PDA

View Full Version : Just got a call from the NRA.....


LAK Supply
01-28-2008, 7:21 PM
I just received a call from the NRA... they had me listen to a minute-long message from LaPierre and then went into a spiel about how the NRA has been on the front lines with Heller from the beginning. They requested a donation for the cause and told me that I would be helping to preserve our rights by helping them continue this "legislative battle."

I don't think the woman on the other end of the phone was quite ready for my response; in fact, the 10 or 15 seconds of silence told me all I needed to know.

I started by informing her that I knew the "NRA being there from the beginning" was true, but that it wasn't in the way she was trying to portray. I am fully aware that the NRA didn't want Parker to run it's course, and that they refused to lend support; quite the contrary, if Mr. Levy's statements are true the NRA hindered the progress of the case at it's early stages.

I also let her know that my support lies with CATO and Levy, and not with the NRA. I am a NRA member, but only because I think that having more lines of defense is a good thing, even if some of those lines are willing to sometimes disregard the truth for image. She was informed that I hold the NRA at least partially responsible for the major gun-ban legislation in '34, '68, and '86, and that they have sold out the true meaning of the 2A. They have touted the "sportsman" and "hunting" aspects of gun ownership, and have forsaken the basic intent of the guarantee of the RKBA- a balance of power between the people and the government and the ability to protect the Union from foreign invasion. I let her know that when the NRA was truly a 2A organization that then, and only then, would they receive anything more from me than a membership.

I've given some telemarketers a seriously bad time, and I've never heard somebody read off their lines and exit faster than this lady tonight. The difference here was that I took no pleasure in reading her the riot act; it's unfortunate that the NRA does not truly wish to protect the 2A. I can only hope that someday enough people are willing to do this that they will change their tune to that of a true pro-2A organization.

boogak
01-28-2008, 7:36 PM
i think nra is just like any political business. now i could be wrong but this has crossed my mind. they could be about gun bans as a fear for gun owners so we keep donating. now if we had nothing to fear about, there would be no nra. every now and then they will throw us a win. but they thrive off anti-gun bills so we would keep shoving money in their pockets.politics suck in any way. oh well, just my two cents

hoffmang
01-28-2008, 7:44 PM
1. NRA caused the Parker/Heller team some grief at two occasions - that's true.

2. NRA is seriously and positively involved in the Amicus effort and on the political front with the Heller team right now.

With that in mind, helping offset some of the costs of the Amicus effort is a good idea all around.

-Gene

SemiAutoSam
01-28-2008, 7:44 PM
I feel the same way Lance.

I should have taken their call as I could have read them the same riot act.

As I see it As a nation thanks to the NRA we gave up New NFA weapons to get Milsurps as some have said here.

We got the short end of the stick IMO.

In the same way Cops would be out of a job if there was no more crime the NRA would be out of a job be there no more anti gun legislation.

IMO the NRA is just another distraction so we don't see what is really going on in our country and our time is taken up with trivial BS.

LAK Supply
01-28-2008, 7:45 PM
Oops... just noticed I posted this in the 2A forum... target forum was the off-topic. If any mods see this and think that off-topic is a better place please move it for me.

KenpoProfessor
01-28-2008, 7:49 PM
I'm with you as well Lance, and seeing what the NRA hasn't done keeps me from giving them any money at all. I don't get calls, letters, or a magazine cuz I won't be a member.

The NRA is a business now, only concerned with paying it's execs. and keeping it well lubed with cash.

Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde

LAK Supply
01-28-2008, 7:49 PM
NRA is seriously and positively involved in the Amicus effort and on the political front with the Heller team right now.


I am aware of this, but I can't help feeling that the case crossed the point of no return and they wanted a piece only then. I think they are helping now because they had little choice, and I can't bring myself to donate for a cause with that type of reasoning.

TKM
01-28-2008, 9:08 PM
I'm still waiting for an NRA solicitor to answer my firearms questions. Mostly 20 year-olds reading a script.

You're not embarrasing me. You're making yourself look foolish.

I know you want money. I want money. I'm just willing to work for it in a professional manner. When I do something, it's tangible. Something went somewhere, someone got something.

An offer to become a super-duper extra special level that the peons can never hope for friend of the NRA for the low low price of whatever is just insulting whats left of my intelligence. I'm not about to put off my purchase of the matching Dale dinner dishes and Elvis black light tapestry just to impress the people who should know better.

I'm just sayin'....

mikehaas
01-29-2008, 10:19 AM
It's ridiculous to expect telephone fundraisers to know the ins and outs of complex legislative and judicial issues. It's ignorant to think that one can judge ANYTHING about an organization by what an entry level phone marketer knows or doesn't know. These are probably kids with part-time jobs working their way through school.

In the decade+ I've been volunteering for NRA, I've heard a lot of excuses for NOT GETTING INVOLVED, NOT HELPING OUT and JUSTIFYING THE CREATION OF DISSENTION IN PRO-GUN RANKS. "I don't want to be on a list... NRA doesn't blah-blah [insert mistaken perception here]... NRA is just in it for the money..." And blaming telemarketers is one of the most ignorant techniques I've seen.

