This is why I am not a member of organizations..

[Northern Sod Breaker]

Perhaps your sig line says it all. None the less. You obviuosly think that anynomous mass mailings work. You need to get out more (your more then free to correct me if I'm wrong). That $30 spent at the range has just cretaed another gun enthusiast. Who will vote accordingly. He'll take his friends to the range etc. Of course you can spend money to pay the wages of upper management. That's about what you donation does. You think management works for nothing. I would be real surprised if even half of what you pay in is actauly spent on opposing gun control/educating the public. As far as I'm cocnerned the management of the NRA or any other organization can get room, board and a company car on someone else's nickel. I'm not stopping you from bank rolling already rich (and questionable importance to the cause) management. I you so desire go right ahead. Just don't try and tell me how I should spend my money. Or how I am freeloading because I don't believe in welfare for higher ups.

Shotgun

ETA: No, I do not believe the NRA in sincerely commited to defending the 2nd amendment. I believe they have used fear to sucker alot of American gun owners into bankrolling them. There playing both sides of the deck. Support gun control to create fear among gun owners. Then oppose it to create support (money) from gun owners.

[shield20]

I LOVE it when the NRA is consistently mentioned for standing up to the anti-gun people & their "sensible" (but useless) gun laws. I LOVE it that I am a member of THE group they take seriously, of a pro-gun group that has ALOT of muscle, & of a group that is referred to by the antis simply as the "Gun Lobby" while also knowing it represents over 4 million fellow gun owners. I LOVE it that the NRA lets our feelings on gun control be known, and stands up for them CONSTANTLY, because I may not be paying as much attention as I should.

1yr Membership in NRA: $35
1 Trip to range w/ammo and buddy: $30
Being able & willing to afford both: Priceless

Hint: take someone shooting AND buy him/her a membership in the NRA - it helps us all.

[Limeyfellow]

I just wish the NRA would go after all the antigunners regardless of political party. They don't even mention a thing about the ban on imported barrels in the big crack down on kits, They don't do anything about the current president who more than once mentioned how he wanted gun control to crack down on Columbine style events, how he wanted to keep automatic weapons & high-capacity ammunition clips banned, and of course his infamous 1999 speech when he demanded the age of gun ownership should be raised to 21 and the ban on certain bullets. Then there was the time he was for the Brady law. Oh we forget that. They hardly said a thing out loud when Bush came out in support of renewing the AWB back in 2004.

Then there was the Vice President who has gone on in the past about how child safety locks should be on all guns, the ban on plastic guns, his constant rambling about the evils of copkiller bullets.

But we don't hear a thing about this at all. It seems more like the We Hate Hillary campaign when they send those annoying letters to me. Until they go after all people regardless of party lines then I might join but not when half the time they act like hacks.

[Maser]

I for one will NEVER join the NRA. No, I am not an anti, it's just I feel that organization is just as crooked as any other large organization on earth. It's all about money, not gun owners. If the NRA was as hot as it says it is then there NEVER would have been the '94 "assault weapons" ban. I'm not saying that the NRA is completly bad, I just feel that they are not doing all that they can to ensure that us responsible law abiding citizens have our 2nd amendment right protected now and for our future generations.

Sorry if I offended any NRA members/supports, but I was just giving my own oppinion.

[CALNRA]

Wow, nice to see all of you anti-NRA elitists out there.

If you can organize a better, more effective, and more organized pro-2nd organization, by all means, be my guest and go do something about it instead of sitting in front of your computer talking about how much better you are than the NRA. Until then, leave us lemmins in peace.

So to recap, if you dislike the NRA so much, PROVE US WRONG

[mvpel]

No I do not know the stituation surrounding the 34 NFA. But I do know that any organization that comprimises once is likely to do it again. And agian.

Sometimes compromise is the only way to avoid getting your rear end whipped. When someone gets the drop on you and puts a gun to your forehead and threatens to kill you, and you offer them the compromise of giving them your wallet instead, and they take it and leave, are you going to rail against losing your wallet for the rest of your days, or are you going to team up with your neighbors and form a neighborhood watch?

In 1934, and 1968, the anti-gun forces were the equivalent of an armed robber to the gun owners' little old lady who'd never before been robbed, and who thought it could never happen to her.

[rick_reno]

I'll support them once I see clear evidence that have some idea of where the line in the sand is. So far I haven't had any indication that they know one exists, much less that they know where it is.

[TimRB]

"If the NRA was as hot as it says it is then there NEVER would have been the '94 "assault weapons" ban."

