What do you think of the NRA? Are you a member?

[TonyNorCal]

.............

[Sundowner]

Voted second option. Only real game in town but sometimes I think we would all be better off if Wayne LaPierre fell into a dark hole and never came back. This latest campaign to prevent mayors or other bureaucrats from confiscating guns in emergency situations is a case in point: good idea but they way those NRA boneheads approached it they left themselves open to charges of attacking police (which is exactly what Chucky Shumer was preaching to the press yesterday). LaPierre is getting rich off NRA contributions but really is a schmuck! We need new and better leadership at the headquarters level. (Rant off) :)

[shopkeep]

When it comes to California the NRA is just like the Federal government. They get a significant amount of their funding from us and give us back very little in return. And just like the Feds, they're the only game in town.

[PLINK]

Attn: NRA

Quit asking me for more money. You are wasting money by sending letters asking for money. I have renewed up til 2011. Is that not good enough? I do like the American Rifleman mag but could it be any more bias towards the sponsers who fill the ad pages (Ruger, S&W, Springfield, Kimber, etc.)

I think it is good that we have them but it only seems that they only fight the battles they think they can win. Some of which are very small. Which I guess is better than nothing. I would like to see where they stand on the OLL.

The poll left out:

Yes, I joined to get in the Gun show cheaper or for free.

[big jon]

i use to run a gun range shop in the 80s, i lost faith in the nra mostly because they werent doing anything but asking for money, you may rember prop15 in cal it was soundly defeted by some 65% if i rember right, yet our gun rights kept going down the toilet, i fear i will see the day when we have to surender our guns to the states we choose to live in,i think the nra would only be vital part of retaning our rights if hey had milions to hand out to the sob that we call leaders. i think either party is hungry for our guns and the only thing that satifies them is to eat away at our rights,i have no faith that the nra will do anything for gun owners,we will have to look after ourselfs as many of us become criminals for exercising our 2ed amendments rights.

[Mssr. Eleganté]

Attn: NRA

Quit asking me for more money. You are wasting money by sending letters asking for money.

PLINK, it won't do you any good posting on this forum that you want the NRA to stop asking you for more money. But if you call them on the phone and ask them to stop mailing you requests for more money then they will stop.

I was getting 2 or 3 mailings every week asking for money. And these were big thick glossy mailings with stickers and pins and stuff in them. So I called the number on the back of my NRA membership card and told the guy on the phone that I didn't want anymore mailings from the NRA except for the magazine. He said "Sure, no problem. A lot of people want to be put on the 'no mail' list."

And sure enough, within a month all of the mailings stopped. Now the NRA saves money and my recycling bin is a about a pound lighter each week.

Funny thing is, when I joined the Gun Owners of America they made a big deal about how they wouldn't keep pestering me for money like the NRA did. For the first couple of years they kept their word, and only sent a quarterly newsletter. But recently I've started getting junk mail from GOA asking for money.

[chris]

i left the NRA years ago. i joined the CRPA since they deal with CA issues. i may go back to the NRA if the DEMS get control of the house and senate, if that happens i think we are in big big trouble can you say AWB 2.0 with no sunset date.

[PLINK]

PLINK, it won't do you any good posting on this forum that you want the NRA to stop asking you for more money. But if you call them on the phone and ask them to stop mailing you requests for more money then they will stop.

I was getting 2 or 3 mailings every week asking for money. And these were big thick glossy mailings with stickers and pins and stuff in them. So I called the number on the back of my NRA membership card and told the guy on the phone that I didn't want anymore mailings from the NRA except for the magazine. He said "Sure, no problem. A lot of people want to be put on the 'no mail' list."

And sure enough, within a month all of the mailings stopped. Now the NRA saves money and my recycling bin is a about a pound lighter each week.

Funny thing is, when I joined the Gun Owners of America they made a big deal about how they wouldn't keep pestering me for money like the NRA did. For the first couple of years they kept their word, and only sent a quarterly newsletter. But recently I've started getting junk mail from GOA asking for money.

I knew they wouldn't see this but wanted to make a statement. I will give them a call on Monday. I thought the mail just came with the membership. I did get them to correct the mistake of sending two mags though.

[Rumpled]

There should be more options.
I'm a Life Member, but there are better RKBA groups.
The NRA just happens to be th 800lb gorilla that gets attention.

[CALI-gula]

I voted #2.

