17-2008, 11:50 AM
And thanks to the leftist press this fact was never brought to daylight during the election. He should have been crucified for it. Even McWeasel didn't point it out...why?

People don't want to know about the rights they refuse to use. Why would they care if they were to be taken away?

FastFinger
11-17-2008, 1:02 PM
This NRA-provided Obama Fact Card is a reason why a lot of people I know will not join the NRA. I've never seen so much FUD and BS come from the NRA before, and it really makes them look bad.


I have friends who wouldn't even think of touching a gun, can't change the world. The question is - are you a member?

Sarkoon
11-17-2008, 1:25 PM
Every one of those assertions above is based on fact/statements by Obama, his campaign, or his prior positions he's supported in his legislative career, or by those with whom he's associated with (Joyce Foundation). These are, broadly, the Brady/NCPHV and/or Joyce Foundation dream list. (Obama was on board of Joyce Foundation). Show me where any are not correct - you can't.

I believe it's up to them (or whoever else wants to step in) to prove that they are actually based on fact. Show me, for example, where Obama's administration has said they will close down 90% of the gun dealers in this country.

oddball
11-17-2008, 1:46 PM
This NRA-provided Obama Fact Card is a reason why a lot of people I know will not join the NRA. I've never seen so much FUD and BS come from the NRA before, and it really makes them look bad.

http://images.politico.com/global/nra2.jpg

Fact: Barack Obama voted for an Illinois State Senate bill to ban and confiscate "assault weapons," and other semi-auto firearms- Illinois Senate Judiciary Committee, March 13, 2003

Fact: Barack Obama opposes Right to Carry laws.-"Keyes, Obama Are Far Apart On Guns," Chicago Tribune, 9/15/04.

Fact: Barack Obama has endorsed a 500% increase in the federal excise tax on firearms and ammunition. - Chicago Defender, Dec. 13, 1999.

Fact: Barack Obama voted to ban all centerfire rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting and sport shooting.- United States Senate, S. 397, vote number 217, Kennedy amendment July 29, 2005.

Fact: Barack Obama has endorsed a complete ban on handgun ownership.- Independent Voters of Illinois/Independent Precinct Organization general candidate questionnaire, Sept. 9, 1996

Fact: Barack Obama voted not to notify gun owners when the state of Illinois did records searches on them.- Illinois Senate, May 5, 2002, SB 1936

Fact: Barack Obama supported a proposal to ban gun stores within 5 miles of a school or park(which would eliminate almost every gun store in America) - Chicago Defender, Dec. 13, 1999.

Fact: Barack Obama voted to uphold local gun bans and the criminal prosecution of people who use firearms in self-defense.- Illinois Senate, SB 2165, March 25, 2004

Fact: Barack Obama voted to allow reckless lawsuits designed to bankrupt the firearms industry.- United States Senate, S. 397, July 29, 2005

Fact: Barack Obama opposes four of the five Supreme Court justices who affirmed an individual right to keep and bear arms. He voted against the confirmation of Alito and Roberts and he has stated he would not have appointed Thomas or Scalia.- United States Senate vote 245, September 29, 2005 and vote 2, January 31, 2006

Fact: Barack Obama refused to sign a friend-of-the-court Brief in support of individual Second Amendment rights in the Heller case.

...and there's more. Enough FUD and B.S.?

CoinStar
11-17-2008, 1:48 PM
P.S. -- No one believes that President Bush was ever going to sign an AWB.

Unlike you, I'm far too humble to attempt to speak for the whole of the population.

Ashcroft certainly believed Bush and even parroted support for the ban himself. Board members of the NRA certainly seemed to believe it also.

It's hilarious to see inconvenient history being re-written here.

Whether or not Bush could've/would've/wanted to renew the '94 ban is still totally beside the point: The NRA endorsed a candidate who made renewal of the ban part of of their campaign two times in a row. Now add McCain, who the NRA touted as the enemy of freedom for a decade, and that's three of the last three elections where the NRA has found itself in bed with mediocre (and that's being nice) candidates for the Presidency. ...oh, and they all happened to be Republicans... but they don't endorse on party lines.

bwiese
11-17-2008, 1:53 PM
I believe it's up to them (or whoever else wants to step in) to prove that they are actually based on fact. Show me, for example, where Obama's administration has said they will close down 90% of the gun dealers in this country.

Well oddball's post is pretty complete above - thanks for saving me the effort!

To address your specific issue, Obama proposed back in late 90s that gun shops could not be within 5 miles of a school or park.

Whether that's 87% or 90% or 93% is immaterial. Even if it were 10% or 25% is abysmal.

grammaton76
11-17-2008, 1:58 PM
Whether or not Bush could've/would've/wanted to renew the '94 ban is still totally beside the point: The NRA endorsed a candidate who made renewal of the ban part of of their campaign two times in a row. Now add McCain, who the NRA touted as the enemy of freedom for a decade, and that's three of the last three elections where the NRA has found itself in bed with mediocre (and that's being nice) candidates for the Presidency. ...oh, and they all happened to be Republicans... but they don't endorse on party lines.

Then show us a better candidate with a chance of winning that the NRA failed to endorse for those various elections.

Heck, you act as if the Democrats were offering forth pro-gun folks and the NRA were choosing less pro-gun Republicans over them in presidential elections. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

What, do you want the NRA to tell folks "don't vote" or something? Because THAT'LL really get the point across ... not.

CoinStar
11-17-2008, 1:59 PM
But back to the subject: we knew Bush wouldn't reauthorize the AWB because Rove wouldn't allow it
and because it was trapped in Congress.

Speaking in the collective (who is "we") and repeating this tripe doesn't strengthen your argument, Bill.

It doesn't matter if a renewal bill could've reached Bush's desk. He made the ban part of his campaigns so it is completely fraudulent to say he was just pandering on a whim when the sunset was near.

Where was the NRA calling him out on this? If Bush had been a Democrat, he would've gotten both barrels and then some.

Only those who want to bull**** themselves believe otherwise.

grammaton76
11-17-2008, 2:01 PM
Speaking in the collective (who is "we") and repeating this tripe doesn't strengthen your argument, Bill.

