The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > General Discussion Forum

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old November 17, 2006, 04:00 PM   #51
GeorgeF
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 23, 2004
Posts: 572
Quote:
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.
Hmmm, there are two or three in my area alone. How about: http://www.autoweapons.com?

They only have about 3 or so AK-47's in stock right now. But if you want an AR or M60 or Thompson, they have plenty more.

I'm always amazed at how many people think you need to be licensed to own a full auto weapon - you need to pay a one time tax, file some paperwork with the ATF and when it returns the dealer gives you your full auto weapon. Lots of people do it EVERY WEEK. Same process to get a silencer.

Of course you are limited by where you live, there are some states or cities where you can't own full auto. But thats the local government who got that passed.

In fact, check out http://www.billsgs.com/ccproduct.php?productid=MGR. They rent MG's in your state, they probably sell them or know where you can buy them - go ask the locals.

Let me ask you Shotgun Minister, do you actively take a role in every gun legislation that comes down the pike, or only the ones you care about? Do you call your local politicians when they talk about one gun a month limitations, or assault weapon bans? Not being sarcastic, just genuinely interested in your view and stance.
GeorgeF is offline  
Old November 17, 2006, 04:20 PM   #52
A. Patriot
Junior Member
 
Join Date: September 21, 2006
Posts: 3
Live Free! It's your choice.

I decided many years ago that I wasn't going to cower in fear that I might end up on "some list". I joined the NRA (life member) and have worked locally off and on over the last 30 years for gun rights. I was one of the first in line for a concealed carry permit the morning they opened the permit office. I have written letters to the editor on gun rights.

Many of us are old enough to remember when concealed carry was very rare and usually only for people politically connected or enough money to "donate" to the powers that be. After Florida passed its "shall issue" permit law, that opened the door for other states to follow suite. It was the NRA and other pro-gun groups who worked at the grass roots level and in the halls of state capitols that got these laws passed in most of the states in the nation.

Who remembers the Jimmy Carter era when the anti-gunners were winning?

I will make a bold statement: Without the NRA, we would not have private possession of guns in this country today. We would have laws like England.

To a very few of you, stop acting like conquered subjects and act like free men and women! It is our heritage and our right!

P.S. - I stocked up on Ammo during the Clinton administration. Still have most of it.

Last edited by A. Patriot; November 17, 2006 at 04:28 PM. Reason: add a thought
A. Patriot is offline  
Old November 17, 2006, 04:30 PM   #53
shaggy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 9, 2004
Posts: 1,519
Quote:
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.
What I meant was the antis were lucky to get the 94 AWB through. It was only due to a lot of last minute arm twisting and back-room deals after a few votes on the bill went down in flames, that they finally got the CBC and a few blue dogs to sign on to it. The NRA worked damned hard to defeat that one and it was still a close vote in the end.

Had the NRA not been there in 1994, that ban would have been a lot worse, and it would have been permanent.
shaggy is offline  
Old November 17, 2006, 04:33 PM   #54
buzz_knox
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 2, 1999
Location: Knoxville, in the Free State of Tennesse
Posts: 4,190
Quote:
That has to be the most ridiculous and transparent attempt to justify free-riding I've ever seen.
Bingo.
buzz_knox is offline  
Old November 17, 2006, 09:58 PM   #55
Kowboy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 29, 2005
Posts: 148
I'm NRA. You should be too.

Kowboy
Kowboy is offline  
Old November 17, 2006, 10:12 PM   #56
mack59
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 14, 2004
Posts: 447
There are many organizations, the NRA is only one, don't like the NRA then join a state rifle association, or JPFO, or GOA, or SAS, or SAF, or Pink Pistols, or ect..., or start your own grassroots organization- many have.

All the above organizations have their place, their focus, and all serve a purpose in their own way.

Most individuals that are members of one are also members of others.

But for purposes of discussion let's take a look at the NRA - it seems to be the gun rights organization that takes the most criticism from gun owners.

The NRA is the oldest. It started out as a marksmanship program with the purpose of promoting marksmanship after the civil war. Over the years it expanded to encompass hunting and gun collecting. It was not really an active political lobbying group. When the tax/gun control law of 1934 was passed into law - the NRA was not positioned to fight the legislation - gun rights had not been under assault by the federal government and if I recall the organization itself was divided as was the membership on the issue.