These bills are voted on by both houses of Congress, and then signed by the President. In that instance, the votes were there. What, exactly, do you think the NRA should have done to stop it?

People who will only join the NRA when they're guaranteed a win every time really *are* nothing more than freeloaders.

Tim

[JoeHatley]

People who will only join the NRA when they're guaranteed a win every time really *are* nothing more than freeloaders.

+1!!! Well put Tim.

Joe

[Tom2]

I for one can afford to buy ammo and pay for the NRA membership. I am not so hard up that one precludes the other. I think he said something about setting in a bunker laughing at us. Well dear friend, if they really really want you for some reason, you will be coming out of the bunker one way or another. I have never heard of a police/government/military armed standoff where they just gave up and left it unresolved! Oh except for what they want to do in Iraq....

[Northern Sod Breaker]

A more effective pro-gun organization is not a question. the question is establishing an organization that is effective at all. Maser makes a very valid point. If the NRA is the be all it claims to be why can't it just put it's foot down and say no more and all gun laws are wiped off the books? Answer: In addition to my above remarks the effectivness of the NRA as an anti-gun organization is hyped up. Of course I am aware that I am in the minority on this board. But among gun owners more then one study has shown me to be in the majority

ETA:

TimRB. That's a giving. But when an organization continues to loose not just once or twice but continualy again and agian. Why should a person join an organization that for what ever reason always comes out on the lossing side?

MVPEL I see what your saying. But I consider the 34 NFA to be equivalent to the gunman just pulling the trigger. Okay maybe a tiny bit better. The 2nd amendment lost all it's importance once that passed. The 2nd amendment was established to defend against among other things tyranny. The public is for all pratical purposes disarmed when compared to how much better the govt. is equiped. Should tyranny ever occur. The public could never win a war with the guns we are limited to.

[mvpel]

There were a whole list of bills that session on "assault weapons." Some that didn't pass were:

H.R.893 - prohibition on possession or transfer, applying to all semi-automatic firearms: "any repeating firearm which uses a portion of the energy of a firing cartridge to extract the fired cartridge case and chamber the next round, and which requires a separate pull of the trigger to fire each cartridge" - and "any shotgun which contains its ammunition in a revolving cylinder.'.

H.R.1421 - banning import and manufacture of "firearms designed to accept a silencer, bayonet, grenade launcher, flash suppressor, or folding stock, of certain ammunition feeding devices, and of related devices" - no more Enfield No 4 Mk. I imports.

H.R.1472 - another transfer & possession ban - specifically naming the AR-15 and granting the Secretary of the Treasury and AG legislative authority to ban any other firearms he saw fit.

H.R.1571 - banning possession, transfer, and certain exports of "restricted weapons," again defined by the Secretary based on "not generally recognized as particularly suitable for, or readily adaptable to, sporting purposes."

H.R.1706 - another possession and transfer ban with a named firearm list amendable without legislative act by the Secretary, and also including a >10-round magazine ban, and again applying to Enfield No 4 Mk I due to the bayonet lug.

H.R.3184 - a much longer named firearm ban list, and again with the Secretary-fiat power, but this time they remembered to exclude bolt-action guns.

H.R.3527 - a federal version of the California law, with the whole "detachable magazine and 2 characteristics" test, again with the Secretary fiat power.

So you see, the NRA was fighting a whole list of really dangerous, sweeping bans that session. The 1994 ban was arguably the best of a very bad lot.

For one, it did not delegate legislative power to ban firearms to the Secretary of the Treasury, and it did not prohibit transfers of grandfathered firearms, and it included a sunset, and required the AG to prepare and present a study of its effectiveness, and included an appendix with design details and information on all sorts of sporting and competitive firearms.

That appendix may have been why the vote was as close as it was given that congressmen could not be drawn in to hysterical rhetoric based on their ignorance about the design and use of firearms unless they wanted to.

We all know the rest of what it did do, so there's no need to go into it, but if you're not aware of the exceptions included in it, you should look it over.

So I submit that if you're going to blame the NRA for the '94 ban, you should also give them credit for all the bans that didn't pass. It's simple fairness.

Why should a person join an organization that for what ever reason always comes out on the lossing side?

Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act?

Defeat of Al Gore?

New Orleans confiscation ban legislation in many states and in Congress?

Can you name one major legislative victory that can be directly attributed to the efforts any other pro-gun organization that never compromises? Is there any other pro-gun organization that always wins?