It doesn't matter if a renewal bill could've reached Bush's desk. He made the ban part of his campaigns so it is completely fraudulent to say he was just pandering on a whim when the sunset was near.

Where was the NRA calling him out on this? If Bush had been a Democrat, he would've gotten both barrels and then some.

Only those who want to bull**** themselves believe otherwise.

Where was the better candidate who wouldn't have renewed the AWB?

If you're talking about the more recent election, you're talking about Kerry as Bush's competitor. He not only wanted to renew the ban, but to add additional anti-gun legislation.

Blast a candidate when it actually makes sense to do so.

Blasting Bush for his pro-AWB stance would only serve to confuse the issue and potentially help win Kerry votes - when Kerry would've been even more anti-gun.

CoinStar
11-17-2008, 2:03 PM
Then show us a better candidate with a chance of winning that the NRA failed to endorse for those various elections.

Heck, you act as if the Democrats were offering forth pro-gun folks and the NRA were choosing less pro-gun Republicans over them in presidential elections. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

What, do you want the NRA to tell folks "don't vote" or something? Because THAT'LL really get the point across ... not.

I'm not "acting" in any way. I haven't even hinted that the Democrats were offering better material either. You said that, not me.

As for what I think the NRA should do, I've already covered it; they are under no obligation to endorse anyone. In fact, within other discussions on this forum, the same people making excuses and apologizing for Bush have said that NRA endorsements sometimes hurt a candidate more than they help.

CoinStar
11-17-2008, 2:08 PM
Blasting Bush for his pro-AWB stance would only serve to confuse the issue...

How so? By revealing the truth about his position on the issue?

By remaining relatively silent about Bush's support, the NRA basically told its members to stick their heads in the sand when they set out to vote. By not criticizing Bush and instead, giving him the nod (twice), they sent the message to other lukewarm candidates that they could be a "little anti-gun" and still have the NRA behind them in a national election.

It's no wonder that C-rated candidates are the best they can muster.

Sarkoon
11-17-2008, 2:10 PM
Fact: Barack Obama voted for an Illinois State Senate bill to ban and confiscate "assault weapons," and other semi-auto firearms- Illinois Senate Judiciary Committee, March 13, 2003
Fact: Barack Obama opposes Right to Carry laws.-"Keyes, Obama Are Far Apart On Guns," Chicago Tribune, 9/15/04.
Fact: Barack Obama has endorsed a 500% increase in the federal excise tax on firearms and ammunition. - Chicago Defender, Dec. 13, 1999.
Fact: Barack Obama voted to ban all centerfire rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting and sport shooting.- United States Senate, S. 397, vote number 217, Kennedy amendment July 29, 2005.
Fact: Barack Obama has endorsed a complete ban on handgun ownership.- Independent Voters of Illinois/Independent Precinct Organization general candidate questionnaire, Sept. 9, 1996
Fact: Barack Obama voted not to notify gun owners when the state of Illinois did records searches on them.- Illinois Senate, May 5, 2002, SB 1936
Fact: Barack Obama supported a proposal to ban gun stores within 5 miles of a school or park(which would eliminate almost every gun store in America) - Chicago Defender, Dec. 13, 1999.
Fact: Barack Obama voted to uphold local gun bans and the criminal prosecution of people who use firearms in self-defense.- Illinois Senate, SB 2165, March 25, 2004
Fact: Barack Obama voted to allow reckless lawsuits designed to bankrupt the firearms industry.- United States Senate, S. 397, July 29, 2005
Fact: Barack Obama opposes four of the five Supreme Court justices who affirmed an individual right to keep and bear arms. He voted against the confirmation of Alito and Roberts and he has stated he would not have appointed Thomas or Scalia.- United States Senate vote 245, September 29, 2005 and vote 2, January 31, 2006
Fact: Barack Obama refused to sign a friend-of-the-court Brief in support of individual Second Amendment rights in the Heller case.

...and there's more. Enough FUD and B.S.?


Thanks for the historical citations - That definitely does clearly show Obama's stance on guns is not something that any of us agree with.

So the card outlines a possible future that might have been had all of Obama's past intentions been fully realized. It does not show what the Obama administration will actually attempt to do once they take office. I think this is intentionally misleading.

grammaton76
11-17-2008, 2:11 PM
I'm not "acting" in any way. I haven't even hinted that the Democrats were offering better material either. You said that, not me.

As for what I think the NRA should do, I've already covered it; they are under no obligation to endorse anyone. In fact, within other discussions on this forum, the same people making excuses and apologizing for Bush have said that NRA endorsements sometimes hurt a candidate more than they help.

Check the highlighted section of your previous post - sure seems to be complaining about party affiliation to me, which seems to be advancing the thought that the other party had something of interest.

The NRA's heuristic is very simple: choose the best-on-guns candidate with a chance of winning. It's evenly applied between D and R candidates, and to say they should simply step back and refuse to endorse anyone without a pure shining record is naive at best. Gun rights are far better served by NRA votes going to the lesser of two evils, than stepping back entirely and allowing pure anti-gun candidates to run without gun owners even hearing about it.

Stepping back and only endorsing (mostly) un-electable candidates would allow the NRA to very quickly become marginalized and ignored. They need to be a factor in very nearly all elections, in order to be much of a deciding factor in any.

Whether or not Bush could've/would've/wanted to renew the '94 ban is still totally beside the point: The NRA endorsed a candidate who made renewal of the ban part of of their campaign two times in a row. Now add McCain, who the NRA touted as the enemy of freedom for a decade, and that's three of the last three elections where the NRA has found itself in bed with mediocre (and that's being nice) candidates for the Presidency. ...oh, and they all happened to be Republicans... but they don't endorse on party lines.

mcubed4130
11-17-2008, 2:11 PM
... Even McWeasel didn't point it out...why?

Why was "McWeasel" - the nominee for the Repubs at all? OH... yeah... corruption inside the party...

The Repubs worked very hard to find a candidate that was passionately hated by the voting base...

They succeeded very well.