Go ahead, put your ignorance on display by bashing NRA. Those who are serious about protecting their rights and don't think they know-it-all won't care. And why should we? We don't even know who you are!

Blaming is always easier to do than helping. Especially on internet forums. It's just sad to see calguns polluted with this kind of divisive ignorance.

yellowfin
01-29-2008, 11:00 AM
I'm much in the same boat. I keep my membership current but seriously want more than what they're doing. The 5 big presidential candidates right now, 2 on one side and 3 on the other, shouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell if they were really on their game. Currently though I can say also what others have said: we need everyone to be a member and vote so that we can get their tone back to what it should be, which is unconditional 0% tolerance for any anti gun law whatsoever at any time, no bargaining and winning the only tolerable outcome. I want that and I tell them that, but I'm one voice. We need about 20 million more saying the same thing.

aileron
01-29-2008, 11:17 AM
Guys, as upset as I was for NRA trying to stop Heller, this is a fight that matters more than any that have come before it.

They didn't want this fight to happen. Probably out of fear, because its huge, and it could really hurt if it goes the wrong way. But....

NRA's is in the fight now, if they were against your rights, they wouldn't be supporting the fight right now. And THAT would be telling.

They are your biggest weapon. Don't give up on them.

LAK Supply
01-29-2008, 11:31 AM
Mike.... do you think it's ridiculous that a telemarketer should not lie to you when asking for money? How about a representative of a huge group that is supposed to support my rights? Is it ok for them to lie then?

What's ignorant is the notion that the NRA is really a pro-2A group. I am a member, and I have shown support in some areas, but the truth is that the NRA helped to sell us out in 34 (read the testimony), 68, and 86, and that they tried to hinder Parker from the start. They are mainly a pro-hunting organization, not a true 2A organization.

NOBODY was blaming a telemarketer for not being a legal expert; I would, however, appreciate it if they wouldn't LIE to me, and play a recording of LaPierre misrepresenting and/or hiding the intent of the NRA's involvement at the early stages. Do you think that's unreasonable and ignorant? If I didn't know anything about the situation I would have been compelled to blindly give my money to a group that was dishonest about their actions.

There is another group out there.... the ones that say the NRA can do no wrong and go along no matter what. I don't happen to be one of these; as well, I don't happen to be an NRA hater. I just prefer that a group is honest.

Blaming is easier than helping? Why would I want to go out of my way to help a group that is dishonest with me and has sold out my principles? That is the same reason I no longer support the Republican party.... they are the same in my opinion... the lesser of the evils because there are really no other options. My membership dues are enough for the NRA at this point. If they change their stance in the future and become a true 2A group that is willing to truly protect the 2A instead of selling it out a little bit at a time for public image I would be more than glad to go the extra mile for them.


It's ridiculous to expect telephone fundraisers to know the ins and outs of complex legislative and judicial issues. It's ignorant to think that one can judge ANYTHING about an organization by what an entry level phone marketer knows or doesn't know. These are probably kids with part-time jobs working their way through school.

In the decade+ I've been volunteering for NRA, I've heard a lot of excuses for NOT GETTING INVOLVED, NOT HELPING OUT and JUSTIFYING THE CREATION OF DISSENTION IN PRO-GUN RANKS. "I don't want to be on a list... NRA doesn't blah-blah [insert mistaken perception here]... NRA is just in it for the money..." And blaming telemarketers is one of the most ignorant techniques I've seen.

Go ahead, put your ignorance on display by bashing NRA. Those who are serious about protecting their rights and don't think they know-it-all won't care. And why should we? We don't even know who you are!

Blaming is always easier to do than helping. Especially on internet forums. It's just sad to see calguns polluted with this kind of divisive ignorance.

KenpoProfessor
01-29-2008, 12:16 PM
It's ridiculous to expect telephone fundraisers to know the ins and outs of complex legislative and judicial issues. It's ignorant to think that one can judge ANYTHING about an organization by what an entry level phone marketer knows or doesn't know. These are probably kids with part-time jobs working their way through school.

In the decade+ I've been volunteering for NRA, I've heard a lot of excuses for NOT GETTING INVOLVED, NOT HELPING OUT and JUSTIFYING THE CREATION OF DISSENTION IN PRO-GUN RANKS. "I don't want to be on a list... NRA doesn't blah-blah [insert mistaken perception here]... NRA is just in it for the money..." And blaming telemarketers is one of the most ignorant techniques I've seen.

Go ahead, put your ignorance on display by bashing NRA. Those who are serious about protecting their rights and don't think they know-it-all won't care. And why should we? We don't even know who you are!



Blaming is always easier to do than helping. Especially on internet forums. It's just sad to see calguns polluted with this kind of divisive ignorance


Most people who are members of the NRA abdicate the responsibility of calling their own legislators, city councilmen, sheriff's etc.. If everyone who was a member of the NRA made the phone calls themselves instead of giving money to someone to lobby in their stead, things would change. As it is, people are happy paying someone else to do the heavy lifting.

