PDA

View Full Version : Free NRA Trial Membership


Maton
04-19-2009, 8:07 PM
Don't know if this is a re-post or not. Just wanted to share with my fellow calgunners.

http://www.nrahq.org/nrabonus/

Deadred7o7
04-19-2009, 10:00 PM
Yeah...No Thanks I'd rather send my money to GOA than have a free NRA

http://forums.gunbroker.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=369557&whichpage=1

N6ATF
04-19-2009, 11:33 PM
:dupe: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=165872

bwiese
04-19-2009, 11:51 PM
Yeah...No Thanks I'd rather send my money to GOA than have a free NRA

http://forums.gunbroker.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=369557&whichpage=1


What has the GOA ever done except scream and jump up & down?

bwiese
04-19-2009, 11:52 PM
Yeah...No Thanks I'd rather send my money to GOA than have a free NRA

http://forums.gunbroker.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=369557&whichpage=1


What has the GOA ever done except scream and jump up & down?

NRA's hardworking folks have made some real forward progress - nationally and in CA.

Jamez
04-19-2009, 11:58 PM
If you're an NRA recruiter and someone you refer becomes a trial member, do you get the commission?

762cavalier
04-19-2009, 11:59 PM
Yeah...No Thanks I'd rather send my money to GOA than have a free NRA

http://forums.gunbroker.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=369557&whichpage=1

:rolleyes::rolleyes:

As Bill said, what has GOA ever done for you. I can point to a long list of things the NRA has done especially for us here in CA. Can't say the same thing for GOA. Maybe do a little research before spouting off.:thumbsup:

bwiese
04-20-2009, 12:01 AM
If you're an NRA recruiter and someone you refer becomes a trial member, do you get the commission?

I would hope anyone recruiting for NRA members would not be seeking a commission (and I don't think that structure exists, perhaps except for some commercial-tie-ins in the sporting goods industry).

7x57
04-20-2009, 6:28 AM
I would hope anyone recruiting for NRA members would not be seeking a commission (and I don't think that structure exists, perhaps except for some commercial-tie-ins in the sporting goods industry).

It exists for instructors at least.

7x57

Deadred7o7
04-20-2009, 8:05 AM
What has the GOA ever done except scream and jump up & down?

NRA's hardworking folks have made some real forward progress - nationally and in CA.


I'll tell you what the GOA hasn't done and that is comromise the 2A down to a sell of its true meaning.

Good old Wayne had a number of chances to hit home runs with the Gov.of PA and failed.
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4954851n

Most that sign up do not realize that they have been behind incredible amounts of compromise.

It is a money raising machine, and they should stick with marksmanship, and safety programs for young folks.
If that was the case, they most likely would still be getting my money.

762cavalier
04-20-2009, 8:54 PM
I'll tell you what the GOA hasn't done and that is comromise the 2A down to a sell of its true meaning.

And where has that got them?
What have they accomplished with that stance?
How much does anyone actually listen to them?

And again. What have they done?:shrug:

1BigPea
04-20-2009, 9:01 PM
I'll tell you what the GOA hasn't done and that is comromise the 2A down to a sell of its true meaning.

Good old Wayne had a number of chances to hit home runs with the Gov.of PA and failed.
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4954851n

Most that sign up do not realize that they have been behind incredible amounts of compromise.

It is a money raising machine, and they should stick with marksmanship, and safety programs for young folks.
If that was the case, they most likely would still be getting my money.


Indeed it is...and it should stay that way.

N6ATF
04-20-2009, 9:24 PM
Great, another fracking dupe about some NRA something or other where it degenerates into how useful or useless the NRA is.

http://img63.imageshack.us/img63/5739/ibtl27bf23xd0.jpg

Deadred7o7
04-20-2009, 10:57 PM
BEGIN TEXT OF PAGES 22 AND 23 OF NRA'S AMERICAN RIFLEMAN MAGAZINE, MARCH 1968 EDITION
###

WHERE THE NRA STANDS ON GUN LEGISLATION
97-year record shows positive approach to workable gun laws

By ALAN C. WEBBER
Associate Editor
THE AMERICAN RIFLEMAN

"I think it is a terrible indictment of the National Rifle Association that they haven't supported any legislation to try and control the misuse of rifles and pistols in this country."

"The NRA supported The National Firearms Act of 1934 which taxes and requires registration of such firearms as machine guns, sawed-off rifles and sawed-off shotguns..."
—American Rifleman
March 1968, P. 22


That flat assertion was made by Senator Robert Kennedy (N.Y.), Jan. 16 in addressing the New York State University law school in Buffalo.

Terming Kennedy's accusation "a smear of a great American organization," NRA Executive Vice President Franklin L. Orth pointed out that "The National Rifle Association has been in support of workable, enforceable gun control legislation since its very inception in 1871."

