rep308
NES Member
Rob is right, but one phone call asking them to stop the mailings ends it all. I have not received any mailings, except voting alerts, in over 6 years. Who buys Cancer Insurance anyway.
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Some gun owners unhappy with the NRA
- Thread starter copterdoctor
- Start date
Rob is right, but one phone call asking them to stop the mailings ends it all. I have not received any mailings, except voting alerts, in over 6 years. Who buys Cancer Insurance anyway.
Get a clue.
1. DC is NOT a state.
2. Chicago is NOT a state.
3. Both those cities (DC is also a Federal district) have handgun prohibitions. NJ does not.
Apparently life in Cancer Alley is having an effect on your powers of reason.
I only belong to the NRA because the club I belong to requires it. If they didn't I wouldn't waste my money on those a-holes. By the way seems like you are paying them also for no representation either. Seems like you people should take a clue from history and have another TEA PARTY against your reps but it looks like no one there has any balls. They would just rather complain then stand up! Chicage is part of a state!!!!!!!
Last edited:
Again you advertise your ignorance. If you actually HAD a clue, you would have known Massachusetts just set the national Democrat machine back on its ass by electing Scott Brown; the first REPUBLICAN elected to the US Senate from MA since Ed Brooke 35 years ago.
Hint: Being PART of a state is no more a state than a state being part of a country makes it a country.
Morover, the NRA echos Gura's argument...
As for "hiring the enemy", I'll reserve judgment with the understanding of a Lawyer's job to be a "Zealous Advocate" of his client regardless of the nature of the client's case...
All I know so far for sure is that he did his job and argued for all he was worth (and lost in Heller). I detest his arguments and would never let those words leave my mouth, but that's why I am not a lawyer...
Well, for those individuals who dislike the NRA and are looking for an alternative organization which will fight for your rights (along with a good, solid leader) I offer you:
The American Hunters and Shooters Association (AHSA)
an organization which will fight for your right for common sense laws and which will fight against the right to own so-called assault weapons. Why, from their website:
Just line up behind John Rosenthal and show the NRA what you think of them.
Just don't come crying to us when they get their way with your rights.
[/SARCASM]
The American Hunters and Shooters Association (AHSA)
an organization which will fight for your right for common sense laws and which will fight against the right to own so-called assault weapons. Why, from their website:
Just line up behind John Rosenthal and show the NRA what you think of them.
Just don't come crying to us when they get their way with your rights.
[/SARCASM]
MisterHappy
NES Member
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2009
- Messages
- 28,413
- Likes
- 17,599
NRA is not perfect.
No organization will meet or exceed the expectations of all members (if the number of members is >1)
But, if the NRA is the bogeyman that is always cited by Antis, then they must be doing something right!
Just as we invoke the names "Brady" and "Rosenthal" as opponents, they and their ilk do it with NRA.
This is why I'm a Member of both NRA and GOAL....you can't fight a war on too small a front, or you'll get outflanked.
No organization will meet or exceed the expectations of all members (if the number of members is >1)
But, if the NRA is the bogeyman that is always cited by Antis, then they must be doing something right!
Just as we invoke the names "Brady" and "Rosenthal" as opponents, they and their ilk do it with NRA.
This is why I'm a Member of both NRA and GOAL....you can't fight a war on too small a front, or you'll get outflanked.
+10. A board that no longer favors compromise. One that will not collaborate with the "enemy"
While I appreciate the sarcasm, you imply that the NRA is the only game in town. I would suggest that they have done as much to erode the rights of gun owners as Brady-more so. Last I checked, Brady had written one law-now defunct as it has been sunset. The laws NRA helped write, not only are the foundation of further erosion, but vex us to this day, some 8 decades later.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,534
- Likes
- 33,578
Not going to happen. The "nominating committee" endorsement system assures, for all practical purposes, that only candidates approved by the existing powers have a chance of willing a seat on the board. There was a suit a few yeas ago in NY in which the NRA lost because they took gave too much advantage to nominating committee endorsed candidates. The NRA lost the suit, but significant advantages for endorsed candidates remains.
