NRA - Why or Why Not?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Three Fallacious Arguments

cokid;67582 For me it isn't about the mailings and other irritations (I was a member 10-15 years ago said:
OK, "kid", time to cut the B.S and provide some cold hard facts to back up your jabs, if you even think you can.

Point #1: "The NRA is filling their own pockets"

OK, PROVE IT. Right here and right now. I dont believe a word of it.

Point # 2: "PH -(Do you mean PF??), DU,NWTF etc will defend our gun rights"

Dont bet the ranch on that or your gun rights either. I am a member of PF, NWTF, RGS, TU, IWL, MUCC and others. And you are ??????

Look at their Organization and Purpose, Mission Statements, and By Laws. NONE OF THESE FINE ORGANIZATIONS SAY ONE WORD, NOT ONE, ABOUT DEFENDING YOUR GUN RIGHTS!!

Point #3: "THe NRA has proven to be against conservation interests"

Who? What? When? and Where? And I mean provable evidence.

IF even half of your claims were proven true, I'd send in my resignation letter to the NRA tomorrow.

Sign Me,

Dont Believe A Word of IT
Click to expand...
 
The problem with extreme thinking is that it strips away at the sensibilites of common people. Groups use that fear of " if you let them have the machine guns or grenade launchers next the will be after granpa's SXS". Or the famous " they can have my gun when they pry it from my cold dead hand". They try to scare people into beleiving this will happen. " just remember it happened in china, nazi germany or etc etc". Really i could care less if people can own a uzi, AR-15 or others. It matters very little to me. Just don't try to scare me into believing that they are coming after my shotgun next. I think that is why the conservation groups stay out of this issue. It would make their mission harder to define.
 
I am an NRA member. You can call me crazy but I beleive without the NRA my SX3 would not be a legal firearm. As Moeller stated earlier everytime a a gun bill comes up semiauto shotguns are on the list. I don't believe for a second common sense would prevail, because for as many extreme gun owners there are, there are just as many extreme anti's. I think we can agree the vast majority of us are in the middle. When gun legislation is introduced it seems it is always at one of the extremes.

You don't have to be a crazy anti government milita member to own an AR. They are good accurate rifles that are fun to target shoot with and are very capable hunting weapons. I think target shooting is a great hobby. I enjoy target shooting with guns from an old percussion cap .54 cal muzzleloader to a nice semi auto AR, along with many guns in between. Why shouldn't I, as a law abiding citizen, not be able to enjoy a great hobby?
 
I’m a member of the NRA because I believe in the second amendment. They are the only group out there today that I have found that actively and aggressively supports this. I do not like many of the things they stand for but support them for the reason above.

At the risk of pissing people off I will state that I don’t like assault rifles. I don’t have anything against people that own them or want to own them but you will never find one in my gun safe. I’m a lot like Jim Zumbo, I don’t see much use for them. That being said, if the NRA wasn’t there to defend your right to own them, I’m pretty sure they would already be banned!

Ironic that a guy that doesn’t care for assault rifles pays dues to an organization that lobbies so guys that do like them can keep them and those same guys don’t belong because they don’t like the mass mailings and other politics?

I don’t have a NRA sticker on my bumper or wear any clothing that says that I support the NRA but I send them money to support the ownership of firearms in our country!!! I don’t agree with all their politics but we do need them or someone like them to lobby for all gun owners.

Dues are $35 a year unless you get a “special” deal and then they are $25. That’s the price of a box of HV shot shells and less than a bottle of my favorite scotch.

Like someone said earlier, if you are a gun owner and don’t support the NRA then I think you are being irresponsible gun owner!
 
Presently I don't belong to the NRA, but I often consider it and may join soon. I understand arguments from both sides and I have to admit I agree more with the pro NRA.
I don't think the number of people an automatic weapon or large capacity clip can kill is a valid argument. Loughner could have done just as much harm in Tucson by driving my pick-up truck into the crowd. If someone is out to cause death and destruction, they will find a way with or without automatic weapons.
You may not like the way NRA operates in our political system, but if you look hard enough each of us probably has a lobbying group working for us or for causes near and dear to us. Whether it is related to your work, your health insurance, or your hobby, there is bound to be a political lobby fighting in DC and/or your state capitol. You may not like the politics, but we have the best system going.
Illinois is fighting right now about gun owner privacy rights. I believe this is about carry permit holders and what guns they own, maybe next they will have to list all their hunting guns.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...cials-spar-order-make-list-gun-owners-public/
 
The thing I find most interesting about this discussion is the number of hunters who seem to be operating under the premise of "Its OK if they ban blackguns and hi-cap mag, they will never try to ban my shotgun."
 
I find this post, and the posts of several here, saddening.

I can't believe there are folks that believe all we need are "reasonable" people to assess the difference between a semi-auto offensive shotgun and an Auto-5. Who might those reasonable people be? Politicians? A bureaucrat? A judge? I think of a friends Rem Model 11 (A5 clone) with 18" barrel, US Ordnance marked, US Military combat shotgun. How might you draw that line?

