Does the NRA Really Support Gun Owners?

[Redhawk1]

And I didn't, but the law didn't mention anyone else but the NRA and to me thats intimidation.

I guess we look at things differentially!

 We sure do, but i have watched the nra give away, compromise, our rights and allow them to be "infringed" upon for a life time. I have a carcano i ordered off the back of a comic book as a teen, it was delivered to my door by the mailman. Just how has the NRA protected that right. The final straw was when they stole 15 minutes before the supreme court from the SAF and without any work or expense now claim the Heller decision as "Their" victory. It was a cheap tacit and they have no bragging rights with anyone who  followed the case.  It's great you found a snail mail address for them wonder how long it will take to get a reply and a phone number to membership services. Think the normal member can call your guy and have him answer his phone?

 Don't blame the NRA for anti-gun laws. It is our legislators that write bills, and the President that signs them into law. Just incase you don't know how it works, here is something for you to watch...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEJL2Uuv-oQ

[sidewinder319]

It is not by accident that the NRA is blamed for the 1968 Gun Laws pushed thru by LBJ and the Kennedy's. The fact that I have read all kinds of arguments of how the NRA caused these laws to pass. We only had a small membership in 1968 and Damn little money. Gun owners were being punished by the Democratic party for the death of JFK. The Dems wanted to Ban rifle scopes and about everything else. They did ban mail orders sales and set up the BATF.  So why are these people blaming the NRA for these gun laws.  Why do they never blame the Democratic Party the number one gun grabbers in America. I wonder??

[Redhawk1]

It is not by accident that the NRA is blamed for the 1968 Gun Laws pushed thru by LBJ and the Kennedy's. The fact that I have read all kinds of arguments of how the NRA caused these laws to pass. We only had a small membership in 1968 and Damn little money. Gun owners were being punished by the Democratic party for the death of JFK. The Dems wanted to Ban rifle scopes and about everything else. They did ban mail orders sales and set up the BATF.  So why are these people blaming the NRA for these gun laws.  Why do they never blame the Democratic Party the number one gun grabbers in America. I wonder??

That is my point as well.. For whatever reason, they feel attacking the NRA is helping. When gun owners attack a pro-gun group such as the NRA, they are doing nothing but helping the liberal left anti-gun nuts.
 
I am sure people will say I am attacking another pro-gun group, and they are right to a point. The reason I attack the GOA is, the GOA and their members are always attacking the NRA, for no other reason but to gain members and money. You have never seen the NRA stoop to this level EVER!
 
The only way to change an organization is to get involved in it, sitting back and bashing it does nothing. Leaving the NRA is not going to help either. I sit here and think, how many of these NRA bashers actually get involved in their local area with the people making these anti-gun bills. I would like to know how many of them go to legislative hall, and meet with their State Representatives and Senators. I know that the pro-gun groups in Delaware along with the backing of the NRA meet with them all the time, as I am right their as well. I have never in my many years of meeting with the legislators, seen a single GOA, SAF or any other pro-gun organization other than the NRA represented.
 
If it had not been for the NRA, we would not have even known what bill are up for consideration. Their alerts are a great tool we use. Also we the people of Delaware thank the NRA for all the support we have received from them. With the local gun right groups here in Delaware with the support from the NRA, defeated several anti-gun bills purposed in this secession of our legislation. Once again the other pro-gun groups listed above were not seen at all!

[OldSchoolRanger]

Just reading your post, the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with sportsman or hunting or recreational shooting. It is all about our right to keep and bear arms.  It was put in place for the right for the people to defend themselves from enemy, foreign and domestic, which includes our government. Our founding fathers know this was an important issue, that is why it was our 2nd amendment right. Right at the top.

