Gun Owners that Bash Pro-Rights (Pro-Gun) Organizations...

[FCFC]

i oppose the NRA because they do not support black rifles, or "assault weapons". a gun is a gun.

I wasn't aware that NRA did not support black rifles or assault weapons.

I was under the impression that it did support ownership of those.

 

[ilbob]

Gun Owners that Bash Pro-Rights (Pro-Gun) Organizations...

Do they hurt the pro-rights (i.e., pro-gun) cause in any significant way?

Gun owners tend to be pretty independant minded folk. Trying to get them all headed in the same direction is pretty tough.

I don't see that the more strident pro groups have hurt us any. I don't think they gain us a whole lot, but they have brought some people into the fold that would not wish to be in other pro groups.

Its good to have a variety of thought on these matters.

 

[MakAttak]

i oppose the NRA because they do not support black rifles, or "assault weapons". a gun is a gun. your fudd rifle is no different than my ak47. both can kill and have the potential to be dangerous

Wow, I just have to get you together with the Hunters who say they don't want to support the NRA because they only care about assault weapons and not hunting. Maybe the two sides could convince each other.

 

[texas bulldog]

um...jaak, if that's what you need to tell yourself to justify not supporting the largest 2A group we have, fine. but please read their actual position on so-called assault weapons. they regularly oppose any and all attempts to ban assault weapons.

here's more.
and more.
and just one more.

they may not prioritize it to your liking, but please don't delude yourself into thinking that the NRA only supports "fudd" guns.

 

[cracked butt]

i oppose the NRA because they do not support black rifles, or "assault weapons".

Makes perfect sense considering that the NRA is the sanctioning body for many national shooting sports, some of which are dominated by rifles that are high up on the 'AWB ban list.'

i oppose the NRA because they do not support black rifles, or "assault weapons". a gun is a gun. your fudd rifle is no different than my ak47. both can kill and have the potential to be dangerous

Wow, I just have to get you together with the Hunters who say they don't want to support the NRA because they only care about assault weapons and not hunting. Maybe the two sides could convince each other.

Would't that be dangerous, like allowing matter and anti-matter to occupy the same location?

 

[Eat Beef]

Your poll is leading...a 'push poll'. It assumes that the NRA and SAF are pro rights groups.

The NRA's current stance is not 'pro rights', at least not as the Founders intended the right. Of course, I'll be branded as a radical, a revolutionary. Just like those outlandish guys...Jefferson, Madison...

I'll put on my dunce hat and sit in self imposed time out, no need to break out the ruler.

 

[ilbob]

For instance I won't join GOA because I find they try to extend their reach beyond the 2nd amendment and have a religious agenda as well. I know I'm not the only one here who feels the same way. The directors and members of GOA need to know that their organization could be stronger if they stuck to guns only.

OTOH, there are people who support both religion and the RTKBA. If religion bothers you, don't join the GOA.

I am a member but in some respects I feel like the GOA is more of a fund raising group than anything else. I also don't like the structure of the group. At least the NRA has a board of directors you can vote for and get fundamental changes if you want. And that did happen at the NRA not all that long ago. Some of these groups seem like family fiefdoms.

 

[jaak]

where was the nra when the klinton ban was pushed through? you can post as much bs info as you like, it still doesnt negate the fact that the nra doesnt "like" black rifles. they would be first on the concession list if something had to go. i have no problem with hunters, hunting, fudd rifles(hell i own a mosin nagant, a couple of remington hunting rifles(grand dads old rifles) and a stock ruger 10/22... but they do not speak out again blatant EBR weapons bans. they would be up in arms if someone tried to take their precious deer rifles...

so say what you want, thats my position and im giving you a heads up i am diggin my feet in and not moving on that position. so say what you want, but you will not change my mind.


and please, a ruger 10/22 is not an "assault rifle" by any stretch of anyones imagination, just because it takes hi cap mags. the anti's definition of an "assault rifle" is just uninformed. so i am pretty sure the nra isnt hosting a shooting event based on ak47's and ar15's.