[TimRB]

"If the NRA is the be all it claims to be why can't it just put it's foot down and say no more and all gun laws are wiped off the books? Answer: In addition to my above remarks the effectivness of the NRA as an anti-gun organization is hyped up."

No, that's *not* the answer. The answer is that they are not powerful enough to make such demands because they don't have the membership. Conventional wisdom says that there are about 80 million gun owners in this country. If every one of them joined the NRA, then, yes, we really *could* get rid of nearly every gun law in the country.

BTW, I assume you mean "PRO-gun" above...

Tim

[mvpel]

Here's an essay proposing that the '94 AWB was a big mistake for the anti-gunners:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/817036/posts
=
While they may have succeeded in convincing a narrow majority of legislators to vote in favor of the ban, they did not succeed in convincing the American public, especially not those who even pretended to know anything about firearms.

The resulting public outcry among the gun-owning community of the United States galvanized the gun lobby, and has contributed to the outcomes of every subsequent election. Ironically, this law may prove to be the beginning of a marked trend that unifies gun owners as a more homogenous voting block than ever before.
==

[DeathRodent]

You have to remember the NRA is not GOD they can't just waive their finger and make gun laws go away - unfortunately they have to deal with politicians

That said they win more battles than they lose

I will waste my money any way I want - the little bit it costs to join the NRA is nothing and leaves plenty to buy ammo. Three year memberships are $75 - only $25 a year that is nothing - one box of .45 ammo - that maybe you couldn't buy if the NRA wasn't supporting your rights.

Its a free country save your money, don't join its ok you can still enjoy the benefits of the NRA victories.

[bobhwry]

Maser,
Your immaturity is showing!! Never say never!

[Speer]

That $30 spent at the range has just cretaed another gun enthusiast. Who will vote accordingly. He'll take his friends to the range etc.

Sorry, but it'll take more than that to stop the gun grabbers.

I would be real surprised if even half of what you pay in is actauly spent on opposing gun control/educating the public.

My money helps keep the NRA alive. And the NRA, in turn, fights the gun grabbers. Simple, really. And there is a laundry list of benefits from being a member. Check out their website.

ETA: No, I do not believe the NRA in sincerely commited to defending the 2nd amendment. I believe they have used fear to sucker alot of American gun owners into bankrolling them. There playing both sides of the deck.

I'm sorry you feel that way. The gun grabbers are happy, though.

In addition to my above remarks the effectivness of the NRA as an anti-gun organization is hyped up.

The NRA isn't all-powerful. They just happen to be better funded and organized than the other pro-gun groups -- and even so, they're still fighting an up-hill battle against very powerful foes. Of course it doesn't help that millions of gun owners refuse to support them. Don't think the NRA matters? Do some research and examine their record.

The public is for all pratical purposes disarmed when compared to how much better the govt. is equiped.

The Iraqi resistance is still alive.

Can you name one major legislative victory that can be directly attributed to the efforts any other pro-gun organization that never compromises?

Scary to think about what this nation might look like without the NRA. Whatever issues people might have with them, they're the best we got.

[Northern Sod Breaker]

Sorry, but it'll take more than that to stop the gun grabbers.

And sending out mass mailings which just get thrown in the trash anyway will???

My money helps keep the NRA alive. And the NRA, in turn, fights the gun grabbers. Simple, really. And there is a laundry list of benefits from being a member. Check out their website.

actualy it just keeps the well paid management alive.

I'm sorry you feel that way. The gun grabbers are happy, though.

NRA spread BS alert....

The Iraqi resistance is still alive.

That's real relevant ain't it.(/sarcasm) Oh and show me to the nearest US gun dealer that will sell a full auto AK to a Non FFL holder. I rest my case.

Scary to think about what this nation might look like without the NRA. Whatever issues people might have with them, they're the best we got.

Alert more BS

[WSM MAGNUM]

NRA spread BS alert....

Alert more BS

And your opinions are not?

[Speer]

NRA spread BS alert....

Translation: "I have no argument.."

Oh and show me to the nearest US gun dealer that will sell a full auto AK to a Non FFL holder. I rest my case.

Please. It ain't what you got, but what you can do with it. Millions of gun owners with AK's, AR's, HK's, M1A's, and on and on. It paints a formidable picture.

[Silver Bullet]

For anyone doubting the NRA’s power on our behalf:

http://www.nramemberscouncils.com/si...05Results.html

Note in particular this quote from Feinstein (speaking of the NRA):

Quote:
"I'm a bit numb ... They had the power to turn around at least 60 votes in the Senate. That's amazing to me."
- Senator Feinstein as quoted in the NY Times 3/3/04

Since then, the gun-liability bill has been passed without the AWB renewal provision.

