Author Topic: Who among us are not NRA Members...and why? (Read 21914 times)

Land_Owner · « **on:** April 26, 2007, 04:26:44 PM »

I believe in the RTKBA and feel it is a publicly diminishing right that our children's children's children may not be able to enjoy unless we actively do something about it now.

weasel · « **Reply #1 on:** April 27, 2007, 09:29:29 AM »

Land Owner, I agree totally, sure is funny how people can spend thousands of $ on guns, hunting, etc, yet will have the audacity to complain about the cost of joining such an organization. We have a number of fundraisers here, RMEF, NWTF, MDF and friends of NRA, the NRA dinner is the smallest. I really don't like all the requests for $ they send me, but it must work for some people or we wouldn't be getting them all the time. We sponsor the NRA dinner each year, only $250, and have the chance to win something also. If people don't want to join, do SOMETHING, like make it a habit to call your elected representatives, at least be vocal. I don't always agree with what the NRA does, gotta think of the greater good and line up behind the biggest organization fighting for our intrests.

Graybeard · « **Reply #2 on:** April 27, 2007, 11:45:19 AM »

I've been a life member longer than a large segment of the membership has been alive. Back then the cost was only $150 I think or maybe it was $125, been too long to recall really. But I must say that if I were not a life member today I'd NOT be a member at all.

I understand most of you guys really do honestly believe the NRA is not only a friend but a best friend to gun owners. I do NOT agree. I think they are one of our worst enemies. LaPierre is in my opinion the biggest single problem with the NRA and if he were gone I'd consider again supporting them but not as long as he is there. The facts about him and what he's done to the NRA are out there if you care to investigate. While he and Klinton both made such a big deal of what enemies they were I think the truth was they were in bed together (figuratively not literally).

From my research it seems that every single ANTI gun bill passed since LaPierre took over passed only after the NRA agreed "we" could live with that and those Senators and Congressment looking to the NRA for guidance then passed them whereas had the NRA REALLY been opposed and had they made it know thru back dooor channels as well as the public face they put up then those bills in my opinion would NEVER have passed.

I do NOT feel the NRA is our friend at all and they take away dollars our real friends could use to do good not harm to us.

weasel · « **Reply #3 on:** April 27, 2007, 12:34:40 PM »

GB, appreciate your enlightenment, you're correct, I didn't really do my research. They do need some changes, I guess it will take a big outcry (bigger?) to make that happen. I too am a life member and have voting rights, but don't always do the homework on the candidates. I'm sure there are many just like yourself who are fed up. Isn't it up to us to change that? Not an accusation, just a question.

BTW, great work you, the Mrs., and Matt do. This site is a great tool to make an impact like we need. Thanks

GregP42 · « **Reply #4 on:** April 27, 2007, 01:15:47 PM »

GB,

I have to agree with you, LaPierre is not in our best interests, I have been a life member for a long time too, I paid my life dues when I was about 20, and that was almost 25 years ago now, like you I have seen the changes, the Rifleman is nothing but adds anymore for the gun companies, where are all the articles on how to do things like there was when I was younger? The whole thing just stinks to high heaven anymore, I say and have been saying for a long time we need to get rid of LaPierre and get someone in there that will do the job he is supposed to be doing, and I wouldn't put it past him to be cozy with the clintons in more ways than one!

GReg

pills · « **Reply #5 on:** April 27, 2007, 01:28:49 PM »

Cause the Gun Owners of America don't budge to just to appease. Cause the NRA seems to focus everybody on hunting and the 2nd is not about hunting. Because they ask for money more than a televangelist.

"What part of shall not be infringed do you not understand?"

Graybeard · « **Reply #6 on:** April 27, 2007, 05:29:57 PM »

Quote from: weasel on April 27, 2007, 12:34:40 PM

GB, appreciate your enlightenment, you're correct, I didn't really do my research. They do need some changes, I guess it will take a big outcry (bigger?) to make that happen. I too am a life member and have voting rights, but don't always do the homework on the candidates. I'm sure there are many just like yourself who are fed up. Isn't it up to us to change that? Not an accusation, just a question.