I am the NRA, CRPA, FCSA and was with GOA for a while but it seemed like they went nowhere - GOA talked big and loud, but seemed to have no powerful people. GOA was like a Ford Festiva with no muffler, and I was looking for a Dodge Viper with a poker face, to do more in CA. So CRPA gets more of my money beyond my dues, than any other RKBA organization.

I have always worked hard as an NRA member to stop Anti-2nd Amendment bills and ordinances, because I always thought of the NRA as no different than the White House - I would not ask George Bush and his staff to fix a pot-hole in front of my house. So I thought it best to leave the NRA to fight the Federal intrusions and Congressional breeches of our 2nd Amendment. However, California has more than shown it is "Ground Zero" of influences to ban guns in all of America. California is no longer a pot-hole; it is now showing its in a state of emergency, where a crater has formed, an imploding canyon, and the NRA had better get here right quick. I think it is clear to see that California's 2nd Amendment Rights are in a state of catastrophe of Katrina proportions.

I was very pleased to see the NRA-ILA notifications today concerned AB2714 specifically (or even CA to any degree for that matter - maybe my writing a complaint to them last week helped?) but I hate to see the NRA leave so much of the front-line to local heroes, and take the credit later. We really need the NRA to show it's national strength in the 4th largest state in the country, and help to devise a campaign to pull California gun owners together, in what is still, with all of our idiotic gun laws, the largest gun buying market in ALL of the United States, even surpassing Texas and Idaho!

The NRA had really dropped the ball with lack of showing their national might against AB50, and I think they regret being passive on that one. Only now are they fighting such mirrored bills in other states, and on a Federal level, with Diane Feinstein plodding one through Congress day and night (ironically, from CA). I hope the NRA now realizes the missed opportunity with AB50; if they had stopped it then, there would have been lesser number of copy-cats, and more money in the coffers to fight other legislation. For every bill the NRA is passive on in CA, it costs the NRA 10 times as much to fight copycats in the 10 other states that lean the way of California.

The NRA would do well to decapitate the head of the snake at its source, and keep an eye on the tail (NY) just in case its a two-head-ended snake. Haven't they been fighting the middle for way too long? The middle doesn't fight back, and while it presents an easy attack, with easy victory, you get bit in the rear for failing to address the real threat.

.

[Satex]

I am not an NRA member but considering it.

Pros: nice magazine, and “some” representation.

Cons: I haven’t seen them do anything significant in CA, even though I keep hearing about the “great representation they have here”. I haven’t seen them take a firm stance on the 50BMG ban, and we haven’t heard a single word from them about the off-list lower situation – why? Also, just like many organizations that started with good intent, I believe they have grown to a size that caused them to forget their original goal and it seems like their main objective is to sustain themselves. The same thing happened to AARP, even though AARP is a bit better in serving their membership. A few years ago NRA ran the intimidation campaigns every Saturday morning “join us or YOU WILL LOSE YOUR GUNS”. That was a total turnoff. If an organization has to run intimidation ads on TV – it demonstrates their depth – or lack of.

Yes, the con list is much longer than the pro list, but I am still considering “another chance”

[xenophobe]

There was no option for "I was a member, but gave it up because they didn't give a crap"... this was in 89 when the only reactive force attacking RR89 was the grassroots level 'buddy groups' who did signature gathering, letter mailings, etc... Everybody nationwide said "it'll never happen" and then did in California. NRA did the same thing with AB50. They failed to realize that it was not really an attack on the .50 BMG as much as the fact that an American state found a way to ban the bolt-action rifle....

A few things that stuck out to me that I wanted to trim for a BIG +1 on:

The NRA had really dropped the ball with lack of showing their national might against AB50, and I think they regret being passive on that one.

I hate to see the NRA leave so much of the front-line to local heroes, and take the credit later.

For every bill the NRA is passive on in CA, it costs the NRA 10 times as much to fight copycats in the 10 other states that lean the way of California.

The NRA would do well to decapitate the head of the snake at its source, and keep an eye on the tail (NY) just in case its a two-head-ended snake. Haven't they been fighting the middle for way too long? The middle doesn't fight back, and while it presents an easy attack, with easy victory, you get bit in the rear for failing to address the real threat.