Pre-Election Advise to Palin.

http://www.restrainednomore.com/

BTW - If you don't know what I'm talking about - see how Huckabee won several states (because 3rd man - McCain's delegates switched to Huckabee allowing a win over Romney; instead of allowing Romney to win more states overall.)

-M3

grammaton76
11-17-2008, 2:15 PM
How so? By revealing the truth about his position on the issue?

Negative - it would damage things overall by getting NRA voters to go, "Gee, this candidate sucks too, I'm just gonna stay home". Or, alternatively, confusing folks into thinking that Bush were just as bad as Kerry, which is how the Dems would've liked to spin it in order to neutralize any NRA impact on the vote.

There are also races beyond the presidency in any given election, and a lot of voters who're just there for the presidential vote and only sorta-care about the rest. When those voters think they're "screwed either way", some of 'em stay home instead of casting pro-gun votes on congressional seats, etc.

By remaining relatively silent about Bush's support, the NRA basically told its members to stick their heads in the sand when they set out to vote. By not criticizing Bush and instead, giving him the nod (twice), they sent the message to other lukewarm candidates that they could be a "little anti-gun" and still have the NRA behind them in a national election.

It's no wonder that C-rated candidates are the best they can muster.

Lack of public criticism does not necessarily amount to lack of criticism. And, it's a reality that in order to be electable in America at present, a candidate seen as "a little anti-gun" is perceived as reasonable by the left and less-evil by the right. Want to change that? Change America, please. I'd like to see it happen, but doubt that I will.

Your "don't endorse anyone" strategy is a non-starter, period.

CoinStar
11-17-2008, 2:18 PM
Check the highlighted section of your previous post - sure seems to be complaining about party affiliation to me.

Are you saying it's not factual?

The NRA's heuristic is very simple: choose the best-on-guns candidate with a chance of winning. It's evenly applied between D and R candidates, and to say they should simply step back and refuse to endorse anyone without a pure shining record is naive at best.

I'm not totally detached from the world of politics. I can assure you that other lobby groups don't always endorse when there isn't a solid candidate. What's naive is to believe otherwise.

Gun rights are far better served by NRA votes going to the lesser of two evils, than stepping back entirely and allowing pure anti-gun candidates to run without gun owners even hearing about it.

Already covered:

In the absence of a McCain NRA endorsement, I seriously doubt that the bulk of NRA membership would've fallen in line behind Obama. I would bet money on that.

grammaton76
11-17-2008, 2:26 PM
Are you saying it's not factual?

I'm saying that Republicans are generally more pro-gun than Democrats. Democrats can change this if they wish. Heck, become more pro-gun than the Republicans, and I guarantee the NRA will be endorsing primarily Democratic candidates. To complain that party bias is somehow expressed when the NRA endorses a weakly-pro X over a staunchly anti Y is ridiculous.

I'm not totally detached from the world of politics. I can assure you that other lobby groups don't always endorse when there isn't a solid candidate. What's naive is to believe otherwise.

Other lobby groups aren't necessarily looking at substantial differences in platform. Made-up example... if both D and R are issuing pro-life positions, then an abortion rights group is correct to abstain in these cases.

When D is issuing extremely anti-gun positions but R is issuing weak ones, then yes it makes sense to endorse the R candidate.

Already covered:

In the absence of a McCain NRA endorsement, I seriously doubt that the bulk of NRA membership would've fallen in line behind Obama. I would bet money on that.

Anecdotal, but one of my friends is a gun nut but was caught up in Obama's initial splash about being young, minority, etc. Giving him the scoop on his view on guns shifted that pretty quickly.

There are a lot of folks out there whose only source of info on the gun-related stance of a candidate is the NRA. Remove that, and yes a lot of folks like my friend would've voted Obama.

CoinStar
11-17-2008, 2:27 PM
Negative - it would damage things overall by getting NRA voters to go, "Gee, this candidate sucks too, I'm just gonna stay home". Or, alternatively, confusing folks into thinking that Bush were just as bad as Kerry, which is how the Dems would've liked to spin it in order to neutralize any NRA impact on the vote.

In the case of McCain, it was the NRA that spread the "this candidate sucks" for years prior to the last election. This wasn't overlooked by the anti-gun community either, and it was made worse by the NRA going ahead and endorsing the man they spent a decade telling members was a threat to freedom.

Like I said, it's not enough to get me to tear up my memberships (yes, I have two), but it's enough to leave a sour taste in my mouth. What's worse is that the NRA doesn't seem to care if it pisses off its members who don't suffer from short-term memories --those like myself.

CoinStar
11-17-2008, 2:31 PM
Made-up example... if both D and R are issuing pro-life positions, then an abortion rights group is correct to abstain in these cases.

When D is issuing extremely anti-gun positions but R is issuing weak ones, then yes it makes sense to endorse the R candidate.

Not made-up example:

Bush was championing the federal AWB in both of his campaigns. Was that a "weak" position in your mind? It wasn't in mine. Maybe you don't recall the flurry of panic when Clinton was set to take the reigns of the White House. I do though, and I can say with quite a bit of certainty that the AWB was the issue and it's still relevant today.

Bush supported it and got the NRA endorsement and there's no changing that fact.

bwiese
11-17-2008, 2:31 PM
In the absence of a McCain NRA endorsement, I seriously doubt that the bulk of NRA membership would've fallen in line behind Obama. I would bet money on that.

There wasn't much risk of appreciable count of NRA members voting for Obama, except maybe some union guys getting conned.

The risk was Obama himself taking office, and necessitating use of everything in the NRA's arsenal in certain key states to try to counter that - that is, to motivate lukewarm voters that might not otherwise have gone to polls.

grammaton76
11-17-2008, 2:33 PM
In the case of McCain, it was the NRA that spread the "this candidate sucks" for years prior to the last election. This wasn't overlooked by the anti-gun community either, and it was made worse by the NRA going ahead and endorsing the man they spent a decade telling members was a threat to freedom.

Ok, so your central core of the issue here seems to be that they switched their tune on McCain. Well, I don't recall the NRA ever saying that McCain was their dream candidate or that he's who they've always wanted. I distinctly recall the American Rifleman interview with McCain, where they did touch on how he was voting anti-NRA for a number of years.