A few days later, Orth seconded the request of President Lyndon Johnson, made Jan. 17 in his State of the Union message, for a curb on mail-order sales.

"The duty of Congress is clear," Orth said, "it should act now to pass legislation that will keep undesirables, including criminals, drug addicts and persons adjudged mentally irresponsible or alcoholic, or juveniles from obtaining firearms through the mails."

"The NRA supported The Federal Firearms Act of 1938, which regulates interstate and foreign commerce in firearms and pistol or revolver ammunition..."
—American Rifleman
March 1968, P. 22


The NRA position, as stated by Orth, emphasizes that the NRA has consistently supported gun legislation which it feels would penalize misuse of guns without harassing law-abiding hunters, target shooters and collectors.

Here is the record over the years:

Item: The late Karl T. Frederick, an NRA president, served for years as special consultant with the Commissioners on Uniform State Laws to frame The Uniform Firearms Act of 1930.

Adopted by Alabama, Indiana, the District of Columbia, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, and Washington, the Act directly attacks the "mail order murder" to which President Johnson referred in his State of the Union Message. It specifically forbids delivery of pistols to convicts, drug addicts, habitual drunkards, incompetents, and minors under the age of 18. Other salient provisions of the Act require a license to carry a pistol concealed on one's person or in a vehicle; require the purchaser of a pistol to give information about himself which is submitted by the seller to local police authorities; specify a 48-hour time lapse between application for purchase and delivery.

Item: The NRA supported The National Firearms Act of 1934 which taxes and requires registration of such firearms as machine guns, sawed-off rifles and sawed-off shotguns.

Item: The NRA supported The Federal Firearms Act of 1938, which regulates interstate and foreign commerce in firearms and pistol or revolver ammunition, and prohibits the movement in interstate or foreign commerce of firearms and ammunition between certain persons and under certain conditions.

"NRA supported the original 'Dodd Bill' to amend the Federal Firearms Act..."

—American Rifleman
March 1968, P. 22


More recently, the spate of articles on gun legislation has spread the erroneous impression that the NRA has always opposed Senator Thomas J. Dodd's attempts to keep guns out of the hands of juveniles. This is simply untrue. The facts are these:

The NRA worked closely with the Senate Subcommittee on Juvenile Delinquency, of which Senator Dodd was chairman, in its investigation into the relationship between juvenile crime and the availability of firearms.

The NRA supported the original "Dodd Bill" to amend the Federal Firearms Act in regard to handguns when it was introduced as S.1975 in August, 1963. Among its provisions was the requirement that a purchaser submit a notarized statement to the shipper that he was over 18 and not legally disqualified from possessing a handgun.

In January, 1965, with the continued support of the NRA, Senator Dodd introduced an amended version of his first bill, now designated 5.14 and expanded to cover rifles and shotguns as well as handguns.

"Senator Kennedy's 'terrible indictment' of the NRA is groundless."
—American Rifleman
March 1968, P. 23


The parting of the ways came only when Senator Dodd introduced still another bill (S.1592) in March, 1965, which drastically intensified his earlier bills. The NRA opposed S.1592 and subsequent bills introduced by the Connecticut Senator. If passed into law, S.1592 would, among other things, have ended all interstate shipments of firearms except to persons holding a Federal firearms license. It also would have prohibited even a Federal licensee from selling a pistol to anyone residing in another State.

NRA support of Federal gun legislation did not stop with the earlier Dodd bills. It currently backs several Senate and House bills which, through amendment, would put new teeth into the National and Federal Firearms Acts. The essential provisions which the NRA supports are contained in 2 Senate bills introduced by Senator Roman L. Hruska (Nebr.) and House bills introduced by Congressmen Cecil R. King (17th fist.-Calif.) and Robert L. F. Sikes (1st Dist.Fla.). These bills would:

1. Impose a mandatory penalty for the carrying or use of a firearm, transported in interstate or foreign commerce, during the commission of certain crimes.

2. Place "destructive devices" (bombs, mines, grenades, crew-served military ordnance) under Federal regulation.

3. Prohibit any licensed manufacturer or dealer from shipping any firearm to any person in any State in violation of the laws of that state.

4. Regulate the movement of handguns in interstate and foreign commerce by:

a. requiring a sworn statement, containing certain information, from the

CONTINUED ON PAGE 23 (text below)
THE AMERICAN RIFLEMAN
(March 1968)

purchaser to the seller for the receipt of a handgun in interstate commerce;

b. providing for notification of local police of prospective sales;

c. requiring an additional 7-day waiting period by the seller after receipt of acknowledgement of notification to local police;

d. prescribing a minimum age of 21 for obtaining a license to sell firearms and increasing the license fees;

e. providing for written notification by manufacturer or dealer to carrier that a firearm is being shipped in interstate commerce;

f. increasing penalties for violation.