In 1968, believe it or not, the NRA although more political than in 1934, was still not near the effective or efficient lobby group that it now is, and again there were some members who did not oppose the gun control act.

(As an aside, I get annoyed when individuals blame the NRA today for the loss of gun rights in 1934 and 1968 - the NRA is not a stone carving - it is a living and changing organization that responds to the desires of its members - those in charge and most of the members of the NRA in 1934 and even 1968 are dead and gone - to blame the NRA today for whatever failures and sins of the past it was guilty of, or complicit in, is foolish.)

1968 was however the crisis that helped to propel the NRA into full time political lobbying and that helped to mold the NRA into the guns rights organization that it is today. The NRA is one of the most powerful independent organizations in politics. But that needs to be understood in perspective. The NRA represents only 8 million people out of a population of 300 million. Although the NRA raises money - the amount that the NRA can raise by itself is a pittance compared to the money available from billionaires, corporations, and the money raised by the political parties. So the size of the membership and the money raised/controlled/spent by the NRA is not by itself what gives the NRA power. It is the dedication the passion of the members of the NRA that makes the NRA powerful - politicians know that the NRA members will work actively to elect or defeat them, that the NRA will spend money effectively to mobilize their members, and that their members will work to influence their families, friends, and neighbors to vote to elect or defeat candidates. It is this combination of dedication, passion, money, and 8 million members that makes the NRA powerful.

Yet the NRA has, because it is so large, many problems to contend with. First the NRA to please its members and in order to attract new members, to retain old members and to maintain traditional duties and focuses - is not just a pure "gun rights" organization. It teaches firearm safety, it trains police, it promotes shooting sports, it promotes hunting, hunter safety, and hunter safety training. It works to ensure the preservation of wildlife habitat and the ability of hunters to have access to wildlife lands for hunting. The NRA works to protect gun ranges from unreasonable environmental and noise restrictions. The NRA works to pass legislation to protect gun manufacturers from lawsuits designed to drive them out of business. They work to pass legislation the makes it legal for gun owners to carry a gun for self defense without having to do so in violation of a law. The NRA tries to do all these things to please current members, to attract new members, to allow gun owners to use their firearms safely for protection, defense, or sport.

Since the NRA is so large, they also work to maintain the credibility of their organization in the eyes of the many gun owners and non-gun owners who are not members. Were the NRA to allow themselves to be completely demonized and painted as completely extreme and unreasonable then they would lose members, lose credibility, and become a political liability rather than a political assets that politicians would shun instead of seek. NRA spokesman therefore have found that at times it is better to temper their rhetoric than to alienate Jane and John Q. Public.

Organizations like GOA and JPFO do not have to worry about PR like the NRA does - they are firebrands and bomb throwers and if you are passionate and believe in Liberty and gun rights then they often say what you wish the NRA would say. But because of their rhetoric and passion they put off many would be members, though the members they have are very passionate and also tend to be equally vocal. Politicians who agree with the NRA, who believe in gun rights, who seek the NRA's endorsement or support - do not want the endorsement or open support of some of the more openly passionate guns rights organizations because they fear they will be seen by their constituents as too extreme.

None of the above is a knock on any of the organizations mentioned. I like them all. I don't agree with everything any of them do or say. But I recognize that they all serve important purposes, each with their own unique focus and their own style.

Is the NRA effective, well over-all yes. Not that long ago it was only the citizens of a handful of states that could carry a gun for self-defense without fear of arrest. That number has grown to the vast majority of states. The AWB has sunset without renewal, and though it was enacted, it was only enacted with a sunset provision. Gun manufacturers no longer have to worry about being bankrupted by idiotic lawsuits. Parts of the gun control of act of 1968 were repealed. The NRA introduces many individuals to firearms in a positive light through education programs, safety training and classes, support of shooting sports, training in self defense, hunting safety and hunter safety training, preservation and access to hunting lands, range building and preservation, preserving the history of firearms and their legacy, educating and training individuals in firearm safety and shooting. The NRA has partnered and helped to develop many of the state wide rifles associations so essential to fighting statewide gun control legislation.