I implied nothing of the sort. In fact I gave you a alternative if you are not happy with the NRA and want an organization that probably meets the average NRA-baiter's definition of a no-compromise organization.
You can suggest anything you want and you would probably be just as wrong. Bringing up an 80 year old case from a far different era in terms of anti-gun hysteria shows the paucity of your arguements. Putting your efforts into tearing down the largest and most involved organization (how many others actively teach and recruit new firearms owners to the extent the NRA does?) instead of correcting the problems (real and perceived) is more devisive than helpful in this effort.
Last edited:
Which begs the question: What happens if there were no gun-grabbing public "servants"?
What happens to the police if there were no crime?
What happens to Symantec and McAfee if there were no computer viruses?
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,534
- Likes
- 33,578
Wouldn't the Firearms Coalition founded by Neal Knox have been a better example?
I know of no persons who consider the NRA to be a "compromiser" who consider the AHSA to be a "no compromise" organization, and your assertion that those dis-sasatisfied with the NRA would actually think this is either absurd or a mediocre attempt at satire.
The NRA has been making progress and in many aspects moving in the right direction.
- As recently as a couple of decades ago "concealed carry" and "loaded gun in a holster" were subject non-grata, and were not formally endorsed by the NRA outside of police only competitions and police only training.
- Now, we have the NRA at the forefront of the "shall issue" movement
- The NRA added a "personal protection outside the home". More important than the services of another course, this class makes it clear that the NRA no longer considers the non-LEO carry of a defensive sidearm in public to be something to be treated like the proverbial red headed step child (with all due respect to red headed adoptees)
- The NRA has decent working relationships with action shooting sports that use realistic targets in matches not restricted to LEO, and has granted formal recognition to such matches. (Note that the old line PPC matches were, by NRA policy, restricted to LEO only)
There are still items on which some disagree, such as when is strategic compromise going to limit our losses vs. when will it give up something we could have otherwise not lost. Another area for disagreement is the NRA policy of never supporting a third party candidate, choosing only to support candidates with a chance of winning. (Short term benefit, but it tells the side we support you don't have to go "all the way for us", just "be better than the other alternative").
It is obvious from this thread that there are a lot of gun owners out there that are less than thrilled with the way the NRA is doing business. Just like the republicans waking up to the fact that there is a tea party movement out there that they had better start supporting and taking seriously, so should the NRA evaluate what they are doing wrong to P.O. so many gun advocates.
I have read thru the thread, and I guess I am personally swayed enough to re-up with the NRA this year. On whole, they do a lot more good than bad. Just wish they would work hard at reducing the "bad" portion in the future.
I have read thru the thread, and I guess I am personally swayed enough to re-up with the NRA this year. On whole, they do a lot more good than bad. Just wish they would work hard at reducing the "bad" portion in the future.
My apologies for wandering in here more than a week late. My Google search bot tagged Dad's name (Neal Knox) and The Firearms Coalition.
I've scanned this thread and, frankly, much the same discussion is taking place in boards and forums all over the Net. Dad wrote "Anything that happens within NRA impacts upon our right to keep and bear arms, for with rare exception, the way NRA goes is the way gun legislation goes." He believed that every gun owner should be a member of NRA, but with that membership came the same responsibility to participate and vote as comes with living in a civil society.
The NRA election is on -- the ballots are in the mail and in members' hands now. My brother Jeff just submitted his endorsement list which you can read at our site, The Firearms Coalition. If you want to learn more about the history of the NRA as seen through Neal Knox's eyes, look for my compilation of his writing. It's available at http://www.nealknox.com or at Amazon.
Again, my apologies for barging in and being late. If you're not happy with NRA, I hope you'll take an active part in the governance by voting.
Chris Knox
I've scanned this thread and, frankly, much the same discussion is taking place in boards and forums all over the Net. Dad wrote "Anything that happens within NRA impacts upon our right to keep and bear arms, for with rare exception, the way NRA goes is the way gun legislation goes." He believed that every gun owner should be a member of NRA, but with that membership came the same responsibility to participate and vote as comes with living in a civil society.
