NRA - Why or Why Not?

Status
Not open for further replies.
N

NCKHusker

New member
The primary question is simple. NRA, why or why not?

I also have a spin off question. I have often heard old timers talk about how the NRA will provide legal defense for its members who find themselves being prosecuted for a justified shooting etc. I have never been able to verify this claim in any of the reading I've done and have not been able to get a straight answer from any certified NRA instructor. Anyone else hear this? Truth or Urban Legend?

I know discussions like this can real heated real quick so remember your manners :) and thanks in advance.
 
Nra

Even if you don't like all their solicitations for contributions and renewed subscriptions, who else is looking out for hunting/shooting/self defense enthusiasts and has the same political clout? I just wish I could catch another one of their "life membership" special deals.
PairOfLabs
 
I support their over all premise but have issues with them as a political organization. Also, some who they support threaten my rights as a gun owner IMO. Black gun, combat individuals draw the most negativity towards us gun owners. They ask for us hunters support to keep their assault rifles, high capacity magazines, Etc. but they are no where to be found when it comes to hunting/conservation related issues for us.

I throw my money to org. like DU, Delta, PF when possible.

I have nothing against anybody that supports the NRA. Each person has their rights and beliefs.
 
OnPoint said it for me. NRA to much effort out on the extreme edge of gun issues embarrases me with the defense of assault rifles, machine guns, bullets designed to penetrate body armor, extended magazines, association with the militia loons. NRA disappoints with the lack of vigor in efforts regarding hunting rights, and conservation issues. Supports politicians who's only redeeming characteristic is support of gun rights, against an opponent who is pro gun and yet more mainstream on other issues, just because they have supported the incumbent previously. If they choose to defend you in a court case it will be because they can press some issue near and dear to their agenda, with you as the pawn, and the NRA in the headlines, not because you paid your dues. As long as they make their point, even if you lose and go to prison, they can trumpet your plight as a rallying call to galvanize the faithful to send more money. Like all good politicians, job one is protect, perpetuate, and preserve yourself, save anyone else if there is time and money leftover.
 
Assault rifles? Seriously? On a hunting forum. :nutz:

Case in point as to why we need the NRA.

Hunting and conservation isn't their agenda. The second amendment is. Does the system of buying votes and candidates suck? Is it BS that political action committees essentially elect candidates? Yes. But it is the system we have. You can not support them because the system sucks, but the system is still going to be there. And you won't have a voice.

The NRA is doing nothing different in Washington than what the teacher's unions, the pharmaceutical industry, agri business, etc. They're representing the interests of their constituents. In this case, GUN OWNERS. And they're protecting my right to own my "assault rifle."

My "assault rifle" may seem extreme to you. I used it to assault a coyote this afternoon. Your "high mag capacity" shotgun seems extreme to some. Seriously? 5 shots? Why would anyone need 5 shots in a hunting situation. That gun can only be used to "assault" someone. :rolleyes:

That said, to the OP, no. I would not count on the NRA for legal defense, gun insurance, or anything of the like. And no, I don't like everything they do. Hell, I don't even vote party line. I'm not a single issue voter. I will make up my own mind. But until the machine in Washington changes, I will pay my annual dues to ensure that someone is representing gun owners. Even if they're protecting guns that I don't use.

And as for the mailings. Yah, they're a pain in the ass. But I take comfort in the notion that they're helping to maintain the dying demand for pulp wood. The lack of logging around here is killing transitional forests. Old growth is good for nothing but hugging trees.

Come on. How can a gun owner argue against the NRA? I would suggest that owning a gun and not being a member of the NRA is irresponsible.
 
WOW. I am really amazed at the middle of the road or split opinions here on this subject. I say this because I would have thought as I have thought for a long time that the overall makeup of a "sporting" gun group would still be ultra supportive of the NRA. This might make a great poll question to see where a larger count of the demographics here fall on the subject.
I guess I am also surprised to see that I am not the only outcast non NRA supporter/die hard that believes as someone has already pointed out that the "Black Gun" guy's in many cases have such a right wing and damaging public persona that the credibility of the whole realistic right to bear arms argument suffers greatly.

I know this will tick off a lot of folks that believe if you give an inch you will lose a mile or the whole road but I do not believe that our founding fathers intended that I have the right to bear arms and defend my home and family with a personal arsenal.
I like to think I'm a common sense type person. My common sense says that I can take care of myself and family with my shotguns,bolt and semi auto 270 Browning's and a pistol or two thrown in. Are there anti gun folks and factions that think I should not have anything like this including a red rider BB gun, of course there are and many are very organized and vocal but I sincerely believe that if you take the majority of a "reasonably" defined non sporting military style weapons out of the argument the great majority of the public in this country will throw their support to the rights of the "reasonable" gun owner and mine and your rights as gun owners will be strengthened and not weakened or taken away as the NRA and others would would suggest. Yes there will always be arguments as to would would be considered "reasonable" in defining sporting vs non guns but again if you take out the extremes here I think a middle ground will achieve what a lot of us feel is reasonable.