Does the NRA always win - no. Does the NRA always do the right thing or what I feel is the right thing - no. Is the NRA perfect - far from it. Are there ugly politics inside the NRA - yes. But you know - those are all things that one can work to change - at least with the NRA - its members can actually vote and lobby for change.

That said, I belong to a number of gun rights organizations - none of them are perfect - I don't agree totally with any of them - but you know what - they all are important and necessary as they all serve important functions and unique purposes in the on-going struggle to retain and reinstate our liberties.

Only you truly know what the truth is for you, you are the one who has to look in the mirror and face what you see and who you are honestly. But, I suspect that many who complain loudly about why the can't or why they won't join with others to defend their freedom are just too lazy or afraid to really act - to really make a last stand by themselves as they claim for if they will not put themselves out and take a risk when it is easy and the cost is low - how will they choose to do so when the risk is high and the penalty severe. They have somehow forgotten that if we do not hang together, we will most assuredly hang separately.

Pray for peace, prepare for war.

Last edited by mack59; November 18, 2006 at 12:19 PM. Reason: spelling errors, I was tired and rushed
mack59 is offline  
Old November 18, 2006, 12:26 AM   #57
Silver Bullet
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 6, 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 995
mack59,

Terrific post, sir !
__________________
I am not a real bullet, nor do I play one on television.

American socialism: Democrats trying to get Republicans to provide for them.
Silver Bullet is offline  
Old November 18, 2006, 12:31 AM   #58
Al Norris
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
Very well stated mack59.

For the record, I am the NRA.
Al Norris is offline  
Old November 18, 2006, 02:20 AM   #59
Northern Sod Breaker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 8, 2005
Location: Hewitt, Minnesota
Posts: 758
If the NRA is so great why is it that there are almost 100 Million gun owners and only 5 Million are members of the NRA? The human is equiped with the remarkeable ability. It's called speach and written language. I choose to use that ability rather then pay someone to do it for me. As do the other 95 Million gun owners who are not mebers of the NRA. I personaly think the NRA is arrogant. The older I get the more I think this. The attitude that the NRA is the only effective gun lobby as expressed in writting so beautifully within this thread makes my point exactly. The elitist attitude that if your not "one of us" then you must be an anti-gunner. Personaly I can not afford NRA membership. Which explains why a $20 box of ammo is on my "wish list." Unlike some of you (not all) I do not have an unlimited income. Also I do not aggree with many of the other Organization. The Swamp Buster Act promoted by several wildlife foundations for example will be an eternal thorn in my side. The contiuos labeling of non-members as freeloaders is not winning any new members. Such logic is flawed. Is a person who is over 50 and not a member of AARP a freeloader? or a car owner who is not a member of AAA. It seems interesting that such logic only applies in refference to guns. But before you responce to all of my post please answer my first question. If the NRA is so great Why are NRA members in the minority among gun owners?
__________________
"Even the atheists appeal to a higher power when they feel they've been wronged"~ C.S. Lewis
Northern Sod Breaker is offline  
Old November 18, 2006, 03:03 AM   #60
CALNRA
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 14, 2006
Posts: 242
Quote:
If the NRA is so great why is it that there are almost 100 Million gun owners and only 5 Million are members of the NRA?
becaue of gun owners liek yourself. You just answered your own question.
CALNRA is offline  
Old November 18, 2006, 07:03 AM   #61
Bud Helms
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 31, 1999
Location: Middle Georgia, USA
Posts: 13,198
This isn't going any where. SM, if you don't want to join the NRA, don't. But understand that joining is taking a stand and members hope and think they are helping the cause. For the NRA members, pointing fingers at non-member gun owners doesn't do anything but harden their position and verify for them that they were right all along. Points of view like SM's don't change until they change their attitude.

So before any more accusations get slung around, I'll make the point that though I am an Life member, I don't hold a grudge against those that don't want to join. We all have to decide that for ourselves, but saying, "I'm not joining because there are 100 million gun owners and only 5 million are members, therefore there must be something wrong with the NRA" is also flawed thinking.