Like I said, it's not enough to get me to tear up my memberships (yes, I have two), but it's enough to leave a sour taste in my mouth. What's worse is that the NRA doesn't seem to care if it pisses off its members who don't suffer from short-term memories --those like myself.

I don't suffer from any form of short-term memory here either. I distinctly recall McCain being considered a poor choice. In fact, he never stopped being a poor choice for gun rights, but he was substantially better than Obama.

I don't see anywhere the NRA pretended to rewrite history and claim that McCain was on their side the whole time...

bwiese
11-17-2008, 2:33 PM
Not made-up example:
Bush was championing the federal AWB in both of his campaigns. Was that a "weak" position in your mind? It wasn't in mine. Maybe you don't recall the flurry of panic when Clinton was set to take the reigns of the White House. I do though, and I can say with quite a bit of certainty that the AWB was the issue and it's still relevant today.

Bush supported it and got the NRA endorsement and there's no changing that fact.

Who cares? Karl Rove wouldn't let it happen.

And the statement was "...if it comes to my desk". Note that zero effort was made to bring that about.

That was back during the time we actually cared about the vote of idiotic soccer moms for some reason.

grammaton76
11-17-2008, 2:36 PM
Not made-up example:

Bush was championing the federal AWB in both of his campaigns. Was that a "weak" position in your mind? It wasn't in mine. Maybe you don't recall the flurry of panic when Clinton was set to take the reigns of the White House. I do though, and I can say with quite a bit of certainty that the AWB was the issue and it's still relevant today.

Bush supported it and got the NRA endorsement and there's no changing that fact.

Both candidates were behind the AWB, at least in lip service.

However, the D candidates wanted more than that, and I'm fairly sure Bush would've drawn the line at only that.

Lesser of two evils, as always.

CoinStar
11-17-2008, 2:39 PM
The risk was Obama himself taking office, and necessitating use of everything in the NRA's arsenal in certain key states to try to counter that - that is, to motivate lukewarm voters that might not otherwise have gone to polls.

Maybe. Your guess is as good as mine as to how their endorsement shifted the tide.

However, in the end, it didn't work and once again the NRA looks bad to members who haven't conveniently tuned out the decade's worth of fear-mongering that came from the same organization with regard to the candidate of choice.

CoinStar
11-17-2008, 2:45 PM
Note that zero effort was made to bring that about.

What are you talking about?

Zero effort from Bush? It doesn't matter anyway. He made it part of his campaign. The NRA sent (and will probably continue sending) the message that a mediocre candidate is good enough for them.

Talk about a slap in the face to members who rallied against Clinton's policy and did the legwork and got out there and voiced their opinion against the ban... the ban Bush said he thought was good policy.

For crying out loud. What does it take for you to criticize a supporter of the most anti-gun measure to be enacted into law on the national scene ever?

hoffmang
11-17-2008, 2:48 PM
So the card outlines a possible future that might have been had all of Obama's past intentions been fully realized. It does not show what the Obama administration will actually attempt to do once they take office. I think this is intentionally misleading.

Are you seriously contending that a politician's actual voting record and statements on the record in support of actual proposals is less illustrative than vague "I support the 2A" statements? Show me where Obama has said anything pro-gun that wasn't forced upon him by SCOTUS. I can show you where he supports smartguns, background checks for all sales, and a permanent reinstatement of the AW ban.

I've been loudly saying we shouldn't panic, but I think your position that he's not a risk is outlandish and wish fulfillment to support an internal inconsistency in supporting him when he's likely to infringe your firearms rights if given the opportunity.

-Gene

CoinStar
11-17-2008, 2:49 PM
Ok, so your central core of the issue here seems to be that they switched their tune on McCain. Well, I don't recall the NRA ever saying that McCain was their dream candidate or that he's who they've always wanted. I distinctly recall the American Rifleman interview with McCain, where they did touch on how he was voting anti-NRA for a number of years.

Wind the clock back past the primaries and into the last decade. The NRA relentlessly bashed McCain for his campaign finance reform bill (aka McCain/Feingold).

That's what I'm talking about.

CoinStar
11-17-2008, 2:53 PM
I can show you where he [Obama] supports smartguns, background checks for all sales, and a permanent reinstatement of the AW ban.


Aaaah. That's just "lip service". He doesn't really support those things.

(sound familiar?)

grammaton76
11-17-2008, 2:56 PM
Wind the clock back past the primaries and into the last decade. The NRA relentlessly bashed McCain for his campaign finance reform bill (aka McCain/Feingold).

That's what I'm talking about.

I believe the years I'm talking about from the article are 1993-1996.

And campaign finance reform is a very bad thing from our perspective, but it's not a direct second amendment issue.

Just because he pushed for an indirect thing which would've affected the NRA, doesn't mean that his gun rights voting record is affected by it.

Sarkoon
11-17-2008, 3:00 PM
Are you seriously contending that a politician's actual voting record and statements on the record in support of actual proposals is less illustrative than vague "I support the 2A" statements? Show me where Obama has said anything pro-gun that wasn't forced upon him by SCOTUS. I can show you where he supports smartguns, background checks for all sales, and a permanent reinstatement of the AW ban.

I've been loudly saying we shouldn't panic, but I think your position that he's not a risk is outlandish and wish fulfillment to support an internal inconsistency in supporting him when he's likely to infringe your firearms rights if given the opportunity.

-Gene

I completely agree with you that everything Obama has said and done has shown him to be anti-gun - and I realize that he does support ballistic fingerprinting, an assault-weapons ban, and other violations of our 2A rights. We're on the same side here.

However, that doesn't mean that everything printed on that NRA card is going to come true the moment he takes office, or even at any point during his presidency. In fact if I were a gambling man I would wager that no more than 2 of those 10 statements on that card will actually become fact during his presidency.

And yes I know 2 of those things coming true is 2 more than we want. But what we want isn't what I'm talking about here. It's that the NRA has misled it's members into believing that all 10 of those things would become fact if Obama was elected. And I don't think they will.