Sure the NRA supports hunters and shooing sports, as guns are part of that.  The NRA is always fighting for our rights. What a lot of people don't understand, the liberals want to do away with guns all together. They want to get rid of the 2nd amendment, which in turn will eventually get rid of all guns.  If you think the NRA does not fight for your rights, I guess you have your head in the sand. Do you understand the number of bills introduced in legislation in every State?  Just on local levels, the NRA fights them all the time. Not to mention what they are fighting on the national level as well. It is not a scare tactic, it is fact, that the anti-gun crowd is doing all they can to take our rights away.

With the GOA and other gun groups bashing the NRA, the liberals and anti-gun crowd do not have to do anything, they can just sit back and watch the groups attack their number one enemy the NRA.. The liberals and anti-gun crowd are united in their fight agents guns, yet the GOA and other groups are so stupid, they would rather pick on one of their own than join the fight to defend the second amendment. Actions speak louder then words, and the GOA is part of the problem..

Has anyone here ever seen the NRA go after any other pro-gun group? No you have not!!!!

+1 Redhawk1,

To all those posters that complain about the fund raising calls and letters, let me ask you a simple question.  How do you expect the NRA to pay for the attorneys, lobbyist, and misc. expenses related to defending your firearms freedoms?  The NRA doesn't have people with deep pockets like G. Soros bankrolling them.  The NRA is financed by us, the membership.  If you don't have the extra money to send in, send in a little now or later.

[torpedoman]

SAF FILES FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AGAINST ILLINOIS CARRY BAN
BELLEVUE, WA - Capitalizing on its federal appeals court victory Wednesday in Ezell v. City of Chicago, the Second Amendment Foundation today moved for a preliminary injunction against the State of Illinois to prevent further enforcement of that state's prohibitions on firearms carry in public by law-abiding citizens.The motion was filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois in Springfield. Joining SAF in this motion are Illinois Carry and four private citizens, Michael Moore, Charles Hooks, Peggy Fechter and Jon Maier. The underlying case is known as Moore v. Madigan.Illinois is the only state in the nation with such prohibitions. The state neither allows open carry or concealed carry, which runs afoul of recent U.S. Supreme Court Second Amendment rulings, including last year's landmark ruling in McDonald v. City of Chicago, another SAF case. SAF was represented in McDonald and Ezell by attorney Alan Gura, who noted after yesterday's appeals court win - forcing a temporary injunction against the city's ban on gun ranges that the city immediately changed after the decision was announced - that "Even Chicago politicians must respect the people's fundamental civil rightsGun rights are coming to Chicago. The only question is how much the city's intransigence will cost taxpayers along the way.""Now that the Seventh Circuit has recognized that the deprivation of the right of armed self-defense is an inherently irreparable injury, it is clear that Illinois' law-abiding gun owners are entitled to a protective injunction," said attorney David Jensen of New York, who, along with Glen Ellyn, IL attorney David Sigale, is representing SAF and the other plaintiffs."Yesterday's win was a wake-up call to Chicago," said SAF Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb. "Today's motion is a signal to the Illinois Legislature that the state's total ban on carrying of firearms for personal protection is counter to both Supreme Court rulings on the Second Amendment, and yesterday's ruling by the Seventh Circuit appeals panel that shredded Chicago's gun ordinance. Our victory Wednesday and today's motion are key components of SAF's overall mission to win back firearms freedoms one lawsuit at a time."
The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation's oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control. In addition to the landmark McDonald v. Chicago Supreme Court Case, SAF has previously funded successful firearms-related suits against the cities of Los Angeles; New Haven, CT; New Orleans; Chicago and San Francisco on behalf of American gun owners, a lawsuit against the cities suing gun makers and numerous amicus briefs holding the Second Amendment as an individual right.    

Please note the lack of mention of the N.R.A. in this law suit.