No data for this next assertion, but I'd venture a guess that no special interest group has anywhere close to half the members of that special interest as members.

As for the NRA, there are MANY things I would change if I were King of the NRA. I quit looking for a perfect world a long time ago. Now, I just ask that people and organizations stand up to their promises and committments. The larger the organization, the more diluted individual ideas become in organizational implementation of their stated principles. Just because the NRA doesn't do everything exactly the way I think they should is no reason, IMHO, to say they are ineffective.

As for the AARP ... :barf: Fed Tax beggars.
Bud Helms is offline  
Old November 18, 2006, 08:46 AM   #62
mjrodney
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 5, 2006
Location: SW Florida
Posts: 435
Quote:
As for the AARP ... :barf: Fed Tax beggars.
Correction, Bud.....Influential Fed Tax beggers.

No, I can't speak for the AARP for I'm not a member, but the fact remains that they are still 35 million Americans who are bright enough to band together to ensure their voice is heard and heeded.

As gunowners, we have that same opportunity.
__________________
Proud supporter of the NRA
mjrodney is offline  
Old November 18, 2006, 09:57 AM   #63
StayCool
Member
 
Join Date: October 14, 2006
Posts: 33
weapons vs. winning

Quote:
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.
I guess the North Vietnamese didn't know this fact, that a large group of determined people armed mostly with rifles, can't overcome a very large and well equiped modern army........

What is the present day name for Saigon?

NRA member - StayCool
StayCool is offline  
Old November 18, 2006, 10:23 AM   #64
Silver Bullet
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 6, 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 995
I'd say the North Vietnamese were much better armed than Americans would be if the government bans guns. Is China going to provide us with weapons, too ?
__________________
I am not a real bullet, nor do I play one on television.

American socialism: Democrats trying to get Republicans to provide for them.
Silver Bullet is offline  
Old November 18, 2006, 10:30 AM   #65
StayCool
Member
 
Join Date: October 14, 2006
Posts: 33
closer reading of quoted words

Quote:
I'd say the North Vietnamese were much better armed than Americans would be if the government bans guns.
Last line of original quote in post #63, refers to gun available to US citizens at present day, not if all guns banned.

Quote:
Is China going to provide us with weapons, too ?
I bet they would if the price was right! Global economy you know....
StayCool is offline  
Old November 18, 2006, 11:14 AM   #66
mack59
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 14, 2004
Posts: 447
SM - I don't know you and I certainly would never presume to judge you or the choices you make for your life. I for my part at least would never say that, "you" as an individual, need or should be an NRA member.

My post was mostly directed to those who may read this forum who are new to firearms and who are not involved in with any gun rights organization. This forum is well moderated and it has a large membership of posters who can articulate their positions coherently and civilly, but there are many other gun and gun rights forums where it is almost a tenant of faith that the NRA or GOA or SAF, ect... are all sellouts, that they have no value and that no one in their right mind would join them. I chose to discuss the NRA because they are for now the largest gun rights organization. You ask why the NRA doesn't attract more members - just read many of the other internet gun or gun rights forums or post on one of them that, "well the NRA isn't that bad," and see what happens. Between the assaults from the political left, the mainstream news media and the gun rights purists - it is amazing that the NRA has been able to survive as an effective organization.

But let us be honest, many individuals who are passionate about freedom and their gun rights are angry. They are angry because they find that their freedoms are under constant assault from the federal govt., from politicians, from their state or local govt., in the media, and from corporations, courts, and lawyers.

If they are new to the fight, they often feel like, "what have you people been doing, can't you see what needs to be done, why haven't you done it, what part of shall not be infringed don't you understand, what do you mean progress, compromise what - compromise our rights away." If they have been around awhile they sometimes feel as though, "what difference does it make, what real changes have there been, things just seem to keep getting worse, screw'm all I'll take care of myself and mine, it's all just a big game."

The frustration and anger they feel often manifests itself in anger at those individuals and organizations that they feel have let them down and they expend that anger and energy attacking those very individuals and organizations that are fighting for gun rights. I am not talking here about constructive criticism, that is intended to reshape or reform organizations to make them stronger, but the unrelenting negative attacks that are meant to punish, tear down, and destroy. Attacks that ultimately by their venom and divisiveness truly damage the gun rights movement.