Through bulletins to its members, the NRA has often voiced approval and support of State and local ordinances designed to keep firearms out of the hands of undesirables. A bulletin of Feb. 20, 1964 notified Virginia members of the introduction in the Virginia House of Delegates of a bill requiring a 72-hour waiting period for purchase of a handgun. In the bulletin, which outlined the provisions of the bill, NRA Secretary Frank C. Daniel commented as follows:

"A number of States and local jurisdictions have a waiting period of varying length for the purchase of a concealable firearm; and, where intelligently and reasonably administered, it has not proved to be an undue burden on the shooter and sportsman. ... The bill from a technical point of view adequately protects citizens of good character from any arbitrary denial of their right to purchase a handgun. It should be judged on the basis of whether or not a waiting period for the purchase of a handgun is desirable for the State."

The bill was killed in the House Feb. 25, 1964.

When bills were introduced in the Illinois legislature in February, 1965, to provide mandatory penalties for crimes committed while armed with a firearm, the NRA expressed its opinion to Illinois members in these terms:

NRA Secretary Daniel

"The purpose of these bills is to penalize the criminal misuse of firearms and weapons, and not the firearms themselves. This is a sound and reasonable basis for regulation and is aimed in the right direction--that of criminal conduct when armed. Senate Bill No. 351 and House Bill No. 472 are worthy of the support of the sports-men of the State of Illinois."

The bills were passed by the Senate and House but were vetoed by Gov. Otto Kerner a few months later.

Many other instances of NRA support for worthwhile gun legislation could be quoted. But these suffice to show that Senator Kennedy's "terrible indictment" of the NRA is groundless.

###

END TEXT OF PAGES 22 AND 23 OF NRA'S
AMERICAN RIFLEMAN MAGAZINE, MARCH 1968 EDITION


A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed??????

762cavalier
04-21-2009, 6:36 AM
Thats the problem with you canary a**es, You dance around the question without answering it.
That just tells us why you are unhappy with NRA. We get it, Get over it.

Now answer the question that has been repeatedly asked

What has ANY other gun rights org done to help other than beat their collective chests screaming "look what NRA did"?

I am looking for a reason to support other gun groups, not blindly following the NRA mantra.

TripleT
04-21-2009, 7:06 AM
Irrespective of what any of these groups have accomplished, at this point in time, support as many groups as you want or can afford but everyone has to be an NRA member or it's like voting for Ron Paul. Nice gesture but it is a waste of a vote. If GOA or SFA or RKBA or whoever had any shot at having the kind of numbers that NRA has then they would be a contender as the leader of the fight.

The only thing the legislators look at is the math. Who has the members that could make me lose my job in a close election. If I don't want my lazy *** kicked to the curb, I'd better listen to them. That group, hands down, like it or not, is the NRA.

Save the symbolism and the rhetoric. If you're a gun owner and your not an NRA member then your screwing up. IMHO :-)

Deadred7o7
04-21-2009, 8:01 AM
Lets just say as an example, your wife is a good mother to your kids and keeps a clean house. She does all the things she should, to be a good spouse, but you come home one day and find her in bed with another man.
Q: Is she still a good wife or do you think she is the best you can do so you'll just turn a blind eye to it??

sorensen440
04-21-2009, 8:27 AM
I would hope anyone recruiting for NRA members would not be seeking a commission (and I don't think that structure exists, perhaps except for some commercial-tie-ins in the sporting goods industry).
I believe there is a commission and also I believe thats why you can find people offering memberships at a discount (they dont take the commission)

http://www.nrahq.org/recruiters/become_an_nra_recruiter.asp

When you become an NRA Recruiter you become eligible to receive up to $10 for every new member you enroll.

TripleT
04-21-2009, 8:30 AM
so you'll just turn a blind eye to it??

I'm not saying turn a blind eye. I'm saying don't cut off your nose to spite your face.

In the mean time, tell the NRA what you don't like, what they need to change and how they have let you down. If and when there is another group that has the political horsepower to accomplish the difficult task of maintaining respect (and fear) with our representatives, quit the NRA. The fact is, we need every gun owner to put aside their perceived differences and help to win the battle by becoming a member. Numbers is all these people know.

762cavalier
04-21-2009, 5:11 PM
Lets just say as an example, your wife is a good mother to your kids and keeps a clean house. She does all the things she should, to be a good spouse, but you come home one day and find her in bed with another man.
Q: Is she still a good wife or do you think she is the best you can do so you'll just turn a blind eye to it??