[Redhawk1]

Check what the NRA did March 13 2011..  You are so quick to jump on the NRA without even knowing that they were already on it..
 
http://twg2a.wordpress.com/2011/05/13/nra-files-lawsuit-in-illinois-against-unconstitutional-firearms-ban/

[Redhawk1]

http://www.suntimes.com/6250068-417/gun-control-battle-brewing-in-illinois-as-nra-allies-target-state.html Gun-control battle brewing in Illinois as NRA, allies target state  By Christopher Wills June 29, 2011 8:58PM 

• Reprints
• 10Share

  FILE - In this March 10, 2011 file photo, gun owners and supporters show their support during Gun Owners' Lobby Day at the Illinois State Capitol in Springfield. Illinois is one of just two states, the other being Wisconsin, that don’t give people permission to carry concealed guns. Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker is set to sign in law July 4 ending that state's ban. That will give Illinois an important status. Pro-gun groups want to be able to say every single state gives people a legal way to carry concealed weapons. Gun control advocates want to hang on to Illinois and avoid nationwide defeat on concealed carry. ( AP Photo/Seth Perlman, File)   Updated: June 30, 2011 2:11AM

 SPRINGFIELD — As state after state voted to let residents carry concealed guns, Illinois has held out, for a long list of reasons: A strong gun control movement. A dynasty of powerful Chicago mayors. A line-up of state leaders who oppose expanding access to guns.
With Wisconsin now on the verge of adopting concealed carry, Illinois soon will be all alone, the last state with a complete ban on carrying concealed weapons. That makes it the next big prize in the fierce national contest over gun control, with the National Rifle Association and its allies targeting the 50th state.
Despite the obstacles, gun-rights advocates believe time and political momentum are on their side. Pro-gun groups expect to make another push this fall or next spring. They’re also pursuing at least two lawsuits. The outcome of the effort will determine whether firearms officially achieve new status in the United States — something citizens of every state can own and carry, regardless of regional differences or which party is in power.
“We never give up,” said Andrew Arulanandam, public affairs director for the National Rifle Association. “We’ve been around 140 years as an organization. If we don’t get something this time around, we’re going to work until we get it.”
Right now, Wisconsin is the only other state that doesn’t give people a way to obtain permission to carry concealed guns. But lawmakers there have voted to end their ban, and Gov. Scott Walker said Monday that he would sign the change into law after July 4. AP

[nw_hunter]

I am working with the NRA to establish an 1,800 acre shooting complex. This is the 3rd range we have put together in the past 30 years. The NRA provides design support, grants and help in all areas of range development as well as a source for insurance.   We have as always contacted other gun groups RBK, GAO etc. We have never recieved any help from these groups.  When working on CCW laws we ask only the NRA supplied help. But as soon as everything is done they claim they helped and then attack the NRA. They followup by asking for money.  Larry Pratt lives well.  Would some one here who supports RBK and GAO post how we can get funds from them for any project. Please we  could use the help. Waiting for your post.

The GOA, SAF, RKBA and others are not in the business of building firing ranges. They are in the business of securing your right to use them or going to the great outdoors to use your own range!

By the time the NRA and Liberal's in this country (Demo and Rep) get through with us, the only place you will be able to fire your weapon will be at an NRA government approved firing range. You will prob. have to check the weapon out from a local armory!.......Sound familiar?

We prob. have some UK and Australian members on the forum that can explain that scenario.
I had to accompany my Grandson several years ago to a State mandated gun safety course, before he was allowed to hunt.So we parents aren't good enough to train our own children in the use of firearms?The instructors were NRA certified.............Well Whoop te-do!!

Right now we need uncompromising support for  our right to keep and bear arms,more than a government controlled firing range built in part with YOUR money by the NRA!

[Redhawk1]

I am working with the NRA to establish an 1,800 acre shooting complex. This is the 3rd range we have put together in the past 30 years. The NRA provides design support, grants and help in all areas of range development as well as a source for insurance.   We have as always contacted other gun groups RBK, GAO etc. We have never recieved any help from these groups.  When working on CCW laws we ask only the NRA supplied help. But as soon as everything is done they claim they helped and then attack the NRA. They followup by asking for money.  Larry Pratt lives well.  Would some one here who supports RBK and GAO post how we can get funds from them for any project. Please we  could use the help. Waiting for your post.