BTW, great work you, the Mrs., and Matt do. This site is a great tool to make an impact like we need. Thanks

We did make the change once long ago. I can't recall now but it seems it was either 77 or 87. The organization had shifted so far out of sync with reality the membership rose up in a ground swell in Cinncinati and kicked out all the bad guys and started over on the right path. Boy that ended for sure when LaPierre took over.

Did you know that when Marion Hammer was President that the NRA each and every year she was President donated $100,000 to a club in FL her home state? Did you know that club gave her $100,000 each and every year for doing nothing for them? Did you know that by the bylaws as they exist even today the President of the NRA cannot draw a salary from the NRA?

Did you know it is or at least WAS illegal and against the bylaws for those in power to use the NRA publications to push for their own reelection? Did you know that in the Marion Hammer/LaPierre rein that's exactly what was done and those who were trying to turn it around like in Cinncinati were denied access to those same publications?

The list goes on and on and on and on and yet his strangle hold on the NRA is so entrenched he will die in office most likely. I'll never give them one red cent as long as he is associated with the NRA in any official capacity and will not have one good word to say about them again as long as he is even allowed to continue to be a member, assuming he even IS a member.

We WILL lose our guns most likely in my life time and the NRA will be the reason of that I have no doubt. Only time will tell if I'm right or wrong and no one hopes more than me I'm wrong but unless LaPierre is removed I don't see the NRA ever being turned around.

Jerry Lester · « **Reply #7 on:** April 27, 2007, 05:48:28 PM »

I agree with GB. I thought long, and hard about joining, but, being the investigative type of person I am, I did a lot of research on them myself. It really doesn't take a rocket scientist to see through their smoke, and mirrors. Like GB said, from what I've learned, the NRA has done more to hurt our cause than to help it for a long time now.

If you really want to make a difference, you need to vote with your mind, and heart. Stop voting with your wallet as the reasoning. I for one would gladly live with less money, benifits, etc. in order to keep my rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. As we all know, without the right to be armed, we don't stand a chance of keeping these other so called rights.

buffermop · « **Reply #8 on:** April 27, 2007, 06:00:34 PM »

I also agree with GB. I do belong to a state grass root organization 'Gun Owners Action League. which deals with gun laws at the local level. It is recognized by the NRA, but it has its own board of executive officers.

NONYA · « **Reply #9 on:** April 27, 2007, 09:39:41 PM »

My grandfather buys me a membership,cant wait till he stops,all they do is make rich politician's richer and concede to the antis,they will never get a dime from me,all i get from them is literature begging for more money,they can go to hell.

LEO · « **Reply #10 on:** April 28, 2007, 03:05:39 AM »

Ok here goes, I know I am probably going to start a firestorm but we'll see. I am a life member of the NRA but I think the NRA has sold gunowners out on a lot of things. The 2nd amendment has absolutely nothing to do with hunting, or target shooting. The 2nd amendment exists to give the citizens the right to protect themselves from a tyrannical government. The whole concept of "sporting purpose" is found no where in the constitution. I fact if you read the intent of the founding fathers in their writings it would be easier to make the argument that it was legal to ban a fine trap shotgun than a machine gun. I have heard the argument that "assualt rifles" didn't exist then and so on and I admiit that they didn't, but the founding fathers did not prohibit the citizens from owning the most modern and up to date weapons of the time. I find no prohibition against a citizen owning a field cannon if they wanted one. In addition the whole idea that the 2nd amendement applies to the National Guard is also silly, while the brave men and women of the Guard do an excellent job and make us all safer by their work, the idea of the National Guard came into being over 100 years after the Consititution was written. The Militias of that day were loosly formed groups of citizens not regularly organized "armies". If we don't get away from the idea of "sporting purpose" we will lose our gun rights.

alsaqr · « **Reply #11 on:** April 28, 2007, 03:41:41 AM »

i've been an NRA member for over 50 years. If it were not for the NRA none of you would be able to own any kind of gun at all. Just love all the copout reasons for not supporting the NRA. There are folks on this forum who will not donate the price of a premium six-pack of beer to preserve his gun rights. When the liberal anti-gunners that you claim to hate finally get your guns you will whine: "Where was the NRA."