 

[ilbob]

i am pretty sure the nra isnt hosting a shooting event based on ak47's and ar15's.

The NRA national matches held every year at Camp Perry feature rifle matches dominated these days by AR's and M1A's. AKs are not allowed in the service rifle category because they are not US service rifles (or something close to one).

http://www.nrahq.org/compete/nm_campperry.asp

https://www.nrahq.org/compete/Programs/cp-hpr-08.pdf

 

[J Star]

Actually, I'm pretty sure even here in NY that the NRA DOES host a shooting event based on AR-15s. And M1s.

I support the NRA, even if they sometimes annoy me by asking for money every other day. If they would not send just half of the bulk mail they send, they'd have a lot more money for things.

Also, the only civilians with "assault rifles" are those that paid a $200 tax stamp, or criminals. I own a semi-auto AK style rifle, it sure isn't an "assault rifle". (Damn if I don't wish I could afford that! Oh, and I'd have to live in a better state too...)

 

[texas bulldog]

again, you're wrong. ever heard of The NRA National Rifle & Pistol Championships at Camp Perry, Ohio?

it's all about ARs. and it's a big deal. here's a youtube vid if it helps.



also, just because they lost on the clinton gun ban, when a democratic president had a strong democratic-majority congress, doesn't mean they didn't oppose the legislation. i would love it if they won 'em all, but they can't. no one does.


and you've obviously done a whole lot of research before digging into your stance...

 

[wheelgunslinger]

I ignore them.
I think that time is better spent on the vast majority of fence sitters who are easily swayed by a couple of demonstrations than to argue with people who are bitter and pouty because the NRA doesn't represent their exact set of issues.

 

[esq_stu]

Net Asset

This past Monday, I attended the first board meeting of a newly-formed shooting club in Michigan. It is not intended to be political. It is intended to promote shooting sports, safety, and related educational subject matter, and geared towards overcoming the overwhelming fears of guns among many in the Jewish community. It is called the Detroit Jewish Cigar and Shooting Club. (It's just a name - you don't need to be Jewish or smoke cigars.) Stay tuned for a web link when we set up our site.

One of the organizers recommended that we be affiliated with the NRA, as there are NRA benefits for NRA affiliated gun clubs. Since we only want to have fun and help others have safe fun and learn to shoot, we checked our politics at the door.

The main organizer contacted several people in the political activist world seeking words of encouragement. A few asked him if we would be affiliated with the NRA. And a few of them ranted about the NRA being traitors.

I am not totally in agreement with the NRA. But I am a member and consider them a net asset (after weighing positives and negatives) to not only gun owners but all Americans. But that is not the point.

We decided what was in the interest of the club that it succeed in its mission. We decided to ignore the NRA bashers and become affiliated. We'll save our anti-NRA rants for after (club) hours.

 

[texas bulldog]

jaak,

if you read just the first few paragraphs of this LA times story, you'll see that the top lawyer for the NRA is currently scrutinizing california's assault weapons ban as a possible target for a federal lawsuit in light of the heller decision. they do like assault weapons.


also, if i may...
the NRA serves its membership. they can (and have been) changed by the wishes of their members. over recent years, they have had a sharp increase in the number of members who are more interested in EBRs than hunting. therefore, they support EBRs. if they failed to do this, they wouldn't attract so many THR members here that aren't really interested in hunting, but want to own EBRs.

 

[Titus]

where was the nra when the klinton ban was pushed through?