The GOA, SAF, RKBA and others are not in the business of building firing ranges. They are in the business of securing your right to use them or going to the great outdoors to use your own range!

By the time the NRA and Liberal's in this country (Demo and Rep) get through with us, the only place you will be able to fire your weapon will be at an NRA government approved firing range. You will prob. have to check the weapon out from a local armory!.......Sound familiar?

We prob. have some UK and Australian members on the forum that can explain that scenario.
I had to accompany my Grandson several years ago to a State mandated gun safety course, before he was allowed to hunt.So we parents aren't good enough to train our own children in the use of firearms?The instructors were NRA certified.............Well Whoop te-do!!

Right now we need uncompromising support for  our right to keep and bear arms,more than a government controlled firing range built in part with YOUR money by the NRA!

You still do not have a clue as to how it all works. You throw out a bunch of BS and speculation, and expect people to take you serious. What a joke your rants have become. You have no credibility with the trash you are putting out.
 

[sidewinder319]

The folks in England and Scotland would love to have had a an American NRA. While I was in England talking to shooters it was always. If we had only had an NRA we would not have lost our freedoms. RBK, GAO were asked for help to fight for CCW laws. Good old Larry Pratt keeps your money.  I ask you how do you get help or funds from the GAO and RBK??? So they don't support shooting ranges a little strange for a progun group. Thats like saying Methodist won't support their churches.  Just tell us where the RBK is spending money? What bills have they introduced to change the 1935 Machine Gun Law. You listed a number of laws backed by the NRA list the laws introduced by RBK to change these laws???  We have had NRA Lawyers over the years sent to help out in 2nd cases.  I have never seen or heard of a RBK Lawyer sent to help anyone.  Am I wrong state a case?? The RBK has a big list of options for sending them money.

[OldSchoolRanger]

And I didn't, but the law didn't mention anyone else but the NRA and to me thats intimidation.

I don't agree with you.  If that's intimidation you scare easily.  It was more likely that the LEO didn't know any other source to suggest.  You should consider yourself lucky, that the LEO was a supporter of gun rights otherwise, he would have really showed you intimidation.

[OldSchoolRanger]

I am working with the NRA to establish an 1,800 acre shooting complex. This is the 3rd range we have put together in the past 30 years. The NRA provides design support, grants and help in all areas of range development as well as a source for insurance.   We have as always contacted other gun groups RBK, GAO etc. We have never recieved any help from these groups.  When working on CCW laws we ask only the NRA supplied help. But as soon as everything is done they claim they helped and then attack the NRA. They followup by asking for money.  Larry Pratt lives well.  Would some one here who supports RBK and GAO post how we can get funds from them for any project. Please we  could use the help. Waiting for your post.

sidewinder319 +1 ,  When the shooting club, I belonged to needed to revise their range, because of possible law suits from anti-gun neighbors, the NRA supplied assistance.  When the anti-gun neighbors filed a lawsuit to try to close the range down, the NRA supplied legal advice and assistance.  No other group helped.

[OldSchoolRanger]

It is not by accident that the NRA is blamed for the 1968 Gun Laws pushed thru by LBJ and the Kennedy's. The fact that I have read all kinds of arguments of how the NRA caused these laws to pass. We only had a small membership in 1968 and Damn little money. Gun owners were being punished by the Democratic party for the death of JFK. The Dems wanted to Ban rifle scopes and about everything else. They did ban mail orders sales and set up the BATF.  So why are these people blaming the NRA for these gun laws.  Why do they never blame the Democratic Party the number one gun grabbers in America. I wonder??