[slamfire]

The NRA is only as strong as it's membership.They have to pick thier fights and spend funds where they do the most good.California often seems left out in the cold,but we have a left wing media,court, legislature,which makes it an uphill battle at best.In spite of this fact they are active in the state a recent example prop H in San Francisco.They fight here nationally and abroad internationally the UN.Every gun owner on this forum and in this country should join the NRA.Thanks for allowing me this rant.Life member and competitive shooter since 1980.

[Wild Bill]

The NRA is only as strong as it's membership.They have to pick thier fights and spend funds where they do the most good.California often seems left out in the cold,but we have a left wing media,court, legislature,which makes it an uphill battle at best.In spite of this fact they are active in the state a recent example prop H in San Francisco.They fight here nationally and abroad internationally the UN.Every gun owner on this forum and in this country should join the NRA.Thanks for allowing me this rant.Life member and competitive shooter since 1980.
I think slamefire said it best! I have been a NRA member since I was 16 and now I am well into my forties. With out them we would be alot worse off.:cool:

[Pthfndr]

They do make a difference. Maybe not as much as some would like to see. But even here in CA they contribute money to our lobbyists.

[UberPhLuBB]

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=33998

[SemiAutoSam]

http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j184/mag-lock/gad.gif

[cyberpuppy42]

I used to be a long-time member of the NRA, but I started strongly dis-agreeing with their hard-line and un-compromising positions on a lot of gun-rights issues. I firmly believe that they could attract more people to their side if they were willing to consider a more reasonable approach to gun ownership. I was especially disappointed in the hard-line approach to the waiting period since I consider that a fair compromise. The NRA's lack of being reasonable I think allows the other side to take advantage of the divisiveness on the issue, and to smear the NRA and, by default, all gun owners as gun-toting radicals instead of law-obiding citizens with rights.

[gman183]

I know that the NRA need money to support and fight for us. But I am sick of getting stuff in the mail asking for more money (In a round about way) every week. Just be straight with us and up the dues amount or somthing like that

[Mssr. Eleganté]

I know that the NRA need money to support and fight for us. But I am sick of getting stuff in the mail asking for more money (In a round about way) every week. Just be straight with us and up the dues amount or somthing like that

GMAN,

See post number six in this very thread and also check out this thread...

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=34381

[amd64]

The NRA is only as strong as it's membership...

+1 on this.

With ~ 70 million gun owners in the U.S., it's sad that the one organization hated most by gun banners has a dismal 4 million members. With dismal membership levels, the NRA (or any gun rights org) has less leverage to get into fights. They have to pick fights they have a possibility of winning, or it's just a waste of money.

The NRA typically operates on a Federal level. The state level orgs and affiliates (e.g. CRPA) do most all the state level fighting. CA is a lost cause now. We have left wing extremists running the state. CA needs to get more right and middle ground lawmakers installed first. Not enough CA gun owners vote, or they don't put gun rights at the top of their list when casting a ballot.

What if the gun rights orgs had a mere 20% (14 million) of gun owners as members? The only thing dirtbag grandstanding gun-grabbing platformless politicians consider is the # of votes behind a cause. We don’t have the numbers, simple as that.

Right now, the current NRA, CRPA, GOA, JFPO, LEAA members are shakily supporting rights for all other slacker gun owners. It's kinda like welfare… a bunch of whining freeloaders riding on the backs of others who fund the fight. The NRA isn’t perfect, but I judge them by the enemies they make and their actions at the Federal level. That's why I still maintain my membership with them and at least one state level org.

It's amusing to see some whiners buying vast amounts of mall-ninja (is there a gun under all those accessories) warrior toys they'll never use in combat, yet balk at putting in less than $50 a year to support ANY gun organization… all the little children, whining on a free forum because they can't call all the shots for their own personal agenda. Pathetic. Step back and try to understand the big picture.

Gun owners are their own worst enemy. The feminists, gays, illegal immigrants, and environmentalists are much more cohesive and take more risks when it comes to maintaining and gaining rights; gun owners need to take a few tips from them.

[thmpr]

+1 on this.

With ~ 70 million gun owners in the U.S., it's sad that the one organization hated most by gun banners has a dismal 4 million members. With dismal membership levels, the NRA (or any gun rights org) has less leverage to get into fights. They have to pick fights they have a possibility of winning, or it's just a waste of money.