[mvpel]

And sending out mass mailings which just get thrown in the trash anyway will???

Mass mailings work - otherwise they wouldn't keep doing them. For every 98 that get thrown away, there's two which net $30-$150 each, which pays for the entire mailing and a tidy profit to boot. Presorted standard mail has a very low per-piece cost up to 3.3 ounces. It's effective, and cost-effective marketing, rather than broadcasting into the air with no way of knowing how many people you might reach, like Citizens of America tried to do.

[shaggy]

That has to be the most ridiculous and transparent attempt to justify free-riding I've ever seen. In essence your main argument is that since the NRA isn't 100% effective, they are not worthy of any of your support. The fact, however, remains that while they aren't 100% effective in their goals, they are still one of the most effective organizations on the Hill. I defy you to show me any other lobbying organization that has been around as long as the NRA that has been as effective at preventing an annual avalanche of legislation from becomming law. If 100% efficacy is your standard, I'd say you're either vastly out of touch with the realities of politics, grabbing at whatever straw you can to justify your miserly ways, or simply on dope. No lobbying group is 100% effective in achieving all their legislative goals and preventing all unwanted legislation. I defy you to name one. When it comes to legislation the gun banners are like terrorists; they only have to get lucky once to be successful, the NRA has to get lucky every single time.

And as regards the constant need for fund-raising by the NRA, you have to remember that there are new gun control bills introduced every session. The people at the top of the NRA are compensated well, but no better than similar types at any other similarly sized organization or corporation. And make no mistake, lobbying costs tons of money. Good employees nd good consultants cost good money, as does the process of gaining political access. I know those salaries may seem high, but running the NRA or a similar organization isn't like running the local Quickie-mart, and requires significantly more on the resume.

And we also have this lunacy about the membership fee being better spent on a couple boxes of ammo to share with some friends and hopefully make some new gun owners. This is a real gem. You mean to tell us that but for that $30/year you save, you wouldn't be able to take a few friends to the range once in a while and let them shoot a few guns and burn a little ammo in hopes of converting them to pro-gun types? Thats just laughable. I thought most gun owners already did this regardless. If you are so strapped for cash that the $30 you'd spend on an NRA membership would make that difference, I think you should immediately sell all your guns - you obviously need the cash more than the guns.

I know over the years I've probably let friends and other people shoot several thousand rounds of my own ammo through my guns just in hopes of making new converts. And yet, I'm still a member of the NRA as are most people here. If you can make a convert on your own thats great, but don't let it end there, unless you're the lazy sort that doesn't do anything more than is absolutely required of him to get by in life. Were you the type to happily accept a "D" because it was still a passing grade, or did you aspire to more and work harder to achieve an "A"? Certainly getting more pro-gun voters helps, but thats the bare minimum we should all be doing. Joining the NRA and aiding the 800 lb. gorrilla of Capitol Hill that bullies the anti-gun legislators and beats moderates into submission certainly doesn't hurt the cause. There are 60-80 million gun owners in the US, but only about 3million NRA members. Were every gun owner in the US to join the NRA, we'd have any pro-gun legislation we wanted. Unfortunately there are too many free-riders who own guns and don't join the NRA, but are all too quick to complain about the NRA's losses.

[mjrodney]

As individuals, we have little hope of defending our Pro-Gun rights against the well funded Anti-Gun Groups.

We can complain all we want, both here on the Firing Line and elsewhere, but it's not going to stem the Anti-Gun tide.

Only a collective voice, made up of as many Pro-Gun folks as we can muster, will stand a chance.

The AARP, made up of retirees, has 35,000,000 members. They maintain large numbers of influential lobbyists in Washington and in the States. And they have acknowledged clout in government.

The NRA's voice is much smaller. Only 8 million voices in a nation of 300 million people. A proverbial David against an Anti-Gun Goliath.

Those who choose not to add their voice the NRA should be the first to understand why the NRA can't win every battle, for there is strength only in numbers and 8 million is but a few.

If we want more Pro-Gun battles won, the NRA needs more members. The NRA needs and deserves support. YOUR support.

[mvpel]

When it comes to legislation the gun banners are like terrorists; they only have to get lucky once to be successful, the NRA has to get lucky every single time.

Indeed - in 1994 they were "lucky" only seven out of eight times, if by "lucky" you mean working their tails off on the Hill, and we got stuck with a gun and magazine capacity ban for ten straight years.