That's because people have short memories.    If they looked up the facts and the reasons the 1968 gun laws passed, they would see that the NRA at that time was not the same pro-gun ownership NRA that we have today.  They were more interested in shooting matches.  No one in their right mind in 1968 believed that the country would turn anti-gun, because of the assassination of the President.  With the political anti-gun frenzy whipped up by the press right after the Kennedy assassination, we were lucky there wasn't a complete ban on the sales of guns.  The old board also didn't do anything to fight the abuses by the BATF. 
Is the current NRA the best pro-gun organization, not by any means, but IMO it is the best we have at this time.

[vabowhntr]

The NRA is just like the unions, but instead of golf courses that the rank & file can't use they have there private hunt club in NM. Ya keep sending them your hard earned money I did for alot of years. Now that I'm on a fixed income I fixed theres=0!

Actually, the NRA staff can't hunt at the Whittington Center .

[vabowhntr]

That's because people have short memories.    If they looked up the facts and the reasons the 1968 gun laws passed, they would see that the NRA at that time was not the same pro-gun ownership NRA that we have today.  They were more interested in shooting matches.  No one in their right mind in 1968 believed that the country would turn anti-gun, because of the assassination of the President.  With the political anti-gun frenzy whipped up by the press right after the Kennedy assassination, we were lucky there wasn't a complete ban on the sales of guns.  The old board also didn't do anything to fight the abuses by the BATF. 
Is the current NRA the best pro-gun organization, not by any means, but IMO it is the best we have at this time.

 
Wasn't the NRA ILA started in the mid 70's to fight against these gun control laws?   

[Redhawk1]

That's because people have short memories.    If they looked up the facts and the reasons the 1968 gun laws passed, they would see that the NRA at that time was not the same pro-gun ownership NRA that we have today.  They were more interested in shooting matches.  No one in their right mind in 1968 believed that the country would turn anti-gun, because of the assassination of the President.  With the political anti-gun frenzy whipped up by the press right after the Kennedy assassination, we were lucky there wasn't a complete ban on the sales of guns.  The old board also didn't do anything to fight the abuses by the BATF. 
Is the current NRA the best pro-gun organization, not by any means, but IMO it is the best we have at this time.

 
Wasn't the NRA ILA started in the mid 70's to fight against these gun control laws?

  Just because you fight agents the legislators, does not guarantee that they will not pass a law by some measure. That is what some don't understand, when the NRA or any other group fight agents a bill or piece of legislation, that the final out come is decided by the representatives and law makers, not the NRA or any other group, we can only try to influence their decision. Any pro-gun group is limited in what they can actually do, it is in the hands of the law makers. The only people to blame for anti-gun laws, are the legislators themselves!
We are given a choice of either this or that, their is no option to do noting, and leave it as it is. It is our responsibility to get rid of anti-gun legislators and replace them through the process of voting. But remember their are anti-gun groups doing the same thing to get their anti-gun people elected as well. That is why I keep telling people to learn the process. I wish the people elected would quit trying to make new laws, and just stick to making the Government run as it was intended to run. Then we would not need lobbing groups, if the people voted in would only stick to the Constitution as it was written, instead of trying to make it a living document, and changing the meaning to suit their needs and agenda.

[nw_hunter]

 RH said.....I wish the people elected would quit trying to make new laws, and just stick to making the Government run as it was intended to run. Then we would not need lobbing groups, if the people voted in would only stick to the Constitution as it was written, instead of trying to make it a living document, and changing the meaning to suit their needs and agenda.

***********************************************************
No argument with that logic!

[sidewinder319]

This SAF news release is so typical.  The original report showed the Illinois  State Rifle  Association support and work on this law.  The Illinois State  Rifle Association is the State NRA.  This is our Boots on the ground in every state. SAF dropped the NRA from the report.  This is so typical of the "What do they do with the money"? groups. Once again dedicated NRA members efforts were ignored in order to raise money for these groups.
 
Yes, if the world was perfect we wouldn't need armies. We have enemies foreign and domestic. We need to and have to organize to protect or freedoms. The enemies to our gun ownership attack us every day. Just read the post on this forum.  There are many who think we do not need to fight for our freedoms.  There are 4 million members of the NRA that are dedicated gun owners.

