NRA-ILA, SAF, GOA, which for the 24th?

[Hasaf]

As you all know, the 24th is coming. This thread about responding to anti-gun owners rights drive on the 24th has me thinking. I am probably going to spend this months gun budget by making a contribution.

Here is the issue, I am already a Life Endowment member of the NRA. I see tha point of making a donation directly to the NRA-ILA. However, I see the SAF doing a lot of work, and on this forum I hear a lot about GOA.

I am leaning toward becoming a life member of SAF tomorrow. Any thoughts?

 

[hso]

A focused "money bomb" effort like this is excellent, but are we making everyone we know on social media aware of this idea to expand it beyond forum members.

Explain to all our friends that we know how much time and effort goes into getting the kids to practice and lessons and other group activities and how much of that, all, is done by adults instead of the kids so this march by a minors who can't legally driver or purchase plane tickets or rent hotel rooms is "facilitated" if not staged by adults that may be using the kids for the publicity value. Expressing our disapproval of using young people in such a manipulative manner is something we disapprove of and to that end WE will be contributing money that might have been spent other places in supporting the best representatives of our thoughts on firearms and the rights of firearms owners.

I'm already a SAF Life member, but sending them a Life membership for my daughter who thinks the 24th march is misguided is my response.

 

[Hokie_PhD]

Thanks for the reminder. I promised to join GOA. I’m going to do it tomorrow as a response to the staged event aka protests in DC

 

[Growlers]

I am already a member of both the NRA and the GOA. I mailed a contribution to the NRA-ILA yesterday (they should get it tomorrow). However, I will sign my wife up for an NRA membership tomorrow. She will be a new member.

So, new NRA memberships, or extending existing memberships might be another way to help.

 

[RETG]

NRA gets no more of my money till the disavow the clown in the WH who signed that ludicrous bill he also did not read!
I will donate to the SAF.

 

[SilentStalker]

NRA gets no more of my money till the disavow the clown in the WH who signed that ludicrous bill he also did not read!
I will donate to the SAF.

I’m with you. The only reason I’m a member of the nra is because my range requires it to be a member.

 

[DoubleMag]

WITH RESPECTS, the whole event was started as a money bomb the.......................................NRA thing. If you (the reader) want another event, by all means start it, money bomb the GOA, SAF etc. , ans so on. I will also participate.

And to think of it, the kiddies aren't being puppeted by a larger group for a singular event. Their ''movement'' is broader than that, and on going. Perhaps a singular money-bomb day could actually be considered counter productive if it does make the 2A activist think '' I've done all''. With a group so diverse (2A) certainly apathy is a portion of that movement...

So in summation even though I disagree with some of the things the NRA does / doesn't do, I am donation to the NRA/ILA fund today. TODAY. I cannot find or will I foster little minded reasons to do....nothing including not donating a mere $5 bucks.

 

[Guy B. Meredith]

$50 each to SAF and NRA-ILA even on my limited budget. That important.

Like it or not, the NRA is the face of firearms owners to the political left and they need to be supported for that. The SAF and the NRA are also fighting in the courts. The SAF is behind some of the significant wins that will control where future litigation can go: Heller, McDonald and several carry fights.

 

[DoubleMag]

Liked your 'tide pods' post on the other thread LoL

 

[barnbwt]

A "money bomb" against multibillion dollar interests is just as pointless as boycotting Youtube. They raised a hundred million in a week; that's like ten years of NRA lobbying money.

Whatever strength the NRA had was due to the ability to sway elections through their rankings and by proxy the voters they would influence. The rankings have lost accuracy because of political influence back-feeding into the NRA, and now a lack of message-clarity has confused their influence over the membership. They are without power or a rudder at this point. We'll see if we get some new skippers at the convention in April that can right the ship. Mutiny is needed badly.

SAF has at least got some wins, and hasn't stabbed us in the last year that I know of, and hasn't become an extension of a somewhat anti-gun political party like the NRA.

 

[animus_divinus]

i refuse to be part of the organization responsible for almost all the gun control we have today

 

[JN01]

i refuse to be part of the organization responsible for almost all the gun control we have today

Wow, so without the NRA we would have very few gun control laws?