CoinStar
11-17-2008, 3:05 PM
And campaign finance reform is a very bad thing from our perspective, but it's not a direct second amendment issue.

Just because he pushed for an indirect thing which would've affected the NRA, doesn't mean that his gun rights voting record is affected by it.

The NRA's criticisms of McCain/Feingold aren't the issue. They were and are legitimate. That isn't the point though.

They spent years portraying McCain as the boogeyman over that issue and then, according to some, had to endorse him for the Presidency. This embarassing backpedal wasn't overlooked by our detractors.

CoinStar
11-17-2008, 3:10 PM
However, that doesn't mean that everything printed on that NRA card is going to come true the moment he takes office, or even at any point during his presidency.

It sounds as if you're taking issue with the typical rhetoric that the NRA employs to stir its members. I agree with you that it's oftentimes misleading and hyped beyond realisitc levels. That's sort of standard procedure in their sales pitch and yet another area I'd like to see fixed in the organization.

As it is now, we end up looking like reactionary kooks whenever this stuff surfaces outside of our circle. "Normal" people (non gun-nuts) see it that way and it reflects poorly on us a group when they do.

mcubed4130
11-17-2008, 3:26 PM
I completely agree with you that everything Obama has said and done has shown him to be anti-gun - and I realize that he does support ballistic fingerprinting, an assault-weapons ban, and other violations of our 2A rights. We're on the same side here.

However, that doesn't mean that everything printed on that NRA card is going to come true the moment he takes office, or even at any point during his presidency. In fact if I were a gambling man I would wager that no more than 2 of those 10 statements on that card will actually become fact during his presidency.

And yes I know 2 of those things coming true is 2 more than we want. But what we want isn't what I'm talking about here. It's that the NRA has misled it's members into believing that all 10 of those things would become fact if Obama was elected. And I don't think they will.

:rofl2:

So... you would have been happy if the NRA card said... 2 or more of these 10 things are rather likely to happen... so... uhhmmm do something about it - other than vote for Obama? hahahahahahahahahahahah

:rofl2:

-M3

Sarkoon
11-17-2008, 3:41 PM
:rofl2:

So... you would have been happy if the NRA card said... 2 or more of these 10 things are rather likely to happen... so... uhhmmm do something about it - other than vote for Obama? hahahahahahahahahahahah

:rofl2:

-M3

My problem is with the NRA's wild speculation being written as fact. Obama does not have a "ten point plan to change the second amendment" - and the NRA has worded the ten points in a way that implies that these are things that would happen if Obama got elected. However if they wrote their points like Oddball's list (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=1704092&postcount=187) then I wouldn't have any problem at all because those are historically accurate events.

M. Sage
11-17-2008, 4:48 PM
Oh, geez. Someone uses some hyperbole and people get their panties in a twist.

True or false: those are ten things that we have evidence of Obama supporting.

Glock22Fan
11-17-2008, 6:15 PM
My problem is with the NRA's wild speculation being written as fact. Obama does not have a "ten point plan to change the second amendment" - and the NRA has worded the ten points in a way that implies that these are things that would happen if Obama got elected.

This is clearly Obama's agenda. Whether he intends to do all of them by the end of January, or whether he plans to work his way steadily through the list and whether he expects to finish the list or not is immaterial.

THIS MAN IS NOT OUR FRIEND (AND NEVER HAS BEEN)!

and that's what the NRA was saying.

CCWFacts
11-17-2008, 6:58 PM
Aaaah. That's just "lip service". He doesn't really support those things.

(sound familiar?)

CoinStar, this is nuts. Obama was on the Board of Directors of the Joyce Foundation. The Joyce Foundation is / was the mothership of gun control in this country, and internationally. They are the financial and also leadership core of the world-wide gun control effort. And that's not just a sideline for them; that's their main gig. If the Joyce Foundation didn't exist, there wouldn't even be talk of AWBs, 50 cal bans, etc. The Joyce Foundation is the force behind all that, the money behind the Brady Campaign, the leadership behind every gun control effort we have.

And Obama was in a leadership position on it.

McCain was endorsed by the NRA, and has a solid pro-gun-rights record. The one little place where he deviates from the NRA party line on gun issues is with BG checks at gun shows. And you know what, he's right and the NRA is wrong on that. NICS is only effective at stopping prohibited persons from shopping for guns if there aren't trivial ways to bypass it, and allowing unpapered P2P transactions at gun shows is a great way to bypass it.

But that's just one little issue. We may disagree but we should agree that it's a small issue.

Compare that to someone who had a leadership position within the Joyce Foundation.

Whenever Obama talks about gun rights, it's always in the context of hunting and fishing. The former has only tangential connection to gun issues, and the later, no connection at all. And his running mate based Obama's pro-gun credentials on the fact that he's not going to ban over-under shotguns.

To claim that Obama and McCain are even on the same planet for gun issues is wrong wrong wrong. Obama will be the most anti-gun-rights president we've ever had, and he will appoint a whole lot of judges who feel the same way he does.

movie zombie
11-17-2008, 7:08 PM
I think you need to make a sign that reads " If you are not with the NRA, GOA, or SAF - Then you are helping B-HO, Biden, and Uncle Teddy" So Join the Fight for Freedom.

How is that for conviction?:D


"

and its exactly that kind of lingo that keeps me from joining. that and the fact that not a single person at a gun show has asked me. perhaps its time to start asking those that aren't male to join. i'm seeing more people like me....female....at gun shows. if you want me to join, ask and shut up with the above type of talk. its one thing to ask me to join the NRA and another to talk smack in an attempt to get me to do so. isn't going to work. and don't start in with that you can't be liberal and support the 2nd amendment or whatever. keep that talk up and i'll keep my $ but continue to send letters and call elected officials.


movie zombie

grammaton76
11-17-2008, 7:11 PM
McCain was endorsed by the NRA, and has a solid pro-gun-rights record. The one little place where he deviates from the NRA party line on gun issues is with BG checks at gun shows. And you know what, he's right and the NRA is wrong on that. NICS is only effective at stopping prohibited persons from shopping for guns if there aren't trivial ways to bypass it, and allowing unpapered P2P transactions at gun shows is a great way to bypass it.