I'm on the front line with the immigration issue here in Phoenix, protesting and calling my legislators, and there isn't any group to abdicate to, or give money to lobby in my stead. We're making a difference, a huge one.

Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde

Matt C
01-29-2008, 12:24 PM
The NRA is doing a lot in CA, especially right now. Did you know that CA is the ONLY state where the NRA has an attorney on retainer just to fight BS state gun laws and administrative FUD full time? Like Clyde said, complain less and when Mike puts out that we need to call, CALL.

Piper
01-29-2008, 12:29 PM
This is what the second amendment says.

"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."

The NRA was formed in 1871 by military men not as a 2A lobbying group or as a hunting organization, but to promote firearms training so that men could aquire the expertise to defend our country in a time of war.

When 1934 rolled around, the NRA was in no way interested in fighting a political battle. For that matter, neither was our grandparents or in some cases, great grandparents. The country was still digging its way out of the depression and people had what they considered bigger problems than the second amendment. The legislation that was enacted in '34 was a knee jerk reaction to all of the problems that occured as a result of the depression.

Now cut to '68, the country was prospering and we had Viet Nam. It was a time of free love, sex, drugs and rock'n roll. Again, no one cared about the 2A. Even gun owners back then accepted the restrictions because no one felt they needed to carry a concealed handgun for self defense. Those that did carry a firearm usually carried a 30-06 in a rifle rack in their pickup so no one thought for a moment that the government as slowly eroding away the 2A. Now think for a moment what was happening in '86. Reagan was the president, people were working, everything was for the most part peachy. People could go hunting or target shooting. Most people in California didn't give it a thought about guns, in fact people who owned guns were called nuts and the mindset typically was an air of complacency about self defense. I mean after all "it's the 80's, this isn't the wild west." Even cops back then weren't encouraged to carry their firearms off duty. And those of us that did were laughed at, shamed or embarassed into not carrying off duty.

The bottom line is this, we, the militia are all to blame for allowing the politicians to strip us of our 2A right. We are derilict in our duties to protect the 2A. Everyone of us has in some way aided in the erosion. And now when it's obvious how precious that right is, we are attempting to regain ground that we lost through our complacency.

Understand this, I'm in no way letting the politicians off of the hook, but pointing a finger at the NRA and accusing them of complacency is dishonest. Everyone should go to a mirror and point at the person in the mirror because that's the person to blame.

KenpoProfessor
01-29-2008, 1:07 PM
This is what the second amendment says.

"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."

The NRA was formed in 1871 by military men not as a 2A lobbying group or as a hunting organization, but to promote firearms training so that men could aquire the expertise to defend our country in a time of war.

When 1934 rolled around, the NRA was in no way interested in fighting a political battle. For that matter, neither was our grandparents or in some cases, great grandparents. The country was still digging its way out of the depression and people had what they considered bigger problems than the second amendment. The legislation that was enacted in '34 was a knee jerk reaction to all of the problems that occured as a result of the depression.

Now cut to '68, the country was prospering and we had Viet Nam. It was a time of free love, sex, drugs and rock'n roll. Again, no one cared about the 2A. Even gun owners back then accepted the restrictions because no one felt they needed to carry a concealed handgun for self defense. Those that did carry a firearm usually carried a 30-06 in a rifle rack in their pickup so no one thought for a moment that the government as slowly eroding away the 2A. Now think for a moment what was happening in '86. Reagan was the president, people were working, everything was for the most part peachy. People could go hunting or target shooting. Most people in California didn't give it a thought about guns, in fact people who owned guns were called nuts and the mindset typically was an air of complacency about self defense. I mean after all "it's the 80's, this isn't the wild west." Even cops back then weren't encouraged to carry their firearms off duty. And those of us that did were laughed at, shamed or embarassed into not carrying off duty.

The bottom line is this, we, the militia are all to blame for allowing the politicians to strip us of our 2A right. We are derilict in our duties to protect the 2A. Everyone of us has in some way aided in the erosion. And now when it's obvious how precious that right is, we are attempting to regain ground that we lost through our complacency.

Understand this, I'm in no way letting the politicians off of the hook, but pointing a finger at the NRA and accusing them of complacency is dishonest. Everyone should go to a mirror and point at the person in the mirror because that's the person to blame.

Truer words have not yet been spoken until now, and thank you. I do have to look in the mirror everyday and blame myself for not doing what I should've THEN instead of NOW. Sadly, all I have is the NOW, and I'm doing something about it.

Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde

AaronHorrocks
01-29-2008, 1:32 PM
The bottom line is this, we, the militia are all to blame for allowing the politicians to strip us of our 2A right. We are derilict in our duties to protect the 2A. Everyone of us has in some way aided in the erosion. And now when it's obvious how precious that right is, we are attempting to regain ground that we lost through our complacency.