I can't believe there are people that believe the ability to obtain a 33round magazine, an object, led to more deaths by itself. The killer is the reason sir, nothing else. If the guy that was nearly able to smoke him with his own concealed carry handgun been evil if his gun had held 33 rounds?

And I can't believe people that want to preserve a right, an inalienable right high enough to be number 2 behind SPEECH, is labeled "extreme thinking". I will make the case the Second Amendment is there to protect the right to the AR and the Uzi and has nothing to do with Grandpa's sxs. It is there to protect against tyranny, not to ensure a quail covey.

The reason the NRA spends there time with high cap magazines and semi-autos is that is todays political battleground. If we lose there its on to all semi-autos, or all handguns. Think the old '06 won't get a 'sniper rifle' label tagged on it? China, Nazi Germany, and other examples are cited, and rightly so. Also look at Canada, Australia, and England right now. Those aren't the firearm policies I want to have.

And I for one am glad the NRA has thefocus it does. Other groups can maintain the wildlife front, the NRA has its hands full and it is sticking it to them right now. Do I wish the 'tacticool' crowd would wear flannel shirts in front of the cameras? Yep. Just as they wish birdhunters wouldn't look down there noses at them as we are here. When push comes to shove we will need each other.

And that disturbs me the most. The antis have one tactic- to divide and conquer. And to see freedom challenged in such a manner by our own in a forum like this demonstrates how fragile that freedom is. If you are not an NRA member you are an irresponsible gun owner, at the least.
 
Bd I've heard I was not a "real" pheasant hunter too before I joined PF. I am a nra member, but I don't think those who aren't are irresponsible. Just my .02.
 
carptom1 said:
The problem with extreme thinking is that it strips away at the sensibilites of common people. Groups use that fear of " if you let them have the machine guns or grenade launchers next the will be after granpa's SXS". Or the famous " they can have my gun when they pry it from my cold dead hand". They try to scare people into beleiving this will happen. " just remember it happened in china, nazi germany or etc etc". Really i could care less if people can own a uzi, AR-15 or others. It matters very little to me. Just don't try to scare me into believing that they are coming after my shotgun next. I think that is why the conservation groups stay out of this issue. It would make their mission harder to define.
Click to expand...

Like a cancer, they start small and spread to all areas till they have all:(
Black Guns and high cap mags and then they will work down to gramps SXS.
Look at Britain..Have to belong to a club and the gun cant leave the club grounds. Few years back we had a brit come to a site I was working at and took him out to shoot hand guns, he had his picture taken so he could show his friends back home. They cant have hand guns. He really liked the 50 cal.
 
I am a member, but I don't like them at all. I have no love for the NRA after "Ruby Ridge". They were wrong......Bob
 
Simply because i am bored I would like to respond on a couple of issues:

1. Not being a member of the NRA makes me as irresponsible as being a member makes someone responsible as a gun owner.
2. England's gun laws are not accurately portrayed by Bob. My brother was transferred there and lived there for ten years. He also hunted while in the UK. One thing to know before referencing England, is that hunting was left to the nobles. Guns were not owned by the common man in the 15th century so they learned to live without. Currently you can own a shotgun or bolt action rifle after obtaining a permit. Yes handguns and assault rifles are illegal. But it is not impossible to own a gun in England. He went hunting many times with his boss who owned and kept multiple guns.
3. It is interesting that with their restrictive gun laws the murder rate is lowest among industrialized nations. I know I know guns don't kill people, people kill people.
4. I really do not have a hard on for the NRA. It really does not have much of an effect on me.
5. And by the way the assault rifle ban enacted in 94 did cover semi-auto shotguns...... if they had a folding stock, pistol grips or held more than 5 rounds. Even as bad as i shoot, i can't afford more than 5 shells per bird.
Hardly the autos that i have in my gun cabinet.
6. By the way, in case somebody thinks that i am anti-gun in anyway, i have a concealed carry and also own a .50 cal.
7. I do find it funny that if an opinion goes against the grain in these forums, the gloves come off pretty fast.

Just remember you will learn more from a differing opinion than you will ever learn from your own.
 
Then carpom I have to ask- are you ok with giving up handguns, semi autos, and registering all of your firearms with the government? And how does the second amendment fit in to things in your world view? And the question is not rhetorical or a "point disguised as a question", I just plain don't get it.

Also if you could explain a bit more your post Bob? I don't see where Ruby Ridge comes in to play here.
 