The NRA election is on -- the ballots are in the mail and in members' hands now. My brother Jeff just submitted his endorsement list which you can read at our site, The Firearms Coalition. If you want to learn more about the history of the NRA as seen through Neal Knox's eyes, look for my compilation of his writing. It's available at http://www.nealknox.com or at Amazon.
Again, my apologies for barging in and being late. If you're not happy with NRA, I hope you'll take an active part in the governance by voting.
Chris Knox
Thanks for showing up here Chris!
I looked forward to Neal's column in SGN for many years, and now yours.
Welcome aboard!
I looked forward to Neal's column in SGN for many years, and now yours.
Welcome aboard!
HooVooLoo
NES Member
- Joined
- May 31, 2008
- Messages
- 2,514
- Likes
- 230
Heh, who do you think creates half the virii/trojans in the first place?
You understand my point exactly. The NRA is a political animal and it has a political process. Voter turnout is notoriously low in the NRA election -- the rate in recent years has been between five and seven percent. It's always struck me as ironic that the Gun Lobby (I mean the Greater Gun Lobby, of which the NRA is only a part) can wield such tremendous influence in a general election, and yet can't get its own big dog under control. In the 1977 Cincinnati meeting, the members grabbed the reins and restructured the NRA. The NRA brass spent more than twenty years undoing what happened that night. Members now have virtually no voice at the meeting of members outside of some tightly controlled resolutions.
With the petition process, one of the last remaining member powers, the members do have a way to get the voices they want on the Board. But they rarely exercise that power.
As I mentioned earlier, Jeff has posted his list of endorsements on our web site and we're trying to jump-start a discussion at http://www.gunvoter.org/. But like every other facet of that participatory sport known as politics, if you don't play, you don't win.
Chris Knox
Actually, there is only one case before the SC. The NRA was party to two other cases that were heard and decided together at the circuit level but were not consolidated. All three cases were appealed to the SC, but only McDonald was granted certiorari. Granting the NRA time at oral arguments was appropriate given the interests of three different parties and the SC has a mechanism for doing so.
It's important to recognize the very different interests that the NRA has vs. Gura & co. The NRA cares about gun issues, Gura is a Federalist that cares about the Constitution. That's why he's pushing on POI so hard. It's inconceivable that the SC won't incorporated the 2nd amendment. Gura wants the breath life into the POI clause, have it mean something and he's going to appeal to all of the Justices to right a wrong by overturning the Slaughter House cases.
- Joined
- May 17, 2008
- Messages
- 16,975
- Likes
- 2,820
But at what cost? If he does it at the expense of the second amendment, it really doesn't help us much. BTW: I am all for taking slaughterhouse outback and putting it out of it's misery and bringing back P&I but I want someone arguing this case that ultimately wants the same thing as the plaintiff.
Doesn't matter. His secondary logic is due process. That's the ease, no risk route. I think the issue will be which clause the court uses in their opinion. POI or due process.
I look at it this way...
Is Gura pissed and rightfully so that the NRA jumped on? Yes.
In the end though, at the expense of a 3rd of his time, it provides a hedge if the bench doesn't like his logic...
So, we get two advocates rather than one - two briefs rather than one.
I don't know that Gura is pissed. But his objective is markedly different than that of the NRA. The NRA only wants to strike down a gun ban. Gura wants to give meaning to an overlooked and neglected part of the constitution.
And I don't think we would have given anything up by not having the NRA there. Gura has fully justified a due process rational for incorporation. But POI is his priority. In any event, the NRA has a right to be there based upon the history of the three cases.
Remember, Gura and Levy aren't gun people - they are people that believe every word in the constitution means something. Incorporating Heller is just his excuse to prove that about the POI clause of the 14A. I believe that Heller was successful because these guys were pure constitutionalists and weren't blinded by the tangible objective of over turning the DC gun ban. Sometimes that's what you need........