[Redhawk1]

sidewinder319, good find. I should of looked that up as well. We have a organization here in Delaware that I am a life member of, called the Delaware State Sportsman Association, it is the official NRA sponsored group for Delaware. States have a lot of pro-gun groups that use other names, but are actually an arm of the NRA for each State.

[Redhawk1]

 SAF FILES FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AGAINST ILLINOIS CARRY BAN
BELLEVUE, WA - Capitalizing on its federal appeals court victory Wednesday in Ezell v. City of Chicago, the Second Amendment Foundation today moved for a preliminary injunction against the State of Illinois to prevent further enforcement of that state's prohibitions on firearms carry in public by law-abiding citizens.The motion was filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois in Springfield. Joining SAF in this motion are Illinois Carry and four private citizens, Michael Moore, Charles Hooks, Peggy Fechter and Jon Maier. The underlying case is known as Moore v. Madigan.Illinois is the only state in the nation with such prohibitions. The state neither allows open carry or concealed carry, which runs afoul of recent U.S. Supreme Court Second Amendment rulings, including last year's landmark ruling in McDonald v. City of Chicago, another SAF case. SAF was represented in McDonald and Ezell by attorney Alan Gura, who noted after yesterday's appeals court win - forcing a temporary injunction against the city's ban on gun ranges that the city immediately changed after the decision was announced - that "Even Chicago politicians must respect the people's fundamental civil rightsGun rights are coming to Chicago. The only question is how much the city's intransigence will cost taxpayers along the way.""Now that the Seventh Circuit has recognized that the deprivation of the right of armed self-defense is an inherently irreparable injury, it is clear that Illinois' law-abiding gun owners are entitled to a protective injunction," said attorney David Jensen of New York, who, along with Glen Ellyn, IL attorney David Sigale, is representing SAF and the other plaintiffs."Yesterday's win was a wake-up call to Chicago," said SAF Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb. "Today's motion is a signal to the Illinois Legislature that the state's total ban on carrying of firearms for personal protection is counter to both Supreme Court rulings on the Second Amendment, and yesterday's ruling by the Seventh Circuit appeals panel that shredded Chicago's gun ordinance. Our victory Wednesday and today's motion are key components of SAF's overall mission to win back firearms freedoms one lawsuit at a time."
The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation's oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control. In addition to the landmark McDonald v. Chicago Supreme Court Case, SAF has previously funded successful firearms-related suits against the cities of Los Angeles; New Haven, CT; New Orleans; Chicago and San Francisco on behalf of American gun owners, a lawsuit against the cities suing gun makers and numerous amicus briefs holding the Second Amendment as an individual right.   

Please note the lack of mention of the N.R.A. in this law suit.

I read your bottem line, but I think you should also do some research. The Illinois State Rifle Association that is also part of that, indeed is the NRA affiliate. I guess the SFA forget to let you know that!
 
Illinois State Rifle Association
Gun rights advocacy organization. State affiliate of the National Rifle Association.
www.isra.org/ - Similar
 

• 2011 Illinois Gun Legislation
• ISRA Range Home Page
• How to join the ISRA
• Contacting the ISRA

• Illinois Firearms Information
• ISRA Clubs & Associations
• ISRA Web Links
• Take Action on Your Late FOID

[nw_hunter]

That's because people have short memories.    If they looked up the facts and the reasons the 1968 gun laws passed, they would see that the NRA at that time was not the same pro-gun ownership NRA that we have today.  They were more interested in shooting matches.  No one in their right mind in 1968 believed that the country would turn anti-gun, because of the assassination of the President.  With the political anti-gun frenzy whipped up by the press right after the Kennedy assassination, we were lucky there wasn't a complete ban on the sales of guns.  The old board also didn't do anything to fight the abuses by the BATF. 
Is the current NRA the best pro-gun organization, not by any means, but IMO it is the best we have at this time.