I was 5 years old in 1986, how the hell am I to blame??? :rolleyes:

SecondAmendmentgirl
01-29-2008, 1:45 PM
Not trying to hijack this thread but this post reminds me of something I've been curious about. I understand some in the bay area and across the nation aren't happy with the NRA but I'm curious if that goes for organizations, I've read one negative post about the Jews for the Preservation of Firearms but overall very few posts about other organizatons positive or negative. I'm curious if there's a favored organization on the national level? If this isn't the right time or place to ask, let me know or may'be the mod can delete my post.

Hopi
01-29-2008, 1:49 PM
I'm curious if there's a favored organization on the national level?

NRA. Period.

otalps
01-29-2008, 1:58 PM
Not trying to hijack this thread but this post reminds me of something I've been curious about. I understand some in the bay area and across the nation aren't happy with the NRA but I'm curious if that goes for organizations, I've read one negative post about the Jews for the Preservation of Firearms but overall very few posts about other organizatons positive or negative. I'm curious if there's a favored organization on the national level? If this isn't the right time or place to ask, let me know or may'be the mod can delete my post.

It would depend upon who you were asking. Sometimes I find the bickering amongst the supporters of various pro 2a groups to be rather amusing. I think the NRA is by far the largest so they in turn get the most flak, sometimes deservedly so while at other times the reasons seem really trivial. There are other groups that do seem to take a much less compromising approach to issues that is a lot more in line with what the 2nd amendment actually says but I don't think they usually get as much done.

DB2
01-29-2008, 2:01 PM
I was 5 years old in 1986, how the hell am I to blame??? :rolleyes:

Your not to blame, but 1986 is not the end all year. What is trying to be said is do what you can NOW to avoid it being gone tomorrow. You were 5 in 86', you were 13 in 94',you were 18 in 99', your 27 now. Don't be 28 and not do anything when they want to ban everything centerfire.:)

SecondAmendmentgirl
01-29-2008, 2:04 PM
I knew about their attorney ;)

The NRA is doing a lot in CA, especially right now. Did you know that CA is the ONLY state where the NRA has an attorney on retainer just to fight BS state gun laws and administrative FUD full time? Like Clyde said, complain less and when Mike puts out that we need to call, CALL.

AaronHorrocks
01-29-2008, 2:42 PM
DB2, I am doing plenty, and have been for years.

I just don't like being blamed for things that I'm not responcible for. :rolleyes:

Glock22Fan
01-29-2008, 2:50 PM
Anyone who thinks their rights are worse off because of what the NRA has, or has not, done should pause for a moment and imagine the world without the NRA.

To me, that's a frightening thought.

Also, look at the many left wing politicians that fear the NRA and lay the blame for their woes at its feet.

Thou shalt be known by the enemies you make.

Do they pick their battles? Yes.

Do they please all of us all the time? No

maxicon
01-29-2008, 3:02 PM
Agreed.

Ask yourself this - what group is out there fighting effectively for firearms rights on any level? It's not any political party, that's for sure.

The NRA is the only effective game in town. You may not agree with everything they do, but if you're a gun owner, you owe it to yourself and your fellow gun owners to support the NRA.

There's no other option.

Diablo
01-29-2008, 3:40 PM
NRA is our best ally. Period.;)

aileron
01-29-2008, 4:59 PM
Not trying to hijack this thread but this post reminds me of something I've been curious about. I understand some in the bay area and across the nation aren't happy with the NRA but I'm curious if that goes for organizations, I've read one negative post about the Jews for the Preservation of Firearms but overall very few posts about other organizatons positive or negative. I'm curious if there's a favored organization on the national level? If this isn't the right time or place to ask, let me know or may'be the mod can delete my post.

If your not a member of the NRA, please join. There are about 4 million members and we should be a lot larger than that. If folks you know are not members, and you decide to join... Please convince them to join with you. We need such a large group message to Congress that they understand. "Don't tread on me."

Matt C
01-29-2008, 5:01 PM
Ask yourself this - what group is out there fighting effectively for firearms rights on any level?

http://www.calguns.net/ Have you heard of it?

Piper
01-29-2008, 6:15 PM
Here's the bottom line, I will not judge how active or inactive anyone on Calguns is in defending the 2A. All I can do is judge my own actions and what history has recorded.

I am always ready to defend the 2A in whatever manner is appropriate at the time. That means, if I have to engage someone in a conversation about the 2A, I will. If it requires me to write a commentary in rebuttal to incorrect information about firearms, I will. If it requires me to vote for a pro 2A candidate or against an anti 2A candidate, I will. Whenever, I see a need to stand up for the 2A, I'm there. The point is, everyone should be like this if you truly believe in the 2A.

USN CHIEF
01-29-2008, 6:25 PM
I joined the NRA so that I could get a sticker and the Rifleman's magazine, that is it.. I really don't expect them to accomplish alot other than for the Hunters... :eek: And I don't hunt...

Sleepy1988
01-29-2008, 6:40 PM
I feel the same way Lance.

I should have taken their call as I could have read them the same riot act.

As I see it As a nation thanks to the NRA we gave up New NFA weapons to get Milsurps as some have said here.