That's the best you can do.:(

Strawman argument.:rolleyes:

How about giving reasons why I should join another group. I don't have money to give out to every group so I want to put my money where I will get good results.

Deadred7o7
04-21-2009, 9:39 PM
Posted over on GB by pickenup but it hit the nail I think at least it did for me.



As for the NRA, GOA, JPFO, SAF, or ANY other group. I am becoming more and more convinced that joining ANY of them, expecting them "TO FIGHT FOR YOUR RIGHTS" is an act in futility. YOU have to take responsibility for YOUR rights. Throwing money at any organization once a year, then saying to yourself that you have done your part, well, besides being a cop-out, those days are OVER. An explanation will be forthcoming.

While the NRA is obviously the "big dog" on the block, they have proven over and over, that they are MORE THAN WILLING to compromise our rights away. A little at a time, just like the government is willing to do. The other groups, while they (at times) strike "some" fear into our elected representatives, are too small to be very effective.

The indisputable fact is that the NRA has been around a very long time, with millions of members as support, its presence has not stopped anti-firearm legislation from being introduced, being passed, and becoming law. However (and this is more my point) since the proliferation of the internet, better/faster information and organization of second amendment supporters have caused the likes of Pelosi and Reid to say "we don't need more gun control". 65 Dems signed the letter saying that we don't need another AWB. Do they personally believe it? No. But it sure isn't the NRA that concerns them.

We are in an age, for once, where they can't slip legislation by us and get a vote in the house/senate without most of the community of firearm owners knowing about it in advance. Very little can be slipped by "in the dark of night" anymore. Where we hear about it from the NRA "after the fact" saying that is the best they could do.

We have a massive liberal majority in the House, Senate, and Executive office, with a track record for anti-firearm attitudes, but they shy away from anything anti-firearm. The NRA is unchanged, so ask yourself what is the difference? The difference is YOU.

Take for instance the latest AWB(s) that were proposed. Last year, under the Bush administration HR-1022 was introduced. That bill garnered 67 cosponsors. Yet still died in committee. This year HR-45 was introduced, and has YET to have ANY cosponsors. In a year when they have the majority. Hmmmm.... Maybe it is because there was such and outcry from YOU, the firearms owner.


To further explain my statement above. Joining ANY of these groups expecting them "TO FIGHT FOR YOUR RIGHTS" is IMHO throwing your money away. BUT.....joining them, so that they can "KEEP YOU INFORMED" is quite another matter. The email alerts they provide, on up to date pending legislation etc., is invaluable. Even if you are not a member, you can sign up for their email alerts. Then it is up to EACH OF US to contact our representatives.

The NRA is ONLY ONE voice. Same with the GOA, or any other group. WE (as in MILLIONS of us) have to make our voices heard. One voice is easy to ignore, MILLIONS are not dismissed quite so easily.

Xerxes
04-21-2009, 10:13 PM
:rolleyes::rolleyes:

As Bill said, what has GOA ever done for you. I can point to a long list of things the NRA has done especially for us here in CA. Can't say the same thing for GOA. Maybe do a little research before spouting off.:thumbsup:

Well you get in shape as they teach you to jump up and down repeatedly and say Wha.....Wha.....BOO HOO.....WHA....WHA...WHA....WHA......boo...ho...

That will definitely get you into shape if you do that for a couple hours every day!

Deadred7o7
04-21-2009, 11:18 PM
You get what you pay for.


http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm242/saundersonslc/NRA2004990-2.jpg

762cavalier
04-22-2009, 7:10 AM
So- by your logic I can do it all by myself?:confused:

I'm done

There are none so blind as those that will not see.

Deadred7o7
04-22-2009, 7:39 AM
If you define what they are doing as 'help', I'll pass. Since the 30's, the NRA has been undermining the RTKBA for monetary gain. FACT.

Manong0369
04-23-2009, 5:37 AM
A group will most likely be useful in getting those with power the attention to the cause. This may not change their vote, but it may make them think and that's better than nothing. I can't change the law by myself, but with a group such as GOA and the NRA being a collective voice will be heard. As a citizen new to this battle, I felt that my e-mails or phone calls have no hope of being heard, belonging to group with the same views makes me feel like I am doing something. It seems to me that those with money makes the calls, so why not put your money in the pot that has the same agenda as yours. Just don't put others down if they choose the NRA over the GOA. If I could afford it, I would join every pro gun group out there but I choose the NRA because that was the first thing I thought of while looking for a group to join. They can have my money because I like their views. As the saying goes, "opinions are like a##holes, everybody has one and they stink" or something of that nature.

Mazilla
04-23-2009, 6:28 AM
you could always mail in the pre made post cards and whatnot the NRA sends, I do. It's better than relying on them to do all the work, and you know your al least doing something by the amount of stamps you are using. :)