Berettadouble, I spoke against the posture of the NRA, one which seems to embrace extremism at the expense of rational mainstream, which I suspect most of us find ourselves. As for registering your guns with the government, you already do, if you bought anything through a dealer since 1968. A law I disagree with, by the way. As for assault rifles, I concede that an assault rifle will do as a varmit rifle, but so does a Winchester M-70, or any one of 100's of scoped,sporting rifles, in some situations better. What I seek to avoid is being lumped into the same group as the camoflage fatigued, survivalist, massed up in strength in the woods, with an AK-47's, bannana clips hanging from every belt loop. No reason for a lot of these items, or the demonstration of said except to kill or the implied threat to kill a human being. For one thing these type things scare hell out of the straights, and galvanize the non-gun, non-hunting, and increasingly urban and detached public, into choosing between guns, (risk), and no-guns (seemigly safe to the uniformed). We continue to be a shrinking minority, incidences like the Arizona tragedy, push into the forefront of public awareness and put pressure on all "gun people", because they see no difference between a quail hunter and mass murderer, they just see a guy with a gun. As an example I doubt that in the eyes of the non-hunting public, the scenes from Arizona,sanitized,and desensitized by TV, were no more disturbing than the sight of Bambi slung over the roof rack of an SUV, they saw when they happened to stop at a gas station. We need the NRA to draw a line between us, and the fringe. Show the public we can own a machine gun because it's hoot to shoot, but we also share the same values they do. We need to justify ourselves, articulate our views and beliefs. That's what I try to do, by mentoring youth, my conversation in social settings, and in writings. I am sure you all do the same, I'd like that to be the poster child of the NRA. That is what it takes to get me back. Not cultlike scare tactics and wild hyperbole.
 
I was a member for a couple of decades. Then I got really fed up with all of the "junk" (yes JUNK) mail, that I received from 'em. And I quit renewing.
It was ridiculous. I only get mail delivery 3 days a week here, some times I would have as many as 3 different solicitations for more $$'s from NRA.

Then one day, I got a solicitation via "Ma Bell" and was afforded to opportunity to express my 'dis'-satisfaction. That "rep" informed me that I could have my name taken OFF of their mailing lists. I renewed for a 2 yr commitment and subscription to their Freedom Magazine.
I stopped getting all the mail begging for more of my money.
 
mr Berretta,

just to respond to a couple of the questions that you had for me:

1. As old and new stated, the government currently does Know what guns are purchased.
2. Where do i stand on the 2nd ammendment world wide? I really don't care about the rest of the world. People hide behind the 2nd ammendment and " the right to bear arms". I personally do not think they intended our ability to own any firearm. Certain guns are meant to kill only. i agree that there needs to be a disconnect between sportsmen, as the majority of us are, and paramilitary lunatics. As stated anti- gun nuts see very little difference. We get enough bad press from unethical hunters, we don't need more.
3. As far as semi auto shotguns, if you read the ban, it does not apply to autos with a capacity of less than 5.
4 As far as large clips. For what purpose would you need a pistol that holds 33rds. I only need one in my .50, when someone hears that sound they will surely give up.

The NRA needs to become a little mere mainstream for me. But, i also respect everyones opinion and enjoy a little banter from time to time. It passes time untill i can hunt.
 
NRA Not for Me

I have a problem with the NRA's tone and image. Ted Nugent is a fun guy and made some great rock recordings, but his coming on stage at an NRA convention with an assault rifle held high in each hand, strutting and mugging, does nothing positive for those of us who support guns rights. If I were in a debate in support of the anti-gun side, my exhibit A would be a photo of Ted at that moment: "Ladies and gentlemen, this is the gun lobby's most popular spokesperson today. This is the gun lobby personified." I also have a problem with the tone of the NRA's message, sometimes arrogant, rarely tolerant. Wayne LaPierre (sp?) in particular simply does not come across well IMO.
 
BritChaser said:
I have a problem with the NRA's tone and image. Ted Nugent is a fun guy and made some great rock recordings, but his coming on stage at an NRA convention with an assault rifle held high in each hand, strutting and mugging, does nothing positive for those of us who support guns rights. If I were in a debate in support of the anti-gun side, my exhibit A would be a photo of Ted at that moment: "Ladies and gentlemen, this is the gun lobby's most popular spokesperson today. This is the gun lobby personified." I also have a problem with the tone of the NRA's message, sometimes arrogant, rarely tolerant. Wayne LaPierre (sp?) in particular simply does not come across well IMO.
Click to expand...

You meen to tell me Ted Nugent, the deer baiting, spike buck poaching fool isn't the everyman hunting/ shooting enthusiasts personified?:D
 
quail hound said:
You meen to tell me Ted Nugent, the deer baiting, spike buck poaching fool isn't the everyman hunting/ shooting enthusiasts personified?:D
Click to expand...

I remember on one of his hunting TV shows he was knocking down pheasants in a food plot of milo pretty proficiently. He then pointed out that his ammo was 3" 12 ga. no. 8s. That Ted, never short on firepower. But a really good thing about that show is that later in the program he grilled up the breasts, had a good recipe going, and ended up displaying a very nice meal for a very positive message: hunters eat what they kill and it makes for delicious eating.
 
BD, The title of the thread is NRA WHY-Why Not? I answered I have no love for the NRA. Why NOT? Ruby Ridge which I live very close too. When Federal Law Enforcement Officers trying to serve a simple Federal Court Summons. Are fired upon with M-16's. The NRA backs the people shooting at the FLEO's as it is their right. They were wrong then and still are...........Bob
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top