What's the riot act? I only found info about a British law called the riot act, and how did we trade NFA weapons for milsurps? What does the FOPA have to do with milsurps?

hoffmang
01-29-2008, 6:47 PM
The best way to make sure that NRA does the things you want it to is to be a life member and lobby the organization from inside.

Being peeved about something its doing and not being a member is kind of lame. Being a member and being peeved about something it does requires a phone call or a letter to the organization. It's that simple.

Me, I'd be pissed off if NRA was not trying to raise money to support Heller right now.

-Gene

LAK Supply
01-29-2008, 6:50 PM
I think a few have misunderstood my comments... I do not hate the NRA, nor do I think they have done nothing for the 2A. I simply think the 2A takes a backseat to their real agenda, and that it gets addressed when convenient.

My main point in this thread was that they called me and lied, expecting that I wouldn't know any better.

"Hello Mr. ****! We would like you to know that we are helping with the largest 2A case in the last 70 years, and the legal fees are going to be enormous. This case will have a huge impact on the future of the Second Amendment and we can use all the support we can get. Would you be able to help us out with a donation to keep the fight going?"

My answer to that would have been a big yes. The above statement would be an honest representation of the facts, and I can respect that. I am not an idiot... I don't expect an organization to come out and say something like "we really didn't want this to happen, and we did what we could to stop it up to the point that we thought we would create an unfavorable scene for ourselves. Now that another organization has truly taken the battle to the SC we figured we would help out since this a landmark case and all."

What I do expect is for them to at least be up-front with their members. I didn't need an emotional spiel about how the anti-gunners are at war with us and will go to any lengths to strip our essential freedoms, and that the NRA (hear the clip clop of the white horse) has "been there since the beginning of this case struggling for my gun rights and freedoms." As I sat there and listened to this I grew more and more impatient because I knew I was getting fed a line of crap. Simple honesty would have done a lot to help regain my trust and they probably would have walked away with another $100 for their "war chest."

The dishonesty was the main issue here, and it dredged up my lingering mistrust of them as a "2A organization."

As far as action... I do my part, thank you. There are several politicians who probably hate my persistent phone calls and emails.

SemiAutoSam
01-29-2008, 7:03 PM
Google McClure Volkmer Firearm Owners Protection Act

From what I have read of the LAW the NRA was instrumental in helping pass this law and basically gave up NFA weapons from being imported and or no more transferable NFA weapons past the May 19 1986 date.

Also from what I have heard and partly read the NRA took it upon themselves to get Milsurps in exchange for the NFA weapons.

I was a NRA member at that time and do not recall them asking their membership or the American public if they wanted to trade Transferable Machine Guns for Milsurps.

This law is why Machine Guns are as expensive as they now are. 3500.00 - 4500.00 for a MAC10 Back in the late 1970's they sold for 250.00 or so.

What's the riot act? I only found info about a British law called the riot act, and how did we trade NFA weapons for milsurps? What does the FOPA have to do with milsurps?

AngelDecoys
01-29-2008, 7:37 PM
Thread is interesting. All of you do realize that the NRA has only approximately 800 paid employees. As one who has called HQ from time to time, I can tell you one will get great customer service, and prompt action for something to be sent. I'm always amazed that a 4 million+ group can work as efficiently as they do with so few paid employees.

Your dues go to the magazine, and not much else.

I may not agree with everything the NRA does, but at least they are in the fight and arguably have stopped a lot of legislation over the years. If anything my only issue with the NRA is in playing defense over offense on the issue. One doesn't gain ground on defense. Nevertheless.......

I don't begrudge the telemarketers, OR the endless mail solicitations I recieve. Nor should you. So long as they get a .2% return it will keep coming. That's just marketing and YOU can ask not to get it. Sometimes I write a check, sometimes I don't. Mostly, I donate time (which is infinitely more important IMO).

The real battle IS 'long-term' in securing our rights. And in that we are loosing big time. There was a time, not so long ago (10-20 years) where there were more people engaged in the shooting sports, then football, baseball, and soccer combined. Yes, COMBINED.

Unfortunately shooters are their worst enemies IMO. We're generally solitary, self-reliant, and independent. Great qualities for people, but I'm not sure they are great for recruiting new shooters. You want to make a difference, take someone new out everytime you go. Join a club, volunteer to help it grow, and help teach others how to shoot.

And here in CA, volunteer for an Friends of the NRA dinner in your local area. I know most have had the same dedicated members for 15 years. It raised $650,000 last year and could only fund a portion of the grants that go directly into preserving the shooting sports and our heritage.

Yup, not going to worry too much about a telemarketer. (They mean well, even if they don't know everything gun related. That's too high of an expectation to me).

aileron
01-30-2008, 6:20 AM
In the news today.

http://www.ohioccw.org/content/view/3935/83/

ibanezfoo
01-30-2008, 7:58 AM
and that they have sold out the true meaning of the 2A.