Grumulkin · « **Reply #12 on:** April 28, 2007, 03:51:46 AM »

Despite what ya'll say, the NRA is the biggest political organization that supports gun rights in any fashion in the U.S.A. If it wasn't for the NRA, we probably would have lost the right to legally own guns years ago.

I've been a life member of the NRA for many years but if there is a better organization, I'll join that as well so tell me what organization is better (I already belong to SCI).

Land_Owner · « **Reply #13 on:** April 28, 2007, 04:30:14 AM »

Wow...the NRA is Wayne LaPierre. I didn't know that. I thought he was just the "Stand Up Guy" for the organization along with the current President Sandy Froman, whom I readily admit that I enjoy her style. I have been a Life Member since '87 and I am proud of it. No one else with such a big stick is keeping the faith, speaking the truth, shouting down the lies. From some of your posts one would believe you are also ready to concede defeat and succeed from the Republic - extrapolating your ideals to include the Government and its corrupt officials. This web site is in part alive today due to the doggedly untiring workings of the NRA. Think about that. The NRA is NOT about individuals. You can make it about him, but that isn't the point. United we Stand...Divided we Fall. Think about that too. Individuals come and individuals go. What remains are those of us, you and me, that make up the rank and file. I'm OK and you're OK. We're here today talking the talk and walking the walk. I WANT a strong NRA for the protection of TRUTH, to stand firm on the principal of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (in whatever fashion that may be to you and to me), and to bow to NO ONE in pursuit of these goals.

Land_Owner · « **Reply #14 on:** April 28, 2007, 04:52:36 AM »

Individuals join for the greater goals of the organization. Perception is Reality. Individuals raising upwards in the ranks to top positions and then staying there can be a bane to the organization as the ideal is no longer the goal, the reality is no longer the perception...compromises made have to be maintained...affiliations fostered mean debts repaid. The perception of upward mobility for the organization tops out at the level of stagnation with the individual and their personal goals. The "Peter Principal" at work, rising to their own level of incompetence. Conversion of the organization's goals into the individual's goals is often the result. No longer is the position about the organization than it is about the person in that position. This appears to be the point of greatest conflict for many at this time.

jhm · « **Reply #15 on:** April 28, 2007, 06:07:35 AM »

I am no longer a member or will I go out of my way as to join AGAIN, bigger doesnt mean better, I have my reasons and they are good enough for me, but they go along the lines of GBs, over the past 40+ years I have owned a gunshop with ranges / been a partned in another gunshop with ranges / and am actively involved with a pawn shop at present, so its not just some OLD MAN talking. Those of you who do support them go forward, but dont look for a reason to critisize those of us who no longer do support the NRA. JIM

Ranger J · « **Reply #16 on:** April 28, 2007, 07:08:45 AM »

I lost most of my faith in the NRA several years ago when they sent me an unsolicited video and then told me how much I needed to pay them for it. They are lucky I sent it back. In most states unsolicited merchandise is considered a gift. I let them know what I thought about this kind of activity but never heard anything back from them. You’re right the Rifleman is now a large waste of trees.
RJ

alsaqr · « **Reply #17 on:** April 28, 2007, 07:20:03 AM »

All of you NRA bashers just go ahead and rail on. Those of you who claim that the NRA is all about hunting are being totally dishonest. The NRA has consistently stated that the Second Amendment is not about hunting. There are three kinds of folks who do not support the NRA: Those who are too stingy, those who think they can get a free ride and the antis. If you ain't a member of the NRA you are part of the problem.

dw06 · « **Reply #18 on:** April 28, 2007, 10:42:13 AM »

Quote from: alsaqr on April 28, 2007, 07:20:03 AM

Those who are too stingy, those who think they can get a free ride and the antis. If you ain't a member of the NRA you are part of the problem.