Actually, if you're against unpapered P2P gun show transactions, then you must be against all unpapered P2P transactions, as gun shows are merely a subset.

I guarantee that more unpapered sales occur where it's legal between individuals outside of gun shows, than at gun shows.

There's no "gun show loophole" that magically happens at shows. There are however a number of paperless transfer routes (including in CA, for long guns over 50 years old) which the anti's would like to pursue by CALLING them "a gun show loophole".

M. Sage
11-17-2008, 7:31 PM
Actually, if you're against unpapered P2P gun show transactions, then you must be against all unpapered P2P transactions, as gun shows are merely a subset.

I guarantee that more unpapered sales occur where it's legal between individuals outside of gun shows, than at gun shows.

There's no "gun show loophole" that magically happens at shows. There are however a number of paperless transfer routes (including in CA, for long guns over 50 years old) which the anti's would like to pursue by CALLING them "a gun show loophole".

And another thing: how many cops are at gun shows; in and out of uniform, on and off the clock? How much of the gun show crowd - vendors and customers - are into guns for personal/home defense against criminals? Do you think that thugs off the street are just going to wander into a gun show? Something tells me they'd stick out like a sore thumb, and be as jumpy as a whore in church.

One of the things I really miss about not living here is unpapered transfers. They were mah-velous. I'll fight tooth and nail to keep as many paperless transfers alive as possible.

One of the things that guarantee liberty in the 2A is not knowing exactly who's armed with what.

Also, FBI statistics show gun shows as being an insignificant source of crime guns. Gun show loophole? Doesn't exist, and not worth even worrying about.

CCWFacts
11-17-2008, 7:35 PM
Actually, if you're against unpapered P2P gun show transactions, then you must be against all unpapered P2P transactions, as gun shows are merely a subset.

You are correct. The point is, it's not logical to have a big strong lock on the front door if the back door is left open. That's kinda the situation with paperless transactions right now, whether it's at a gun show or not. It's not consistent.

I realize that the sources of guns for criminals are mainly stolen guns, straw man purchases, and (in some cases) rogue dealers. I wonder how often they do get guns in unpapered P2P transactions though.

To go back to the original point: I'm not trying to say, "we should ban all unpapered transactions". I'm only saying that McCain's position on that was reasonable, even if you don't agree with it.

yellowfin
11-17-2008, 9:22 PM
Given that Joyce is the nexus of all things anti gun, why is there no effort at all to bring it down?

hoffmang
11-17-2008, 9:32 PM
Given that Joyce is the nexus of all things anti gun, why is there no effort at all to bring it down?

Your making an assumption that there is not.

-Gene

CCWFacts
11-17-2008, 9:46 PM
Can someone actually verify that statement? I hear it repeated all the time, so I went a little bit and looked. All I can find is that the Joyce foundation has spent a few million $ on gun control, with a sizeable chunk of that going into epidemiological-style studies. A few million $ doesn't even begin to cover the operating budget of the Brady organization for a year, not to mention all the over things you describe.

Actually, the Brady Campaign is pretty small. I think they are a non-profit so their operating budget is published and it's in the low-millions per year. It would be worthwhile to check the numbers, but I think the Joyce Foundation and maybe some donors like Soros make up the bulk of it.

Before we rely too much on the association between Obama and Joyce Foundation, we should actually verify that the Joyce foundation is any more than a bit player in the anti-gun field.

It's not a bit player, it's the mothership.

They have assets of about $900mil and give out about $50mil / year (according to their site, that was their outlay in '06, which must be a typical number), which is more than the entire anti-gun-rights movement spends.

CCWFacts
11-17-2008, 9:46 PM
Your making an assumption that there is not.

What could possibly be done about them? They're a private foundation, right?

yellowfin
11-17-2008, 10:12 PM
If I take a shot at a deer, you hear a boom (unless I'm using my bow, of course ). If someone's taking a shot at an elephant, it's a louder boom. Either way there's at least either a boom or a crash to the ground to be heard, or at least a grunt or snort from a hit or getting stirred by a near miss. Unless we're feigning helplessness to conceal impending quiet victory, I don't see much to tell me we're taking effective measure to eradicate Joyce if we're this afraid of what they can do. There had better be one heck of a sneak attack that'll work fast enough. Your making an assumption that there is not.

-Gene

Sarkoon
11-17-2008, 10:41 PM
Oh, geez. Someone uses some hyperbole and people get their panties in a twist.

True or false: those are ten things that we have evidence of Obama supporting.


False.

Those are ten things that might have occurred as indirect consequences of Obama's actions if he was given a magic wand. The majority of them, if not all of them, will not come true at any point during Obama's presidency.

Dr. Peter Venkman
11-17-2008, 10:44 PM
The majority of them, if not all of them, will not come true at any point during Obama's presidency.

Would you be willing to risk such a chance?

CCWFacts
11-17-2008, 10:49 PM
Wow. The NRA must have an annual budget of at least $140M (take about 4 million members x $35 each); the real number is likely much higher.

The NRA stomps the Brady Campaign in spending.

The bulk of the grants seem to go into environment, culture, education, and such. I just counted it up: They have a staff of 27 people (that in and of itself will consume about $5M per year); of their 14 program officer and program staff, only 2 work on gun issues.

It would be really hard to know exactly how their money gets spent. Even with only 2 staffers, gun funding could be quite out of proportion with that. I'm just guessing; I don't know what their figures are or how to find out.

I would be amazed if gun stuff is more than a third of their grants. Which means that the total funding from the "mothership" is maybe $15M per year, probably much lower.

That sounds like a reasonable guess, but that's plenty for a small group like the Brady Campaign.

Would it be cynical to ask the following question: How come the anti-gun people get such fabulous political results (enough to have gun people quaking in their boots), for such a small investment in lobbying and campaigning $$$ ? What are we doing wrong ???

That's not a cynical question. It's a good question.