That, and the fact that they threaten and try to sue people who use their web tools...:chris: :mad:

-Bryan

chickenfried
01-30-2008, 8:37 AM
Count me in as one who thinks we're a lot better of because of the NRA. But at $35 a year this can't be close to true, unless the NRA gives out ad space for free.


Your dues go to the magazine, and not much else.

AngelDecoys
01-30-2008, 9:41 AM
Count me in as one who thinks we're a lot better of because of the NRA. But at $35 a year this can't be close to true, unless the NRA gives out ad space for free.

Nope, they certainly do not give out the ad space. :D I'm not certain many people know how much the salaries are for the lobbyists, attorneys, regular staff, trainers, and the higher ups. I know I don't, but I bet its not peanuts.

Membership does have other benifits besides the cheesy hat, card, and magazine, like discounts, and firearm insurance for instance, etc.

I have spoken pretty extensively with several of the field reps on salary. So I do know that 'lower tier' employees don't make that much. One field rep I spoke with just said, get your pension someplace first before working for the cause. I generally assume that the higher-ups and Wayne aren't making less than 150k, if not more. Again, just pure speculation on my part.

I also do know that funding for local range development, Eddie Eagle, Hunter safety, woman's programs, Boy Scouts, etc (Things that actually help preserve our sport) do NOT come from the national level, but are raised on the state level through the Endowment Program, and the Friends of the NRA. (Hense why I donate time).

They do alot but $35/year doesn't go too far considering a big portion of people are already life members.

Not sure what expectation people should have from an $8/hr telemarketer on depth of gun knowledge, or legal knowledge? My expectation would be pretty low.

chickenfried
01-30-2008, 9:52 AM
Yes but what you listed above is clearly more than just covering the magazine:p. Guns and Ammo etc are in it to make a profit and they charge $10-$20 for a subscription. I'm not suggesting, we shouldn't donate more to the NRA. But rather be a little more truthful when compelling people to give.

AngelDecoys
01-30-2008, 9:59 AM
Sorry, not trying to spin. True, Guns and Ammo may only charge $10-20 for a subscription, but that's just for a magazine. I think we all agree the NRA give's one much more than just a magazine for the membership. Those other benefits, like the insurance, aren't cheap.

Personally, I'd rather see new faces at a Friend of the NRA meeting, or on the range volunteering, or in training new people, then sending in checks. But that's just me. We all pick our level of involvement.

KenpoProfessor
01-30-2008, 10:17 AM
Here is the the 990 form filed for 2004 for the NRA. I'm still hunting down the latest one.

http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2004/530/116/2004-530116130-01f0bded-9.pdf


Found 2006

http://tfcny.fdncenter.org/990_pdf_archive/530/530116130/530116130_200412_990O.pdf

and this one from the NRA civil defense fund, hmm, didn't know that existed.

http://tfcny.fdncenter.org/990_pdf_archive/521/521136665/521136665_200612_990.pdf


Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde

AngelDecoys
01-30-2008, 10:43 AM
Thanks Clyde,

Wayne recieved 633k in 2004. Maybe that is comparable to others at that level. I really don't know. I bet he's got a big house!

That confirms my suspicions and just re-inforces my belief that donating time at the local range, teaching others, and introducing new faces to the shooting sports is infinitely more important than writing a check.

hoffmang
01-30-2008, 11:09 AM
I have a basic question. Do you want the guy leading the NRA to not be good enough to command a high salary?

-Gene

bwiese
01-30-2008, 12:54 PM
I have a basic question. Do you want the guy leading the NRA to not be good enough to command a high salary?

-Gene

Good point.

Also, you want leadership and midlevel staff that is stable and not having to leave/change jobs frequently to make ends meet or be attracted by larger pay.

Given his skill set, WLP could readily join a lot of other politically active groups or charity or pressure groups etc. and make the same or greater money. Hell, I thought he made more.

Also, appears he makes less than some of the leaders of the tiny, mostly-useless gun groups (SAF esp).

NRA is fighting against against antis who are civil servants with pension plans and benefits and all sorts of 'you can't fire me' job protections.

Isn't it good to have opposition that that doesn't fluctuate and lose focus against an unwavering enemy?

KenpoProfessor
01-30-2008, 1:14 PM
Good point.

Also, you want leadership and midlevel staff that is stable and not having to leave/change jobs frequently to make ends meet or be attracted by larger pay.

Given his skill set, WLP could readily join a lot of other politically active groups or charity or pressure groups etc. and make the same or greater money. Hell, I thought he made more.

Also, appears he makes less than some of the leaders of the tiny, mostly-useless gun groups (SAF esp).

NRA is fighting against against antis who are civil servants with pension plans and benefits and all sorts of 'you can't fire me' job protections.

Isn't it good to have opposition that that doesn't fluctuate and lose focus against an unwavering enemy?

What I'm reading here is that the staff of the NRA is up for bid for the highest paid position in any group, not just that of gun rights? Essentially, what you're saying is WLP, and the rest of the NRA paid employees are just whoring themselves to the highest bidder. He could be working for the Brady Campaign next week if they offered him more.