I got to disagree with you there.I was a member for many years,the reasons I quit supporting the NRA are the same as G.Bs.That and in the 92 election when the NRA couldn't pick between Bush and Clinton,come on.If you don't have the guts to pick between those two,don't ask for my money or support!

Graybeard · « **Reply #19 on:** April 28, 2007, 11:30:27 AM »

Those of you who still believe the NRA is on your side feel free to continue blindly in that belief. But my research shows me just the opposite. If the NRA had never stepped in and pretended to act in the interest of gun owners then in my opinion none of the oppressive legislation we now have would have been enacted.

As to LaPierre being the NRA, nope he isn't but he rules it with an absolute iron fist. He was FIRED by the board of directors some time back but that same Marion Hammer who mysteriously got a gift of $100,000 per year from a club to whom the NRA had donated that exact same amount over rode their action in her capacity as club president. Then they began a campaign of dirty tactics that resulted in the board members who voted against him being kicked out.

So continue to blindly walk the path to destruction if you wish. Me I took my blinders off and researched the matter. Should LaPierre be fired and his cronies removed and if the NRA once again manages to turn itself around I'll be happy to support it again.

NONYA · « **Reply #20 on:** April 28, 2007, 11:52:29 AM »

Somebody believes too much of the money begging propaganda they send out,you think that because the NRA tells you they have saved your gun rights its true?You think all the republicans that have fought against gun control wouldn't do so without the nRA telling them to?You are sadly mistaken,send your money to whoever you want but DO NOT tell me im dishonest for not supporting them,sounds like some of thier BS to me.

pills · « **Reply #21 on:** April 28, 2007, 12:10:44 PM »

When I read things like ""House Democratic leaders are working with the National Rifle Association" I cringe.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070420/ap_on_go_co/virginia_tech_gun_checks

When are we gonna get laws blocking mentally ill people from exercising their 1st rights?
I am not stingy ( I give over 20% of my income to charity)
I am not looking for a free ride and I am not an anti. Trying to guilt me into the NRA isn't going to work. I will throw money in the toilet before I join the NRA again.

thxmrgarand · « **Reply #22 on:** April 28, 2007, 12:25:27 PM »

The Friends of NRA banquet for my town is tonight. We will have perhaps 300 men, women and youngsters there. Many state legislators will be there, and I wouldn't be surprised to see the governor although I have not heard that she is coming. Many interest groups - general aviation pilots come to mind - wish they had an organization like the NRA since the federal government continually nibbles away at their use of airspace. Special interest groups like the Sierra Club and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals try to copy the NRA but don't come close to being as effective, especially in state and national elections. I watched the efforts of politicians following the Kennedy assassination, and I am certain that without the NRA we would not be able to openly use privately owned firearms today. Yes, probably each of us has a favorite NRA figure from the past; Heston being the most recent example. However, even as people come and go, the NRA survives and every United States gun owner rides on the shoulders of the NRA. Personally, when a new shooter shows up I offer to buy their first NRA membership. While it has never happened, if someone adamantly refused to be an NRA member then I would let them know that in my opinion there is no place for them at our gun clubs. I follow the NRA closely. I am realistic about the big dollars in Washington, DC and how all special interest groups operate there today. I have never felt that money I send to the NRA is wasted or not well spent. Long live the NRA. I know of no more reliable outfit.

Graybeard · « **Reply #23 on:** April 28, 2007, 01:46:10 PM »

I don't agree, the NRA is riding on OUR shoulders and the burden of their weight is just too heavy. Again I say if you wish to believe they are your friend go ahead you are free to do so. But they are NOT and they are what's taking our rights not helping to preserve them. Of that I personally have no doubts.

billy_56081 · « **Reply #24 on:** April 28, 2007, 01:53:06 PM »

The NRA is just like the United States of America. It's not perfect but it's far and away the best thing going.

Grumulkin · « **Reply #25 on:** April 29, 2007, 01:20:26 AM »

OK, you NRA bashers. Tell me about an organization that supports our interests that I don't already belong to that is as good or better than the NRA in political clout and goals, and I'll join it. Actually, tell me about a reputable organization that has a reasonable chance of getting more than a pittance of members that will support my gun interests and I'll join it even if it doesn't yet have political clout.