The NRA typically operates on a Federal level. The state level orgs and affiliates (e.g. CRPA) do most all the state level fighting. CA is a lost cause now. We have left wing extremists running the state. CA needs to get more right and middle ground lawmakers installed first. Not enough CA gun owners vote, or they don't put gun rights at the top of their list when casting a ballot.

What if the gun rights orgs had a mere 20% (14 million) of gun owners as members? The only thing dirtbag grandstanding gun-grabbing platformless politicians consider is the # of votes behind a cause. We don’t have the numbers, simple as that.

Right now, the current NRA, CRPA, GOA, JFPO, LEAA members are shakily supporting rights for all other slacker gun owners. It's kinda like welfare… a bunch of whining freeloaders riding on the backs of others who fund the fight. The NRA isn’t perfect, but I judge them by the enemies they make and their actions at the Federal level. That's why I still maintain my membership with them and at least one state level org.

It's amusing to see some whiners buying vast amounts of mall-ninja (is there a gun under all those accessories) warrior toys they'll never use in combat, yet balk at putting in less than $50 a year to support ANY gun organization… all the little children, whining on a free forum because they can't call all the shots for their own personal agenda. Pathetic. Step back and try to understand the big picture.

Gun owners are their own worst enemy. The feminists, gays, illegal immigrants, and environmentalists are much more cohesive and take more risks when it comes to maintaining and gaining rights; gun owners need to take a few tips from them.

+1 Life member here for both NRA, CRPA and GOA. Decided to stop whining and support the orgs that will at least have a fighting chance to support our rights. Also, every gun owner should be a registered voter.
So before anyone start bashing the NRA, CRPA and any other organizations, we should look in the mirror and ask your self "what have i done lately to support the cause?" I will leave it as that. :)

[CALI-gula]

+1 on this...

...Right now, the current NRA, CRPA, GOA, JFPO, LEAA members are shakily supporting rights for all other slacker gun owners. It's kinda like welfare… a bunch of whining freeloaders riding on the backs of others who fund the fight. The NRA isn’t perfect, but I judge them by the enemies they make and their actions at the Federal level. That's why I still maintain my membership with them and at least one state level org.

It's amusing to see some whiners buying vast amounts of mall-ninja (is there a gun under all those accessories) warrior toys they'll never use in combat, yet balk at putting in less than $50 a year to support ANY gun organization… all the little children, whining on a free forum because they can't call all the shots for their own personal agenda. Pathetic. Step back and try to understand the big picture.

Gun owners are their own worst enemy. The feminists, gays, illegal immigrants, and environmentalists are much more cohesive and take more risks when it comes to maintaining and gaining rights; gun owners need to take a few tips from them.

I agree with everything you say here, and know that these are the same excuses the NRA often drags out of their spin-bag when they need to wax on losses to its members, because they failed to address the problem. Yet, I considered this whole thread to essentially EXCLUDE those who were NOT active NRA members, and did not think anyone of that impotence would actually make a peep in such a forum. I am a member, I work aggressively to stop intrusions on our 2nd Amendment rights, and assumed that this thread was to address a necessary and serious lack of attention to California by the NRA, as viewed by hard-working NRA members - from my dues, donations, and involvement with the NRA Members Councils and personal work as a 2nd Amendment activist, I have that right to question the NRA's lack of presence in CA, and I stand by my previous statements.

And yet, you nailed it when you mentioned that some gun owners are like welfare recipients, free-loaders, whiners, losers, impotent ingrates, lacking integrity or credibility; those type of people irritate me more than any inhibited action by the NRA in California, as those people WERE the DIRECT result of our losses of 2nd Amendment rights here in CA, and caused all of this mess, long before the NRA ever would have needed to double-up in California, and long before they would have fielded serious questions over their lack of attention to California as it is now. The NRA did not create the anti-2nd Amendment movement here in California. But that does not release the NRA from my disappointment with their lack of showing their might here now. I do not blame them for the initial growth of anti-2nd Amendment gun laws in California either; I blame the "UberPhLuBB"s just as much as I blame the anti-2nd Amendment organizations. Both are contributors.

"UberPhLuBB" as a braggart of his apathy, his admissions showing arrogance under feebleness and ineptitude, can be regarded as contributing to the loss of our 2nd Amendment rights; bragging about it in a forum of mostly NRA members and 2nd Amendment rights activists, does not allow for me to think highly of his hollow arguments, and his ramblings show he is exactly the person for which you have described above.


.