One man's opinion!
 
i guess i will give another middle of the road commentary. When i was a kid i joined the NRA, i was encouraged by my father who was just a middle of the road gun owner and hunter. But sometime ago the group was hijacked by extreme gun owners. I used to go to a gun store near my house and purchase a sporting arm from time to time. One day i went in a few years ago and most of the sporting guns had been replaced with "black guns". The place had taken on a real 1% mentality. The problem is when a group operates at the extreme, whether it be anti- gun nuts or the NRA, it polarizes people towards either end. I do wish they would become a more centralized organization. The only issues they seem to deal with are assault rifles and hi -cap magazines. But they keep our attention by telling us that they are looking out for our best interests as sporting arms owners. I really don't care how many shells my 9mm holds. Hell i practice enough i should be able to hit something after 10 or 12 shots
 
I was a previouse member and never again for the same reason you have all stated my right to bear arms came from our forfathers not some actor and if they want to try and take them well they are out of luck all i got from the NRA was a monthly renewal notice even after i was a member and not 1 time in my years as a member did i hear of them doing anything for the real sportsman with the rifles and shotguns but instead all they wanted was the gun nuts who appaerently think the world is coming to an end and have to have massive machine guns to protect themselves forget it their is more important things than hey watch this gun shoot 300 rounds in ten seconds
 
GSP said:
Assault rifles? Seriously? On a hunting forum. :nutz:

Case in point as to why we need the NRA.

Hunting and conservation isn't their agenda. The second amendment is. Does the system of buying votes and candidates suck? Is it BS that political action committees essentially elect candidates? Yes. But it is the system we have. You can not support them because the system sucks, but the system is still going to be there. And you won't have a voice.

....................
Click to expand...

Very true the NRA is focused mainly o one issue. I got no problem with that. If want to support more extensively conservation I would join other organizations. By the way every time they go ban "black guns" Benelli SBE and M2 usually end up on the list. Heck in the late 80s the 11-87 was on the list..

I now must go hug my black guns but they will have to take turns because I can't hold them all a once there are to many.
 
Last edited:
Moeller,

Re: "By the way everytime they go ban "black guns" Benelli SBE and M2 usually end up on the list."


And that is why the "they's" your referring to would have to fall into the real and reasonable world just as the guy who claims his banana clipped nato gun is a good varmint rifle would too.

A reasonable person would easily see that your Benelli SBE is no different than my classic sweet 16 Browning in the hunting world.

REASON MUST PREVAIL.
 
Why? Because they are the only ones with the political clout.

I don't like all the b.s I get in the mail, and I don't share some of there views but there the strongest voice protecting my gun rights so I keep sending them my dues.
 
I no longer belong to the NRA because of the monthly dues scam. But deep inside, as a gun owner, sportsman I know I should be paying them my dues because they are the strongest line of defense to our Second Ammendment. And, yes, the anti-gun movement wants to take away all of our guns, but is patient enough to ship away at one aspect after another. They're workign to limit magazine capacity, which covers many of our regular sporting arms. They're working to restrict the purchase of ammunition, not just hollow points or body armour piercing loads. And they'll keep at it figuring some day they'll win. An unarmed citizenry is ripe for takeover by tyrants.

Black guns? Many of our sporting firearms started as military arms. The 30.06 round was developed for the military. Same with the .308. Today's semi-autos some many of use are patterned after military designs. This past pheasant season I shot prairie dogs with a buddy after filling our limit on pheasants. He carried an AR-15, scoped and with a bi-pod. Who's to say that's not a legit use of a "black gun"?

"Machine guns" - fully automatic weapons are illegal for civilians to own. So the NRA isn't protecting the rights that don't exist.

A bit off subject, but I think the monthly dues scam should be illegal. I recently had to take over my dad's finances. He suffers from dementia and is no longer capable of managing his own affairs. He was paying some magazine subscriptions 2-3 times per month and none of those ever sent him a refund for overpayment. It's criminal and many, many operations employ this method, often preying on the elderly who are unsuspecting.
 
Nra

Ranger Rick said:
I no longer belong to the NRA because of the monthly dues scam. But deep inside, as a gun owner, sportsman I know I should be paying them my dues because they are the strongest line of defense to our Second Ammendment. And, yes, the anti-gun movement wants to take away all of our guns, but is patient enough to ship away at one aspect after another. They're workign to limit magazine capacity, which covers many of our regular sporting arms. They're working to restrict the purchase of ammunition, not just hollow points or body armour piercing loads. And they'll keep at it figuring some day they'll win. An unarmed citizenry is ripe for takeover by tyrants.
Click to expand...

RR has nailed it. Right in the 10X ring.

I am always somewhat surprised, and saddened, when the topic of the NRA comes up on hardcore sportsmans discussion boards. At the number of guys will say they dont belong to the NRA because of mailings or the magazine or whatever. The American Hunter is the best hunting magazine I get nowadays and I get a bunch of them. We get a huge amount of "junk mail" everyday, from all sorts of interest groups, charities, whatever. Most of it goes directly in the trash, just how tuff is that.:rolleyes:

PF, DU, TU, RGS, RMEF, QDMA, etc etc are all great, but they dont protect our gun rights!!! Thats what the NRA does. No Guns=No Hunting, for anything, simple as that.