If you think we wouldn't have more oppressive gun laws without the NRA, then I think you're living in La La Land.

I, by the way, actually read candidate descriptions when I vote in NRA elections. If some of you believe there are more qualified candidates for NRA leadership, why don't you post them on this site and others?

alsaqr · « **Reply #26 on:** April 29, 2007, 02:25:54 AM »

If i were a Brady Bunch advocate i would feel good that all of you NRA haters out there do not support the Second Amendment. You must be "hunters."

Land_Owner · « **Reply #27 on:** April 29, 2007, 02:31:35 AM »

All right. The tone here is a verb or two short of distemper. Dial it down a notch or two or else dukkillr or GB will be locking and deleting this thread...with my blessing.

Two Rules:
1. We will NOT resort to name calling. That is the first round won by the opposition.
2. We can agree to disagree with tact and without personal accusations. It is a lively debate with points made and taken on both sides of the issue. Sensitivity runs deep and the passion on each side is appreciated. There is no reason to depart this thread as enemies. We are NOT the enemy. I repeat...United we Stand, Divided we Fall.

Summarizing:
Against
A. NRA positions are voluntary and without pay, yet some officials seem to have found a loop hole to exploit.
B. Too much solicitation of money from members.
C. Mysterious insider politics resulting in a major division of allegiances and the firings of dissenters.
D. Unsolicited merchandise (video) with exorbitant fee.
E. "Sporting purposes" has taken too large a center stage.
F. Use of publications to solicit reelections was contradictory to the bylaws.

For
a. Firm stand on RKBA. Diminishing gun rights need to be politically addressed.
b. No comparison organization in whom to turn.
c. Once a Life member, always a Life member.
d. United we Stand...Divided we Fall.
f. The protection of TRUTH. The survivors record history.
g. Bow to NO ONE in these pursuits.

A reasonable assemblage of PRO and CON attributes.

Are there others?

LEO · « **Reply #28 on:** April 29, 2007, 05:49:39 AM »

Now to finish my comments from yesterday, sorry for the delay but since I like to eat and support my hobbies, I have to go when work calls. The NRA has done a lot in the past to support gun owners and gun rights, but like many large organizations they have gotten too caught up in internal politics and bickering. It needs to be clear to the NRA leadership that if they don't return to their grass roots base, quit squabbling amongst the leadership, and loose the idea of sporting purpose and compromise they will become less and less effective and loose even more of their credibility. Has the NRA been an effective group in the past yes but they are less so now, they must get back to their base. But I don't think we should throw the baby out with the bath water, we as gun owners just need to make it clear that if things don't change we are all going to lose for the present time, I think that the NRA can still be brought back on course and I am not quitting yet. I personally feel that the 2nd amendment is the prop that holds up the rest of the amendements and the entire Constitution. If the 2nd goes soon many of the rest of our rights will follow. Oh an finally lets be careful about telling people that if they don't support the NRA that they have no business at our gun clubs and ranges. They can be a voice for the 2nd amendment without an NRA card in their pocket plus that might be a fine way to alinate a beginning shooter who was just testing the waters. The bottom line is that if we don't stick together in some way and make it clear to everyone how we feel about our rights we will lose them.

OLDHandgunner · « **Reply #29 on:** April 29, 2007, 04:02:45 PM »

I have been a yearly member ( not a life member ) of the NRA since the 60's. Think the life membership was $75 back then. Yes they have changed over the years & I don't agree with alot of the things they do. But I do believe that if we didn't have the NRA back years ago we wouldn't be talking about shooting & handgunning now.
Maybe we should all get together and let them know how we feel about some of the things that they have changed, that we don't agree with. Maybe this will send them a message that we would support them more if they would get back on track. After all they need our money.
I still am a yearly NRA member and vote in all local, state & national elections. We need to keep our right to bear arms freedom for our kids, grandkids & great-grandkids.
If all of us gun owners and hunters unite as one we can't be beat by those anti-gun & anti-hunter groups.
Lets all stick together.