[swerv512]

I'm a member but I refuse to donate additional $$$ until they become more aligned with MY AGENDA.

[Talkin2u2]

+1 on this.

With ~ 70 million gun owners in the U.S., it's sad that the one organization hated most by gun banners has a dismal 4 million members. With dismal membership levels, the NRA (or any gun rights org) has less leverage to get into fights. They have to pick fights they have a possibility of winning, or it's just a waste of money.

The NRA typically operates on a Federal level. The state level orgs and affiliates (e.g. CRPA) do most all the state level fighting. CA is a lost cause now. We have left wing extremists running the state. CA needs to get more right and middle ground lawmakers installed first. Not enough CA gun owners vote, or they don't put gun rights at the top of their list when casting a ballot.

What if the gun rights orgs had a mere 20% (14 million) of gun owners as members? The only thing dirtbag grandstanding gun-grabbing platformless politicians consider is the # of votes behind a cause. We don’t have the numbers, simple as that.

Right now, the current NRA, CRPA, GOA, JFPO, LEAA members are shakily supporting rights for all other slacker gun owners. It's kinda like welfare… a bunch of whining freeloaders riding on the backs of others who fund the fight. The NRA isn’t perfect, but I judge them by the enemies they make and their actions at the Federal level. That's why I still maintain my membership with them and at least one state level org.

It's amusing to see some whiners buying vast amounts of mall-ninja (is there a gun under all those accessories) warrior toys they'll never use in combat, yet balk at putting in less than $50 a year to support ANY gun organization… all the little children, whining on a free forum because they can't call all the shots for their own personal agenda. Pathetic. Step back and try to understand the big picture.

Gun owners are their own worst enemy. The feminists, gays, illegal immigrants, and environmentalists are much more cohesive and take more risks when it comes to maintaining and gaining rights; gun owners need to take a few tips from them.

The NRA typically operates on a Federal level. The state level orgs and affiliates (e.g. CRPA) do most all the state level fighting.

W R O N G ! ! ! The NRA is extemely active in California.

Although most of your post is spot-on, the CRPA has been doing very little, except for claiming credit for NRA's victories in California, for several years.

One of many examples: http://www.calnra.com/legs.shtml?summary=glendale.1

The CRPA claimed victory http://www.crpa.org/showpages.asp?pid=1233 for stopping the gun show ban although they did NOTHING to stop it. They refer to "lawyers for the CRPA" as if they organized the opposition, but the truth is that they are referring to attorney Chuck Michel, who is the NRA's California Attorney and happens to be CRPA's attorney also. But Michel was working for the NRA during this effort and the fact that "The council meeting was packed with supporters of the show" was a result of the NRA Members' Councils of California who were all over this effort. And this entire successful operation was closely coordinated by NRA staff based in Sacramento and Southern California.

Ricki Stevens
Sacramento, California

[stator]

The NRA is only as strong as it's membership.They have to pick thier fights and spend funds where they do the most good.California often seems left out in the cold,but we have a left wing media,court, legislature,which makes it an uphill battle at best.In spite of this fact they are active in the state a recent example prop H in San Francisco.They fight here nationally and abroad internationally the UN.Every gun owner on this forum and in this country should join the NRA.Thanks for allowing me this rant.Life member and competitive shooter since 1980.

Your first sentence is not accurate... it should state, "The NRA is only as strong as it's leadership." I do agree with the rest of what you state. However, I believe the NRA leadership in CA needs to be fixed. They should pledge for acheiving results by a timeframe or step-down.

[trbon8r]

This caused me to get on the phone to NRA and get off their mailing list. They took me off both the mailing and the phone list.

I've been meaning to do it for awhile. NRA was only wasting money sending me an endless stream of solicitations. I urge NRA members to do this if you are tired of the junk mail. It took less than 5 minutes.

If the NRA really goes to bat for us on the lowers thing and forces DOJs hand, then I'll write them a nice sized check.

[Forever-A-Soldier]

I've been an NRA member for the last couple of years. I was a member back in the 80's til we had the first AW ban in 89 and again in 94. At the time, as I remember, the NRA wasn't support AWs much or if they were they tried the "yeah, you CAN hunt a deer with an UZI" justification. B.S. I owned an UZI then I didn't believe that line. At the time it seemed less about what the 2A said, but rather how legitimate things were to hunting. I think that changed over the years especially after they lost a lot of membership. What has kept me in the NRA camp was their recent work on junk lawsuits against the gun industry and getting the 94 AW ban to expire. If you don't think that helped California then you have your head in the sand.