From wiki:

In the 1994 election the NRA is often credited with defeating Congressmen Jack Brooks and Tom Foley (the first Speaker of the House to lose a reelection since 1860). Bill Clinton wrote:

“ The NRA had a great night. They beat both Speaker Tom Foley and Jack Brooks, two of the ablest members of Congress, who had warned me this would happen. Foley was the first Speaker to be defeated in more than a century. Jack Brooks had supported the NRA for years and had led the fight against the assault weapons ban in the House, but as chairman of the Judiciary Committee he had voted for the overall crime bill even after the ban was put into it. The NRA was an unforgiving master: one strike and you're out. The gun lobby claimed to have defeated nineteen of the twenty-four members on its hit list. They did at least that much damage and could rightly claim to have made Gingrich the House Speaker. ”
—Bill Clinton, My Life pp 629-30

 

[ilbob]

One of the organizers recommended that we be affiliated with the NRA, as there are NRA benefits for NRA affiliated gun clubs.

having been involved in an NRA affiliated club for many years, I can tell you with some assurance that the benefits for member clubs are not all that big of a deal. However, the yearly dues are not that much ($25 I think) so it is not a huge issue cost wise.

Most of the things the NRA does for clubs you have to pay for anyway, and they would do it for you affiliated or not. There may be a discount for NRA clubs on some of the services, and there are some symposiums for member clubs that are free. What do you want for $25 anyway?

Point is that I would not let the benefits aspect of it be the deciding point as to whether you want to be an NRA club or not. Do it because the NRA is a major supporter of the RTKBA, firearms safety programs, and firearms competition.

I think you have to be a member club to hold sanctioned matches if that matters to you.

 

[cracked butt]

where was the nra when the klinton ban was pushed through? you can post as much bs info as you like, it still doesnt negate the fact that the nra doesnt "like" black rifles. they would be first on the concession list if something had to go.

I'm thinking that you are probably confusing the 'NRA' with 'Ruger'. Their logos both have a bird on them so the confusion is understandable. NRA didn't give in or compromise toward the AWB, while Bill Ruger sold us all down the river on the same issue for his own greedy purposes.

 

[ilbob]

NRA didn't give in or compromise toward the AWB, while Bill Ruger sold us all down the river on the same issue for his own greedy purposes

NRA got the sunset provision put in that caused the AWB to die after ten years.

Bill Ruger is long dead. He did a lot of good things. It seems unfair and somehow unseemly to remember him mostly for a bad business decision.

 

[NGIB]

The thing that bugs me are the folks that will not admit that compromise is a necessary evil. When the GCA of 68 was not repealed by the Heller decision, folks started to whine.

I'm a NRA member and also a member of Georgia's premier group Georgiacarry.org

No group is perfect but there is strength in numbers...

 

[ilbob]

I'm a NRA member and also a member of Georgia's premier group Georgiacarry.org

I am a life NRA member. Also an ISRA member. I had all but given up on the ISRA as the only thing they seemed to care about for many years was hunting and some competitions. In the past few years that has shifted a lot, and they have become much more up front in fighting for the RTKBA in Illinois than I ever thought was likely to happen. Push from the membership I guess.

The NRA is good for a lot of things, especially at a national level, but if you want change at the state and local level, you need boots on the ground. State and local organizations have to be the guys in the front lines. The NRA is pretty good at giving behind the scenes political organizing help (and some would argue stealing the glory at the end) but does it really matter who gets credit?

 

[Titus]

The NRA is pretty good at giving behind the scenes political organizing help (and some would argue stealing the glory at the end) but does it really matter who gets credit?

As far as it drives folks to not want to work together, yes.

 

[El Tejon]

where was the nra when the klinton ban was pushed through?

Trying to stop it. My question, where were you?

Were you sending in money, making calls, writing letters? Or, were you expecting someone else to carry your pack?

but they do not speak out again blatant EBR weapons bans.

Ummm, yes, they have, they did. Remember the Stockton hysteria? The NRA was front and center speaking out about the overreaction in California and elsewhere.

so i am pretty sure the nra isnt hosting a shooting event based on ak47's and ar15's.