 
Wasn't the NRA ILA started in the mid 70's to fight against these gun control laws?

  Just because you fight agents the legislators, does not guarantee that they will not pass a law by some measure. That is what some don't understand, when the NRA or any other group fight agents a bill or piece of legislation, that the final out come is decided by the representatives and law makers, not the NRA or any other group, we can only try to influence their decision. Any pro-gun group is limited in what they can actually do, it is in the hands of the law makers. The only people to blame for anti-gun laws, are the legislators themselves!
We are given a choice of either this or that, their is no option to do noting, and leave it as it is. It is our responsibility to get rid of anti-gun legislators and replace them through the process of voting. But remember their are anti-gun groups doing the same thing to get their anti-gun people elected as well. That is why I keep telling people to learn the process. I wish the people elected would quit trying to make new laws, and just stick to making the Government run as it was intended to run. Then we would not need lobbing groups, if the people voted in would only stick to the Constitution as it was written, instead of trying to make it a living document, and changing the meaning to suit their needs and agenda.

Just because you fight agents the legislators, does not guarantee that they will not pass a law by some measure. That is what some don't understand, when the NRA or any other group fight agents a bill or piece of legislation, that the final out come is decided by the representatives and law makers, not the NRA or any other group, we can only try to influence their decision. Any pro-gun group is limited in what they can actually do, it is in the hands of the law makers. The only people to blame for anti-gun laws, are the legislators themselves!
We are given a choice of either this or that, their is no option to do noting, and leave it as it is. It is our responsibility to get rid of anti-gun legislators and replace them through the process of voting.

OK! Lets take a look at some of the Politicians. rated by the NRA over the years.
Should they take some credit for their success? After all, they are a powerful lobby for the 2nd A............ RIGHT?


In California JOAN MILKE FLORES VS JANE HARMAN. 36TH CONGRESSIONAL
Flores is an anti-gun Republican who voted FOR the Los Angeles Assault Rifle Ban. Harman is an anti- gun Democrat who got an "A" rating from the NRA. Why an "A" rating? She was ANTI-GUN!!! Who later said that she supports the assault weapon ban.

CHRISTINE REED VS TERRY FREIDMAN (State Assembly)
Reed was an anti-gun C-rated Republican Handgun Control Inc. member who had been mayor of Santa Monica. Reed who should have been an "F". Freidman was an F-rated incumbent Democrat who authored many anti-gun bills

TRICIA HUNTER: Hunter was state senator whose bid to retain office was based on high-profile attacks on "killer assault rifles". She was rated "A-" by the NRA.

Howard Dean got an A+ from the NRA while governor, he supported the assault weapons ban and Brady bill.

Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA). Did not vote when needed, but was helped by the NRA come re-election.

Rep. Elton Gallegly (R-CA) voted FOR the brady bill (3 times) then was helped by the NRA come re-election.

Congressman Elton Gallegly -- voted FOR the Brady bill and the assault weapon ban and got an A-, and an endorsement. NRA's Terry O'Grady said, 'Gallegly voted against us on Brady and the Crime Bill, but he's always been with us before. We've decided to forgive him, give him an A- and endorse him. SAY WHAT?

In Virginia, 15 legislators were given A ratings after they voted FOR both the one-gun-a-month ban AND the shotgun ban. 41 legislators who voted for either or both bans got A ratings. 7 got exceptional, "above the call of duty" ratings.

In North Carolina, some districts have two senators. In the '94 elections, District 20 was represented by Ted Kaplan and Marvin Ward. Both favored assault weapon bans, handgun registration, and a one-gun-a-month ban. Their challengers were solid pro-gunners Ham Horton and Mark McDaniels (who fought tooth and nail for CCW). Nevertheless, ILA upgraded both anti-gun incumbents to "A" (one was initially a C), endorsed them, and supported them by mailing orange alert cards to NRA members in their district. Kaplan and Ward lost anyway, as incensed local groups like Grass Roots NC broke ranks with ILA and helped elect the pro-gun challengers.