Personally, I'd rather have a person focused on the goal and not the paycheck. But, I can't complain, I don't give them squat, never will.

Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde

Ak47owner
01-30-2008, 1:51 PM
sure they will try their hardest to protect our 2A but it will cost us some $ which is understandable.............. NRA saving our freedoms one pennie at a time.

bwiese
01-30-2008, 2:50 PM
What I'm reading here is that the staff of the NRA is up for bid for the highest paid position in any group, not just that of gun rights? Essentially, what you're saying is WLP, and the rest of the NRA paid employees are just whoring themselves to the highest bidder. He could be working for the Brady Campaign next week if they offered him more.

Maybe such a person wouldn't work at an ideologically opposing realm, but if you have marketable skills there's a certain point where you have to consider other options.

To attract skilled folks you have to pay the right money. As much as we like guns, it's not a religion and people with skills don't take vows of poverty.

Otherwise you end up with folks who may well be ideologically pure but are wholly ineffective/unskilled. (Hey, I can name those organizations!)

You need a person with skill sets/professionalism such that he can deal with politicians, administrators, manage fundraising, develop the organaization, etc. Those folks have many options available to them.



Personally, I'd rather have a person focused on the goal and not the paycheck. But, I can't complain, I don't give them squat, never will.
Then you are doing nothing for gunrights on the political scale. The NRA is the only game in town in terms of results/practicality (and avoiding quixotic tilting at windmills).

KenpoProfessor
01-30-2008, 3:06 PM
Maybe such a person wouldn't work at an ideologically opposing realm, but if you have marketable skills there's a certain point where you have to consider other options.

To attract skilled folks you have to pay the right money. As much as we like guns, it's not a religion and people with skills don't take vows of poverty.

Otherwise you end up with folks who may well be ideologically pure but are wholly ineffective/unskilled. (Hey, I can name those organizations!)

You need a person with skill sets/professionalism such that he can deal with politicians, administrators, manage fundraising, develop the organaization, etc. Those folks have many options available to them.

Ok, so WLP could just as easily take this battle to the other side if they made the money right, as well as the rest of the paid staffers? If that's what you want to pay for, then be my guest, I won't contribute to an org. that c/would act as mercenaries.


Then you are doing nothing for gunrights on the political scale. The NRA is the only game in town in terms of results/practicality (and avoiding quixotic tilting at windmills).

Believe what you will, but the NRA is not the ONLY game in town. They didn't get Heller to the SCOTUS, and point of fact, they almost sabotaged the whole thing.

Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde

LAK Supply
01-30-2008, 5:48 PM
Count me in as one who thinks we're a lot better of because of the NRA. But at $35 a year this can't be close to true, unless the NRA gives out ad space for free.

$55k for one issue full-page, inside front cover. $5500 for a half page B&W somewhere in the back. They are definitely NOT giving ad space away, and that's fine.

I have no problem with them making money.... The root issue here was trust. When one is already skeptical from prior sellouts, you don't build the relationship by being dishonest. After that phone call, I came away knowing that they were working against a vital case as little as two years ago and were willing to lie about their actions. It just doesn't seem like things have gotten better with them.

AngelDecoys
01-31-2008, 2:08 PM
I have a basic question. Do you want the guy leading the NRA to not be good enough to command a high salary?

-Gene

No, I don't have a problem with WLP making whatever the Board of Directors think is fair for his particular skill set. Didn't mean to imply that. I just found his salary interesting. Superintendent of the local School District makes almost 200k/year and that's the going rate for that particular skill set. Heck, WLP's salary might be a bargain, or it might even be low for all I know.

As has been mentioned the NRA really is the only effective group around. I don't know for sure but I've heard the 2nd Amendment Foundation, and the GOA essentially donate whatever minimal amount of money as taxes dictate in order to keep their non-profit status. The rest goes in pockets, and into building hotels, other investments, etc.

I've always had suspicions with regards to the NRA's practices, expecially towards how it treats volunteers. Do you know at FNRA dinners, volunteers are supposed to buy their dinners? The tax returns posted only re-enforce that belief (of volunteers being unappreciated). Please understand, I have personally donated a tremendous amount of time and money volunteering for the NRA, or in raising money over the last 10 years. There are certain aspects I'd rather not go into on a public forum, but suffice it to say, my personal viewpoint points towards volunteering at the local range, over helping the NRA through checks.

mcubed4130
02-18-2008, 10:03 PM
Not trying to hijack this thread but this post reminds me of something I've been curious about. I understand some in the bay area and across the nation aren't happy with the NRA but I'm curious if that goes for organizations, I've read one negative post about the Jews for the Preservation of Firearms but overall very few posts about other organizatons positive or negative. I'm curious if there's a favored organization on the national level? If this isn't the right time or place to ask, let me know or may'be the mod can delete my post.

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

-M3

Pred@tor
02-18-2008, 10:22 PM
The NRA is the nations oldest gun control group! It was originally created back in 1871 to help men shoot better because during the civil war union troops were not all very good shots.