Even if "pretty sure" then you would be incorrect. Have you been to Camp Perry? Have you seen all the AR15s there? Have you been to an NRA Highpower match? At my last club match (NRA sponsored) it was a sea of EBRs.

Remember the pamphlet on semiautomatic rifles that the NRA released in 1989--AKs and ARs. Remember the book on semiautomatic rifles that the NRA published--ARs, AKs, HK91, 93, FAMAS, AUG, inter alia.

Did you go to the NRA Annual Meeting in Louisville this May? There were EBRs galore at the NRA's blessing!

jaak, you are entitled to your opinion, but not your own facts. The NRA is far from perfect and I am not happy with some things they do (e.g. the cowardly retreat from Denver after Columbine and the NRA's taking credit for my efforts in getting reciprocity between Indiana and Texas), but your concerns are invalid.

 

[jakemccoy]

i oppose the NRA because they do not support black rifles, or "assault weapons". a gun is a gun. your fudd rifle is no different than my ak47. both can kill and have the potential to be dangerous.

so no, i will NEVER support the nra. i told the last bunch of idiots at the gun show trying to get me to sign up for the nra, to... well, stick it where the sun dont shine.

its like saying, well i support free speech. but only for me and my friends that speak the same kind of language. no dice. screw the nra.

if they support ALL types of firearms(not just fudd rifles) then i would support them. not until then though. either you support the right to its entirety, or dont support it at all. anything else is hypocritical.

One day after DC v. Heller, I saw Wayne LaPierre (leader of NRA) nearly yelling at the Brady guy on national Television over .50 cal rifles and black rifles. From where are you getting your info?

Crap, I'm doing it again. I should have voted "Ignore" in the poll.

 

[bruss01]

Well I think many people feel any criticism, no matter how well deserved, is bashing. People need to remain vocal about what they like and dislike about their pro-2a groups if we want them to do what we want and get stronger.

Well put.

It's one thing to struggle with the driver for control of the steering wheel while hurtling down the street. It's something else when the driver tells you to "get in, sit down, shut up, and hold on". It's an issue for me to be downgraded from passenger to cargo. If I'm a member, then I have to know that the organization is listening to my point of view. I have to know that they can take constructive criticism. And they have to know that, when they do something I don't agree with, they risk losing part or all of my support.

If a pro-2a group wants my support, they need to view me as more than their silent piggy bank. If I give money to support gun rights, don't be taking that money and spending it on things not directly related to gun rights. I see the recent lawsuits filed in the wake of Heller being a prime example of the kind of actions we WANT to see from our 2a groups. Don't make your group about God, family values, or conservatism. If it is a gun rights group, then keep the focus on gun rights, be agressive but sensible in pursuing that objective, and listen to your membership when they have a beef with how you're doing things. And don't be running rough-shod over other 2a groups in the process. NRA in CA was recently a victim of this with regard to pistol microstamping - but they were guilty of it themselves in trying to pre-empt Cato's Heller case with their own Seegars case. Learn to work together with other similarly minded groups.

That is a lot different than infighting - that's called doing what we give you money to be doing.

I dropped my support of the NRA for a few years because I was disgusted with the way they handled several issues. Now that Heller has passed, and it looks like they are getting their act together, I have re-joined for the next 2 years. I will give them a fair chance to impress upon me that my support is being well-used.

 

[Rachen]

Gun owners tend to be pretty independant minded folk. Trying to get them all headed in the same direction is pretty tough.

But if we don't start getting all of them headed in the same direction, we, and our constitution, is going to end up like how the Ming Dynasty ended up. A Dynasty so powerful that just one division of it's soldiers fought off and completely decimated an ENTIRE Japanese invasion force under Hideyoshi, not once, but TWICE. But ended up being destroyed by an obscure nomadic tribe that lived on the fringes of Han civilization.

All because of internal conflict.

The Taiping Heavenly Kingdom fell in the same way.

Think about it. Read my Post number 4 for the story about the Ming.