To those that can relate to the anger and the frustration, I only say this: I too feel passionate about freedom, I too feel frustrated and yes angry - but turn that passion, that energy, that anger to something productive - don't become bitter, cynical, hard, and isolate - find a gun rights organization that you can support, or work to constructively reform those you have or could support to make them stronger, or find others of a like mind and start your own organization - it happens every day. But let us not turn against one another - that only serves our enemies, the real enemies of freedom.

SM - I am not addressing or directing any of the above to you, excluding the first paragraph. However, I would be interested to know where you live - perhaps there are some gun rights organizations national or local to you that might be a better fit for you, or failing that even other individuals who live in your area of a like mind that you could get together with and start your own grassroots gun rights organization. Anyway, I wish you the best - it is obvious from your post that you do care - I just find that when I am passionate about anything that I am most effective and feel most fulfilled when I work, share, and sacrifice with others to a common purpose.

The best to all here, may "we" preserve and restore the freedom that our fathers fought for, for our children
mack59 is offline  
Old November 18, 2006, 06:53 PM   #67
TimRB
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 18, 2004
Posts: 1,049
"But before you responce to all of my post please answer my first question. If the NRA is so great Why are NRA members in the minority among gun owners?"

Because a fair number of gun owners are just like you.

Tim
TimRB is offline  
Old November 18, 2006, 07:24 PM   #68
Eghad
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 28, 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,231
Quote:
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
Yup those Anti-Gun Dems got what they wanted in 94 and the NRA spiked the party punch with political posion....If you dont learn from history you are doomed to repeat it.

So what do you think Bill and Hillary's stand is on gun legislation after remembering 1994?

I was here in SE Texas when Jack Brooks got his rear handed to him on a silver platter. He was one pretty pissed fellow.

The NRA-ILA wasn't formed until the mid seventies. The NRA effort before that period was mostly mailings of FYI about politics and legislation. I think when other gun organizations bring up 1934 and 1968 its just a half truth campaign where you don't get all the facts just a sound byte. The NRA as a political force took off in 1977 after the national meeting when Harlon Carter took over. It has been pretty consistent since then.

Yes where are those other gun owners who dont belong to any organization? If you are so worried about the Dems taking your gun rights you should be standing in line to join an organization.
__________________
Have a nice day at the range

NRA Life Member
Eghad is offline  
Old November 18, 2006, 07:50 PM   #69
clayking
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 29, 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 796
Quote:
If the NRA is so great Why are NRA members in the minority among gun owners?
Fair question. I suspect that a very large majority of gun owners have a shotgun used for hunting, a .22 used long ago for shooting rabbits or other small game, or it was handed down to them. Most gun owners are not "rabid" gun owners, therefore they do not see the danger in the laws restricting gun ownership. These are casual gunowners. The vast majority of the NRA members are concerned that the freedom that we enjoy as gun enthusiast are under attack. For many non-NRA members it is simply a lack of caring. For some, no doubt, it's the $35 bucks. For some, it is a matter of politics, democrats who refuse to support the NRA as they largely support Republican candidates.