Matt C
02-18-2008, 11:42 PM
:beatdeadhorse5:

Liberty Rules
02-19-2008, 12:08 AM
I wish we could get more unified on those issues we agree on, even if we do not always agree on others. After reading the anti-NRA posts, I think that misunderstandings continue to run through our community and sometimes impede our ability to work together effectively.

First, some folks tend to think that everything in politics is black and white and that your best friend turns into your worst enemy because they are not able to achieve 100% success on the issues you most care about. Not only that, but you then consider them an enemy, or at least someone to be shunned. No offense, but you are naive if you believe that politics is always black and white. Sometimes the choice is between two bad results, but you are given the opportunity to push for the result which stinks less.

For example, you learn that the political leadership in the legislature has the votes to pass a restrictive bill, but a group within the leadership will work with you to water it down somewhat. You can stand on your principles and let the worst thing pass anyway, or you can accept the offer to compromise and take something that you don't like but that's not as bad. It stinks and you have to swallow hard, but you need to acknowledge that you do not always have the ability to choose between good and bad. The choice is sometimes between "sucks" and "sucks a lot more". Context is everything.

Second, I do not believe that everyone appreciates the dynamics behind appellate legal strategies. It is possible to fully support a principle without wanting to take the risk of a bad appellate decision. If you'd practiced law for any appreciable time, you would understand that. Ambiguity and uncertainty is better than a clear decision against you that removes all doubt.

Take the Heller case. Although we all believe in the case and the principles involved in it, there is no guarantee whatsoever on how the court will rule. We could lose outright. If that happens, what will the consequences be? All uncertainty will be removed and no one will be able to push for the "second amendment right to own firearms" because it would no longer be a recognized principle. That would be a horrible result and there is a chance it could happen (although hopefully less with Alito and Roberts on the court now). Faced with that, many lawyers would counsel that the risk might outweigh the benefit. Without a clear court win, political pressure could still be used (effectively) to push your agenda so some might counsel that the risk outweighed the benefits.

The other consideration is often whether the particular case is the "right one" to take up on appeal. Are your facts "perfect" so that your odds are increased? What appellate jurisdiction are you in? First Circuit? Ninth Circuit? Etcetera.

So, yes. Sometimes people consider whether it is wise to press a particular case on appeal even when they believe 100% in the issues involved in the case. Therefore, when I hear that the NRA may not have initially supported taking Heller further, I understand completely what the concerns were and I do not react negatively as some here do.

I literally just read a new case today which probably should never have been appealed. The client lost a motion at the Superior Court level. Their counsel took an appeal, even though the facts in the case kind of stunk--they were at the far end of the spectrum for this particular issue. (I've encountered the exact scenario before and advised folks using this service to prepare their contracts differently because I questioned whether some judges would fault particular terms and refuse to enforce them.) Well, the case was appealed. The appellate court found the particular provisions unconscionable and refused to enforce them. Now, there is a published decision refusing to enforce a certain class of contract provisions. Until another appellate court comes along in a few years to rule another way on a different set of facts (if that even happens at all), people in this industry will be hounded by this bad decision, with every plaintiffs lawyer throwing it up as an obstacle. This was a perfect example of what not to appeal. With a better factual scenario, the court of appeal may have ruled differently. Now, the system is stuck with the bad published decision. Yes, sometimes it is good legal strategy not to appeal a case even when you lose!

Third, consider also that lawyers also must account for the "law of unintended consequences" when deciding how far to push an appeal. You might win the case, but the language in the final opinion could be less than perfect and cause problems down the road. Contrary to what some people may believe, constitutional rights are far from absolute. There are over 200 hundred years of Supreme Court decisions slicing and dicing constitutional rights. The courts parse constitutional rights into three main categories. Depending on which category the court places a particular right, it can be exceedingly easy for government to restrict those rights for any "rational" purpose, or it might be very difficult to place restrictions (it must pass "strict scrutiny"). That standard also determines who has the burden of proving the restriction is acceptable or unacceptable. Thus, we could "win" Heller but the court may hold that the lower standard is appropriate for restricting those rights. That would enable jurisdictions to make all sorts of arguments about how this restriction or that is rational because it "fosters security for the public at large" or it "helps the children".

So, this is a (very) long winded way of wishing that folks would have a better appreciation for the fact that the NRA works in an imperfect world and cannot always do what 100% purists would like. That fact does not make the NRA any less essential or undeserving of our support and assistance. If anything, it makes it more essential that we lend our support so that we can increase the odds of success in this imperfect world. Can we all hope for the 100% but accept that it is not always possible?



p.s. For those wanting a better understanding of the three categories of constitutional rights and the heirarchy for evaluating restrictions under each, here is a decent summary:

http://www.auburn.edu/~whitesw/PHIL1027/scrutinyweb.html

tcrpe
02-19-2008, 2:49 PM
. . . .ridiculous . . . . . . . . mistaken perception . . . . ignorant . . . .ignorance . . . . . polluted . . . .divisive ignorance.

Just my observation, but how does this win them over?