The answer is that the Brady Campaign is a lot better at getting celebrity endorsements, and the NRA is stuck with the image of being composed of uneducated rural people, which decreases its relative potency. The intellectual decision-making centers of this country are coastal cities, whose inhabitants look down on uneducated rural people. They regard such people as bitter, clinging to guns and religion, yadda yadda yadda.

Despite its vastly higher funding and membership, the NRA is hampered by this perception. I wish the NRA would do something to change the perception.

Sarkoon
11-17-2008, 10:53 PM
Would you be willing to risk such a chance?

If there's even the slightest threat of any of these points actually happening, I will join my fellow calgunners and fight against them with all the power I have.

But I have reason to be hopeful that these things will not happen.

Stealing a quote from Hoffmang:

The Good News:

We're winning - Since November 2004:
1. So called assault weapons can be bought sold and built in California with minor revisions.
2. There is no Federal AW ban.
3. Heller means the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
4. The 2A will be incorporated against the states within the next 6 months.
5. Calguns exists and is a major force in the gun rights movement in California and to a surprising extent in the nation.
6. Redistricting passed in California
7. Winning momentum leads to more wins.

nick
11-17-2008, 10:57 PM
Wow. The NRA must have an annual budget of at least $140M (take about 4 million members x $35 each); the real number is likely much higher.


The bulk of the grants seem to go into environment, culture, education, and such. I just counted it up: They have a staff of 27 people (that in and of itself will consume about $5M per year); of their 14 program officer and program staff, only 2 work on gun issues. I would be amazed if gun stuff is more than a third of their grants. Which means that the total funding from the "mothership" is maybe $15M per year, probably much lower.

Would it be cynical to ask the following question: How come the anti-gun people get such fabulous political results (enough to have gun people quaking in their boots), for such a small investment in lobbying and campaigning $$$ ? What are we doing wrong ???

There's more to it. You've noted, for instance, that some of their money goes into education, culture, environment, government, etc. It mostly supports various non-profits, which in turn support more non-profits, etc. So you have money invested in education (ever noticed how many anti-gun people are in it? These are the people raising the future generations. Kinda explains the rise of liberalism and the drop in quality of education in schools), various non-profits, i.e. supporting a bunch of people with liberal ideas and plenty of time (and who are generally easy to excite about pretty much anything, given the culture they're a part of). A lot of those are also supported by and have ties to the government. So basically you have a vast and well enough organized network of people run on a shoestring budget (and quite often using your tax money). That's not mentioning the people such projects attract who aren't paid by these projects. SO when they need to raise the stink, they have plenty of time, resources, and people to do so. Don't look at the comparative spending, look at what that spending can buy. Think of it this way - how much $20 million can buy you in China or Africa compared to what it can buy you in, say, Norway (which is hell as expensive to live in)?

All the while, the rest, like you, me, or whatever millions of gun owners are generally busy working, doing other things, and occasionally *****ing on gun forums (well, some of us do it, most don't even go to such forums). So it's a small wonder NRA only has something like 4 million members.

It takes something really bad to stir the pot among us, and if that something happens, it means things have gone far enough already; whereas the opposing side lives in a constant state of revolution.

So, unless we fight smart or do something quite radical, we're bound to lose, as complacency generally loses to activism.

nick
11-17-2008, 11:09 PM
Wow. The NRA must have an annual budget of at least $140M (take about 4 million members x $35 each); the real number is likely much higher.

Don't forget discount memberships and life members. Hopefully, they're counterbalanced by donations.

csmintel
11-17-2008, 11:14 PM
Wow. The NRA must have an annual budget of at least $140M (take about 4 million members x $35 each); the real number is likely much higher.


The bulk of the grants seem to go into environment, culture, education, and such. I just counted it up: They have a staff of 27 people (that in and of itself will consume about $5M per year); of their 14 program officer and program staff, only 2 work on gun issues. I would be amazed if gun stuff is more than a third of their grants. Which means that the total funding from the "mothership" is maybe $15M per year, probably much lower.

Would it be cynical to ask the following question: How come the anti-gun people get such fabulous political results (enough to have gun people quaking in their boots), for such a small investment in lobbying and campaigning $$$ ? What are we doing wrong ???

good question but should be adressed to NRA cats. what are they doing with our money.period.

Anthonysmanifesto
11-17-2008, 11:21 PM
good question but should be adressed to NRA cats. what are they doing with our money.period.

I believe The budget is available upon request

yellowfin
11-17-2008, 11:25 PM
What could possibly be done about them? They're a private foundation, right?
Lots.

1. Buyout businesses that contribute to them via hostile takeover.

2. Make the public aware of just how bad they are. While the majority of people are neutral on gun issues, few would approve of what Joyce does if they knew.

3. Tabloid their members. Yes, I know, we'd rather not play that card, but this is for keeps so the gloves need to come off. The soon to be president should have had his dirt dug up a decade ago and made unelectable to the point of complete societal rejection long before getting where he is now. We are about to pay bigtime because we apparently played nice guy. Dunno about you, but that's just not acceptable to me anymore.

4. Have the IRS after the org and all its members like flies on stink bait. All that money we complain about them having, well, Uncle Sam probably wants some more of it.

5. There are states where what they do is technically illegal by proxy. New Hampshire and Pennsylvania, and I wouldn't doubt there are others, make it a punishable offense for elected officials to pursue actions that Joyce advocate. Squeeze the pols that do so-- as in actually enforce the law to its letter and put them in jail or heavily fine them. And what's it called when you participate in someone else's crime? Complicity. Well, add up all those instances and intent to attempt that and you've got a Rico case from hell, punishable by something to the tune of millennia in jail.

oddball
11-18-2008, 6:47 PM
If there's even the slightest threat of any of these points actually happening, I will join my fellow calgunners and fight against them with all the power I have.

Wow. Hurray. I'm sure we'll wait.

CoinStar
11-18-2008, 7:34 PM
CoinStar, this is nuts.

The comment was mostly facetious. I'm guessing you haven't been following the whole thread.

To claim that Obama and McCain are even on the same planet for gun issues is wrong wrong wrong. Obama will be the most anti-gun-rights president we've ever had, and he will appoint a whole lot of judges who feel the same way he does.