A previous poster mentioned some gun owners being freeloaders and I have to agree. The small cost of NRA membership is miniscule to help be a voice and number to pro-gun rights. I do agree the NRA hasn't been successful here in the PRK much, but at a National level they have helped us. Like any organization it has its issues (obvious bias at times, too many "send us money" and the appearance for giving up on PRK gun owners.)

We as gun owners need to get off our asses as much as we expect the NRA and the others to do (and that includes me.) I don't write enough, call enough or send support enough to Pro-Gun groups and Pro-Gun politicians. We spend lots of time preaching to the choir here on Calguns, but not enough getting out and changing the liberals and the antis out there who have taken control of the politics of California and brought us our current situation.

"Lead, follow or get out of the way."

F.A.S. Out

[slamfire]

Your first sentence is not accurate... it should state, "The NRA is only as strong as it's leadership." I do agree with the rest of what you state. However, I believe the NRA leadership in CA needs to be fixed. They should pledge for acheiving results by a timeframe or step-down.
Without a membership who elects the leadership you don't need a leadership.I've heard it said on the forum that California is the front line for gun rights.What does it take to hold a front line.People with the will,the NRA is only as strong as its membership.

[stator]

Without a membership who elects the leadership you don't need a leadership.I've heard it said on the forum that California is the front line for gun rights.What does it take to hold a front line.People with the will,the NRA is only as strong as its membership.

You still have it wrong.... leadership is more important than membership. Without leadership, membership is worthless.

[grammaton76]

I used to be a long-time member of the NRA, but I started strongly dis-agreeing with their hard-line and un-compromising positions on a lot of gun-rights issues.

Either there's a lot of sarcasm I'm not reading here, or you've been strapped into a chair and been made to watch "Bowling for Columbine" in a Clockwork Orange-esque manner until it's seeped into your brain. When dealing with incrementalists (our current crop of gun grabbers), there IS no compromise - they only come back for another nibble of your rights next year. It took a while to figure that out, and by then we'd federally lost assault weapons and standard-capacity mags (for 10 years), as well as all the idiotic rigamarole of 922(r)'s import restrictions.

The NRA's lack of being reasonable I think allows the other side to take advantage of the divisiveness on the issue, and to smear the NRA and, by default, all gun owners as gun-toting radicals instead of law-obiding citizens with rights.

"Reasonable" is the watch word of the Brady campaign. They coo it at you and try to reassure you that "reasonable" limitations aren't so bad, and it sure sounds sensible. But the IRS sounded 'sensible', and has evolved into a monster that takes 30%-40% of the average American's income. Wake up and smell it - the Bradies and their "reasonable" bullcrap want 100% of your gun rights taken away. It's "reasonable" to sign that UN treaty, isn't it?

The time for being "reasonable" and "compromising" ended when the anti's stopped honoring their side of the compromise - once they impose THIS limit, that's it, no more. Every blasted year they keep coming back asking for more, and we only have a finite amount of gun rights. They don't grow back, unless laws are revoked.

Cyberpuppy, consider this your rolled up newspaper - you've been swatted for peeing directly on the second amendment.

[Ravenslair]

...The small cost of NRA membership is miniscule to help be a voice and number to pro-gun rights....

That hits the nail on the head. The NRA may not do as much as we like in California, but what if the NRA had 10,000,000 members instead of 4,000,000 (I think that is what is claimed)? Whether you agree with them all the time or not, the sheer numbers scare politicians.

$35/year is cheap compared to a lot of things we buy ($5 Starbucks coffee, $10 lunches instead of making lunch, etc., etc., etc.). Just pay the dues and add your membership to the count. The more members, the more we are listened to and respected.

[artherd]

NRA Life Member. The orginization is not without problems, but it is far and away the best we've got.

I have to say it's press department is rather lacking, from what I've heard speaking directly to insiders, I am MUCH more impressed with their activities in CA. The way they have to go about their business is rather covert however, and the price paid is no press for victories.

I can say one thing for certin: Without the NRA we would have total firearm prohibition on a national level. Belive it.

[slamfire]

You still have it wrong.... leadership is more important than membership. Without leadership, membership is worthless.
Thats true we need our leadership to acheive our goal. Happy shootin