I am a NRA Life Member. OK, off the soapbox.

NB
 
Quote Ranger Rick
"fully automatic weapons are illegal for civilians to own. So the NRA isn't protecting the rights that don't exist."
_____________________________

To the contrary, Knob Creek gun range holds the largest full automatic gun show and shoot in the United States. A person needs only a class III license to obtain these weapons and yes the NRA is a big supporter of this event and those who participate.


Check any one of the Knob Creek links
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=machine+gun+shoot+knob+creek&aq=3
 
I agree 100% with OnPoint, OldandNew, etc. For me it isn't about the mailings and other irritations (I was a member 10-15 years ago, and they STILL pester me!) - it's the polarization they create, which I submit they do BECAUSE it increases their membership. I believe the NRA leadership is less about gun rights and more about filling their own pockets.

As for the conservation groups not supporting gun rights, I believe it's because they don't see any real threat to ownership of "reasonable" guns (and that's the key point, who gets to determine what's reasonable). For example, I have no problem with the AWB and high-cap clip ban, the expiration of which any "reasonable" person has to admit led to a larger body count in Tucson than would have happened were the ban still in place. Were there any credible threat to the ownership of typical hunting arms, you can bet PH/DU/NWTF, etc., would be there to defend those rights for us.

Someone mentioned the anti-gun crowd (meaning those against any gun ownership at all) being patient and "chipping away" at our rights. But it goes the other way as well. Seems to me the militia/Rambo types want to be allowed to own virtually any weapon, preferably without any meaningful background check or registration. So where do you draw the line? I assume you wouldn't be comfortable with just anyone legally owning a LAWS or other anti-tank weapon, perhaps a (weaponized) tank itself, or to go to the extreme - a portable warhead of some sort. I have no problem drawing the line somewhere, and in fact pretty much thought the AWB was a good compromise, but to the NRA and extremists, it was the end of the world.

Oh, and yes, the NRA is most definitely NOT about conservation, and in several recent events, has proven to be decided against conservation interests.
 
cokid said:
I agree 100% with OnPoint, OldandNew, etc. For me it isn't about the mailings and other irritations (I was a member 10-15 years ago, and they STILL pester me!) - it's the polarization they create, which I submit they do BECAUSE it increases their membership. I believe the NRA leadership is less about gun rights and more about filling their own pockets.

As for the conservation groups not supporting gun rights, I believe it's because they don't see any real threat to ownership of "reasonable" guns (and that's the key point, who gets to determine what's reasonable). For example, I have no problem with the AWB and high-cap clip ban, the expiration of which any "reasonable" person has to admit led to a larger body count in Tucson than would have happened were the ban still in place. Were there any credible threat to the ownership of typical hunting arms, you can bet PH/DU/NWTF, etc., would be there to defend those rights for us.

Someone mentioned the anti-gun crowd (meaning those against any gun ownership at all) being patient and "chipping away" at our rights. But it goes the other way as well. Seems to me the militia/Rambo types want to be allowed to own virtually any weapon, preferably without any meaningful background check or registration. So where do you draw the line? I assume you wouldn't be comfortable with just anyone legally owning a LAWS or other anti-tank weapon, perhaps a (weaponized) tank itself, or to go to the extreme - a portable warhead of some sort. I have no problem drawing the line somewhere, and in fact pretty much thought the AWB was a good compromise, but to the NRA and extremists, it was the end of the world.

Oh, and yes, the NRA is most definitely NOT about conservation, and in several recent events, has proven to be decided against conservation interests.
Click to expand...

I like this post and agree w/ those you've pointed out. I'm a member of the NRA b/c they are the only ones protecting my gun rights. However, I'm embarassed by how they conduct their business. We need a different voice IMO, but I'm not the kind of leader to initiate such a thing. For now, I'll just keep putting $ into the only group that's out there protecting my rights.

Extended magazines.....I love em'! I just don't think anyone really needs em' and they only make preservation of our rights more difficult b/c of Tuscon type incidents.

Full-auto weapons....I really like those too, but they could create the same problems for us. Doesn't take long to lay down 20 or more people w/ a full-auto AK w/ a 30 round clip. My concern is that if our government or any other army ever......if I've learned anything from these sites, I shouldn't finish that statement:rolleyes: I will always have my semi-auto AK's that I built myself. I will always have the knowledge to convert them to full-auto in times of need (let's hope I never see the day). I'll always have a few 30 round clips hidden somewhere too, but I'll always be responsible enough to make sure these items don't end up in the wrong hands. Boy did I get off track.

If you don't join the NRA, I can appreciate many of the reasons why. Please consider or be on the look out for the first sensible group that stands to protect gun rights though, then come back and tell the rest of us about em' so we can begin to support em'. The citizens of this fine country simply cannot afford to lose our guns. Corruption will lead to our demise if we can't protect ourselves.
 
Bill of rights

The founding fathers did a pole. and right after the right to run are mouths off on this forum#1 #2 is "being NECESSARY to the SECURITY of a free state" they as well as I feel its about keeping them! Study history and see what happens to people that cant defend there rights!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top