And if I were actually claiming anywhere that Obama and McCain were on the same planet regarding the RKBA, you would be well within your right to call me wrong, wrong, wrong... but I haven't even hinted at that.

What you're doing is the same thing Mr. Hoffman did: talk right past what I wrote while seeing (looking for?) something that isn't there in my statements. I won't belabor this point anymore, but Obama's potential judicial appointments, and more importantly, how they will rule on potential gun-related cases, are not facts that have been etched in stone tablets and handed to us by 'god' himself. All I said was that it's speculative and anyone's guess as to what that future holds.

M. Sage
11-18-2008, 9:31 PM
good question but should be adressed to NRA cats. what are they doing with our money.period.

"Our" money? Don't know about you, but I pay that money on a contractual basis. Since I hired the NRA to help me protect my freedom (this is what all NRA members do), that's now their money. The leadership of NRA are well-paid, as they should be. They handle a large organization with a lot of responsibility.

I'd be a fool to complain about how someone spends money that they've earned. ;)

CCWFacts
11-18-2008, 9:43 PM
The comment was mostly facetious.

Ah, sorry, didn't catch that.

I'm guessing you haven't been following the whole thread.

I thought I did but it's long and I may have missed some.

What you're doing is the same thing Mr. Hoffman did: talk right past what I wrote while seeing (looking for?) something that isn't there in my statements. I won't belabor this point anymore, but Obama's potential judicial appointments, and more importantly, how they will rule on potential gun-related cases, are not facts that have been etched in stone tablets and handed to us by 'god' himself. All I said was that it's speculative and anyone's guess as to what that future holds.

Ok, it's hard to argue over that. The reality will become clear soon enough.

anthonyca
11-18-2008, 9:45 PM
My good friend who has been a fence sitter for years signed up tonight on the NRA link I sent him.

slappomatt
11-18-2008, 9:57 PM
I joined for a while. couple years. the only time I heard from them was when they wanted money. which was about once a month. and I dont think we have won any battles here in CA for the 2nd. why fight a lost cause. get what you can while you can.

having vented a little I should probably still join again. just annoyed to be asked for money all the time and not see a single ounce of change....

bwiese
11-18-2008, 10:09 PM
I joined for a while. couple years. the only time I heard from them was when they wanted money. which was about once a month. and I dont think we have won any battles here in CA for the 2nd. why fight a lost cause. get what you can while you can.

having vented a little I should probably still join again. just annoyed to be asked for money all the time and not see a single ounce of change....

WHHAAAT?
AB2728 for AWs: no more listing, prospective reduced penalties.
AB2206 single shot pistol exemptions: we're building AR/AK pistols now.
"Katrina bill" stopping gun seizures in emergencies (in CA and under Fed law)
PLCAA: Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, stops gun mfgrs from being sued for idiocy and protect legal transactions from hassles. [This can restrict DOJ shenanigans.]
Heller: 2nd Amendment is an actual right; got massive political support (incl Vice President Cheney and zillions of AGs/DAs) to back Gura's team.
Nordyke: upcoming RKBA incorporation from whence the big fights spring :)

Plus we've STOPPED a ton of damaging crap (mail order ammo bills, rendered microstamping fairly moot, etc.)

oaklander
11-18-2008, 10:54 PM
Jeez - read what Bill said!

If it wasn't for the NRA (and their law firm here in the state, and their full-time lobbyist, and their members, and their California staff), we would have the SF hangun ban, ammo bans, no Cow Palace, and myriad other things.

Because of the NRA, we have AB2728, Nordyke, Heller, and all the other things Bill mentioned.

Your head must have been buried in sand for the last few years not to know all this.

I joined for a while. couple years. the only time I heard from them was when they wanted money. which was about once a month. and I dont think we have won any battles here in CA for the 2nd. why fight a lost cause. get what you can while you can.

having vented a little I should probably still join again. just annoyed to be asked for money all the time and not see a single ounce of change....

REDHORSE
11-18-2008, 11:02 PM
If you can't make it to a Gun Show to renew or Join the NRA.

Click this link. Shooting USA will pay $10 of the $35.

$25 to renew/join your NRA membership.

Clicking the NRA logo at the link provided, will take you to a special NRA membership page.

Shooting USA discounted NRA membership link. $25 (http://www.shootingusa.com/LATEST_UPDATES/NRA_news/NRA_Membership/nra_membership.html)

elSquid
11-19-2008, 12:36 AM
I joined for a while. couple years. the only time I heard from them was when they wanted money. which was about once a month. and I dont think we have won any battles here in CA for the 2nd. why fight a lost cause. get what you can while you can.

having vented a little I should probably still join again. just annoyed to be asked for money all the time and not see a single ounce of change....

As soon as Heller came out, the NRA had lawsuits ready and waiting to go.

I assume that as soon as Nordyke comes out, the NRA will again file challenges.

You know, if those NRA lawsuits help roll back CA's laws so that I have the same rights as folks living in normal states - and the NRA then did nothing else - I would consider my life membership to be money well spent.

Lucky for me the NRA does do more than that, and will do more than that.

-- Michael

X-NewYawker
11-19-2008, 12:45 AM
I guess you guys should know that all those Patriot act stuff that Bush never used against law abiding citizens can be used against the NRA if O's team names them as "domestic terrorists"

Just wait. There should be 50 million NRA members -- then we would have the clout that the UAW and the TEacher's Union and the TRial lawyers have

All we have is the NRA fighting for us.

FastFinger
11-19-2008, 11:56 PM
I guess you guys should know that all those Patriot act stuff that Bush never used against law abiding citizens can be used against the NRA if O's team names them as "domestic terrorists"

Just wait. There should be 50 million NRA members -- then we would have the clout that the UAW and the TEacher's Union and the TRial lawyers have

All we have is the NRA fighting for us.

That certainly is one of the main reason I finally signed up.

Is the NRA "Pure"? Of course not, it deals in politics, compromises are part of the landscape. But the more members the NRA has on its roster, the less it will need to compromise. Is that so difficult to understand?