Many, like yourself, just don't like the NRA for whatever reason, ie. in your opinion they compensate management too much, or do mass mailing. Weak reasons in my opinion for someone to not defend their rights. Too many citizens, such as yourself, would rather find excuses not to join. Ok, that's your right. So let me ask you a question. What are you doing as an individual to oppose more restrictive gun laws? Be honest in your answer.....................ck
__________________
Never argue with an idiot, they will just drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
clayking is offline  
Old November 18, 2006, 09:57 PM   #70
Ruger4570
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 3, 2005
Location: Rochester, New York
Posts: 2,136
I haven't bothered to read all the informative posts. All I will say and I will keep it short. If you lose your guns, don't blame me. blame yourselves. I belong to NRA and at times it is hard to do what I would like to do and contribute. Those of you that think it is a waste, well maybe someday soon we will get to blame you....
Ruger4570 is offline  
Old November 18, 2006, 11:34 PM   #71
drinks
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 6, 2004
Posts: 405
I belong to 5 organizations promoting 2nd ammendment rights.
I am really unhappy with the NRA for what I see as wasting my dues money by sending me at least 8-10 invitations to join the NRA each year, even though I am paid up through 2007.
I consider the failure to reconcile membership records with sucker lists as being a clear sign of incompetence in management.
I also feel that hiring that prune faced ex Pres, what's his name, for a $90,000 a year job is a betrayal of the membership.
I also feel La Pierre is way too careless in what he allow es to be sent out over his signature, much of it is nonsense and really should be addressed in some other way.
That said, I like Froman, but do not expect NRA to give her a golden handshake as they did her predecessor, more MSBS, expected from the good ole boy types at NRA.
I am going to continue my NRA membership, as well as the 4-5 others and I shall continue to send email to NRA telling them I think they have their heads up their ----'- and are far too much PC.
drinks is offline  
Old November 18, 2006, 11:51 PM   #72
rhgunguy
Junior member
 
Join Date: March 7, 2006
Posts: 1,057
I happen to agree with the origional poster. The NRA, GOA, etc... seem up in arms to fight battles all over the US. But I never hear anything about any of them doing anything for Iowa. Our carry laws are very restrictive and our constitiution does not provide for RKBA. I realize that there are more important battles for the NRA, but there are no more important battles to me.
rhgunguy is offline  
Old November 19, 2006, 01:39 AM   #73
wolfsong
Member
 
Join Date: September 19, 2006
Posts: 89
"It's called speach and written language". So tell us, oh wise Laughing Bunker Sitter who can't afford a $20 box of ammo but has a bunker, how many speeches have you given in front of Congress and how many gun rights laws have you written? Where can I send you the money that I normally waste on my NRA membership? People like you are obviously doing so much more for our Second Amendment Rights that I'd like to cast my vote for you as President, and Maser for Vice President, of our new National Gun Owners Rights Activist Organization. Your logic and the message that you are so successfully spreading has caused me to rethink my political views, especially in regards towards voting. By applying your logic, how could I ever vote Republican again? They just lost a country wide election! What a bunch of losers! I'll NEVER vote for them again because they don't win EVERY time they run! And all that money the Republican party wasted sending out masses of "junk" mail! So I now declare here that my alligiance is to you. I expect to see my e-mails flooded with updates from you regarding gun rights issues and the actions I must take to protect them. Please forgive me if I don't respond very quickly or regularly, as I am beginning construction of my very own bunker. You are such an inspiration to all of us sheep that have been brainwashed by the NRA. Thanks for saving my life, my gun rights, and giving me the courage to hole up in my bunker and stand defiantly against those who would be so foolhearty as to try and take my guns. You've got my back, right? By the way, when do you have your next trip to Washington, D.C. scheduled? I'd like to help with the gas money. You do have a car, don't you? You go, dude. Keep fighting the good fight for all of us little people that haven't mastered the gift of "speach and written language". I know I shouldn't say this, but every gun owner, especially those in San Francisco, should know that it was really YOU who got the city-wide ban on guns in S.F. overturned in the Supreme Court. The NRA has no business stealing your glory, the b*st*rds! Rock on! On to victory! Wolfsong.
wolfsong is offline  
Old November 19, 2006, 11:34 AM   #74
pipoman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 8, 2005
Posts: 897
The magazine is worth the cost of admission IMO. Forget about the lobbying, and how much they pay their people.

As for AARP they are an insurance company, all of their policy holders are members by default.

I don't buy the "$35 is not affordable to me" coming from someone who owns guns, a computer, subscribes to internet access, and assumably owns a vehicle. I suppose maybe if you are out of work, disabled, or something though I know people with these problems who maintain their membership.

I tire of those not willing to augment their education, move, or work hard to get a better job complaining about the income of those who sacrifice to better themselves.
pipoman is offline  
Old November 19, 2006, 03:28 PM   #75
Speer
Junior member
 
Join Date: March 9, 2006
Location: PRK
Posts: 86
The NRA was instrumental in defeating San Francisco's crazy gun ban.
Speer is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:29 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2021 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.12682 seconds with 7 queries