 

[animus_divinus]

without the NRA youd be missing the NFA they endorsed, and the 1968 gun control act and brady bill they supported.. they also had nothing to do with the DC vs heller and mcdonald vs chicago court cases which are responsible for overturning most big city gun bans and turning almost every state today into "shall issue"

this is what the NRA had to say about the 1968 gun control act which is responsible for giving us the "sporting purposes" nonsense that has also been abused to ban all imports of foreign made "assault rifles"

"At the hearings NRA Executive Vice-President Franklin Orth supported a ban on mail-order sales, stating, "We do not think that any sane American, who calls himself an American, can object to placing into this bill the instrument which killed the president of the United States."["

 

[JN01]

The NFA and GCA were 80 and 50 years ago. They would have been enacted whether the NRA had any input or not. NRA didn't really get political until the 1970s. In recent years, they have been involved in trying to mitigate damage in some of the bills such as the first assault weapon ban. Without them, we wouldn't be sweating another ban now, because the Clinton ban would still be in effect.

You really think that the gun grabbers wouldn't have completely gutted the second amendment by now without the NRA, on behalf of millions of members, putting pressure on legislators?

 

[animus_divinus]

i really dont care if these things happened last night.. the fact they were pro bumpfire stock ban just a month or two ago and are always supporting legislation to add misdemeanors to the ban list tells me the NRA has changed very little in practice, though they like to talk a big game.. and when was the last time the NRA has spoken out against the NFA and GCA or background checks?.. never, they still support these measures

and dont give me that specious bullcrap that without the NRA and their endless compromises that we wouldnt have any gun rights at all.. thats about as ridiculous as saying without the ACLU we'd have no free speech, its specious reasoning which follows the same line of logic as superstition as there is absolutely no foundation for the belief of that being even remotely true

the clinton ban isnt in effect because it was written with a 10 year sunset that republicans rightfully didnt have the guts to promote renewing in an election year

 

[340PD]

Donation to the NRA-ILA, and SAF along with a couple of one year memberships for very left leaning anti-gun radio talk show hosts in my area.

 

[JN01]

i really dont care if these things happened last night.. the fact they were pro bumpfire stock ban just a month or two ago and are always supporting legislation to add misdemeanors to the ban list tells me the NRA has changed very little in practice, though they like to talk a big game.. and when was the last time the NRA has spoken out against the NFA and GCA or background checks?.. never, they still support these measures

and dont give me that specious bullcrap that without the NRA and their endless compromises that we wouldnt have any gun rights at all.. thats about as ridiculous as saying without the ACLU we'd have no free speech, its specious reasoning which follows the same line of logic as superstition as there is absolutely no foundation for the belief of that being even remotely true

the clinton ban isnt in effect because it was written with a 10 year sunset that republicans rightfully didnt have the guts to promote renewing in an election year

The NRA has made many mistakes, supporting the bump fire ban is one of them. Suggesting that they have done absolutely nothing in support of the 2nd Amendment is ludicrous.

Politicians listen to the NRA because they have 5 million members and millions more who self-identify with them. You don't think that without the threat of a large block of constituents holding them accountable that politicians wouldn't fold like a cheap suit every time the public demanded another useless symbolic law be passed? Maybe if the GOA had 5 million members they would have some influence, but guess what, they don't. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis correctly stated:

"The Bill of Rights- with all the judicial gloss it has acquired- plainly is not adequate to protect the individual against the growing bureaucracy. He faces a formidable opponent in government, even when he is endowed with funds and courage. The individual is almost certain to be plowed under unless he has a well-organized, active political group to speak for him. The church is one. The press is another. The union is a third. But if a powerful sponsor is lacking, individual liberty withers- in spite of glowing opinions and resounding constitutional phrases."

Thirty years ago, only a few states allowed legal concealed carry. Since then, we have moved to most states having shall issue permits, and now the trend is to permitless carry (as it should be). But compromising, incremental improvements are wrong, so I guess we need to discount those advances as just more gun control.