In NC in 1995, Senator Fountain Odom betrayed the 2nd Amendment by gutting the CCW bill in his subcommittee. The bill had come over in more or less tolerable format from the house. Odom fixed it so that only a few police instructors could give the mandatory training. NRA instructors were prohibited. He also worked to move un-permitted CCW from a misdemeanor to a felony, prohibit CCW with any alcohol "remaining" in the body, prohibit CCW in financial institutions, mandate that all training be fully repeated for each renewal, and gut statewide preemption. Limited preemption was restored in the full judiciary committee, but Odom betrayed us again, fixing it so CCW could be prohibited in any "park". Later on the floor, to give ILA cover, Odom amended the training section to allow NRA instructors to do the training. In 1996, Tanya Metaksa gave Odom an A, an endorsement, and an orange ALERT postcard mailing telling NRA members, "Senator Odom has demonstrated his commitment to our right to self-defense...Here's how you can help re-elect Fountain Odom -- a dedicated supporter of your Second Amendment rights. Help the campaign...make a contribution...spread the word to family, friends, and fellow gun owners... Sincerely, Tanya K. Metaksa." Odom's still trampling on our rights. Now he's pushing for a CCW liability law.


In Virginia in 1996, extreme "F" rated gun grabber Congressman Jim Moran faced "A" rated, NRA life member John Otey. The American Rifleman carried the following message: "THIS IS YOUR OFFICIAL PRO-GUN BALLOT FOR THE FOLLOWING DISTRICT: VIRGINIA 8, US CONGRESS..NO ENDORSEMENT"
NO endorsement for an A rated NRA life member challenging an F- rated gun grabber???

In Virginia, 3 congressmen who voted many times against gun rights and supported the Lautenberg ban, kept their A+ ratings (part of a large club of turncoat A and A+ politicians). Tom Davis got an A after voicing support for Brady and the assault weapon ban and orchestrating a unanimous vote of support for the one-gun-a-month ban as a Fairfax County Supervisor.

In Pennsylvania (1993), then Republican Minority Whip Matt Ryan INTRODUCED an assault rifle ban. In 1994, he kept his A+ rating.

In 2006, the NRA rated Ron Paul (arguably the MOST constitutional representative we have in office) with a "B" because he did not follow along in lock step, when the NRA endorsed (what Ron Paul saw) as an UNconstitutional bill. One that the NRA supported. Instead, they endorsed his UNproved, UNtested, DEMOCRATIC opponent.

*****

[Redhawk1]

 Keep plugging away and digging up what you want. Your liberal friends thank you for your continued support, and fight to discredit the NRA..
United we stand , divided we fall.

[Redhawk1]

 
Some of you need to watch this. Maybe all of us should!
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrnOFMk8NPM

[nw_hunter]

Some of you need to watch this. Maybe all of us should!
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrnOFMk8NPM

I have watched this before, and truer words have never been spoken! It's a shame the organization Heston Represented hasn't heeded them.

[Redhawk1]

Some of you need to watch this. Maybe all of us should!
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrnOFMk8NPM

I have watched this before, and truer words have never been spoken! It's a shame the organization Heston Represented hasn't heeded them.

Why don't you give it a rest already! Your constent message is not helping out anyone but the anti-gun liberals. 

[nw_hunter]

Perhaps we should both give it a rest!My intent is not to drive anyone away from this site. Just the Opposite, and I'm sure you have the same goals.We just don't see eye to eye on how to accomplish them.

The best to you and your family on this Lord's day!              BG

[Redhawk1]

Perhaps we should both give it a rest!My intent is not to drive anyone away from this site. Just the Opposite, and I'm sure you have the same goals.We just don't see eye to eye on how to accomplish them.

The best to you and your family on this Lord's day!              BG

Agreed, and may you and yours have a blessed day as well!