Time to leave the NRA?

[2cool9031]

I agree the NRA isn't perfect, but I believe it's the best we got. If it wasn't for the NRA over the years, you would be doing your hunting with sticks and stones.

 

[Zachoff]

It has nothing to do with my contributions and the parting of the dollars. It's when they are being spent incorrectly and counter to gun owners interest that gets to me. Support Harry Reid because he is pro gun is bunk! His vote to confirm a anti gun SC appointee is the trump card!

 

[Zachoff]

I still agree we need to have them, and I am a member, but how do we direct them in the proper direction when they go off on the wrong path?

 

[Prometheus]

I agree the NRA isn't perfect, but I believe it's the best we got. If it wasn't for the NRA over the years, you would be doing your hunting with sticks and stones.

^This.... is.... so disturbing and so a-typical of your nra koolaid drinker. The ignorance, the arrogance.

Just go turn them in now, it'll be a lot easier on you.

 

[indykid]

When the government keeps complaining about the NRA being so strong and vocal, the NRA must be doing something right. Granted the NRA has done things now and then to **** people off. I for one told them where to go when their messiah, Charlton Heston made that statement about why anyone would want to own an Automatic Kalashnikov. After a few letters to the NRA about Heston preferring flint-locks or Muskets versus my liking of modern military weapons, and the fact that the constitution stated something about not infringing on my rights to like any type of arm, I renewed my membership.

They are that proverbial 800 pound gorilla that the government fears, and because of that I can overlook some of the things they have done.

Unfortunately if the NRA got what WE THE PEOPLE want, full reinstatement of the second amendment, it would put them out of business.

 

[Prometheus]

I still agree we need to have them, and I am a member, but how do we direct them in the proper direction when they go off on the wrong path?

1934, 1968, 1986, 2010 and arguably 1994... I'd say the track record is pretty clear, we can't.

The nra works to support hunting and limited concealed carry, in the process they subvert the Constitution by throwing EVERYTHING ELSE under the bus of compromise. THAT is why the anti-gunners push the nra name and not any of the others.

Ignorance is the only reason people stay a member. Seriously what sort of simpleton chooses there gun (or gun group) based on the words of sarah brady? Think about it.

 

[WhitleyStu]

^This.... is.... so disturbing and so a-typical of your nra koolaid drinker. The ignorance, the arrogance.

Just go turn them in now, it'll be a lot easier on you.

And just which group do you feel is the best to lobby for your gun rights if you feel so disenchanted with the NRA?

 

[pudly]

I still agree we need to have them, and I am a member, but how do we direct them in the proper direction when they go off on the wrong path?

How about the annual NRA Board elections? Already done for this year, but you can help to guide direction with the next election in early 2011. GunVoter.org has published/discussed NRA Board candidate info for the last two elections and presumably will for 2011.

 

[Mgderf]

I'm proud to be a member of the NRA and will continue to be so.

^^^Ditto^^^

And reps for that!

Don't like my opinion? I didn't ask you, did I?

 

[henry0reilly]

Life Member

I am a life member of the NRA and I have no intention of resigning but I haven't actively supported them in a long time. I am particularly unhappy about their position on the Heller v. DC case.

"We're afraid we might lose!" What they were afraid of losing was cash flow.

 

[Greg.B]

I'm an NRA member, and a recruiter, and I still encourage everyone I run into that has any interest in firearms, hunting, the 2nd amendment, etc. to join.

No, the NRA isn't perfect, but it IS one of the most effective, and largest, organizations that fight for our rights as gun owners. Do I agree with everything they do? Absolutely not; nor do I with other organizations to which I belong. I do, however, see the benefits they provide, and what they have accomplished for us over the years.

I will continue to be an NRA member, and will continue to encourage others to as well; like it or not, it's in our best interest!

 

[308jake]

They may not deliver a 1st round KO, but they are still in the fight atleast.

 

[sloughfoot]

It is NEVER time to leave the NRA. Every gun owner should be a member of the National Org as well as the local arm of the NRA, the Indiana State Rifle and Pistol Association.

If you are serious about this, you could be the one testifiing on behalf of all of us at a legislative hearing.

You can't be involved unless you are a member.

Stop *****ing and join the fight..

I welcome your support.

 

[fastwally]

Ignorance is the only reason people stay a member. Seriously what sort of simpleton chooses there gun (or gun group) based on the words of sarah brady? Think about it.

 

[Zachoff]

Don't worry, I am in the fight. The question is, is the NRA in the fight? Did they leave us? Why did they throw the other supporting gun groups under the bus via the Disclosure act? They basically silenced allies like GOA an other pro gun groups that are also valuable in the fight. They also didn't fight for smaller pro gun organizations, hunting clubs, gun stores and small businesses that are usually pro gun, instead cutting a deal for themselves, and restricting free speech. You may say that they only did it for self preservation and I will tell you they were wrong. They need all of us to be successful. It is the NRA that should stop and think about the bigger picture and how it effects all of us before they back politicians who would just as well bury our 2A rights. We need an explanation from the NRA top brass. My support will go elsewhere until that time. I have been a long time supporter, but it is time to put a check on the following of the NRA on blind faith principles, that they have seem to have lost.

 

[451_Detonics]

Well if the GOA had the influence they claim they have they would have the power to be offered the exemption as well.

The NRA did not ask for this, it was offered to them. The last time they had to make this choice was Feinstein/Schumer Act...they stood with the Rebulicans and got thrown to the wolves when it passed. They did not want a repeat and figured it is better to have one strong voice in the up coming elections than none. They also have stated it would be better to fight this Act in the courts, don't count the ILA out of it quite yet.

These other groups like the GOA bash the NRA at every turn. Why? Because they want the money the NRA membership generates, pure and simple. I have testified at the Indiana State House on matter concerning our firearms rights, and I have seen our NRA reps there fighting the good fight...I have not seen representation from the GOA or other organizations there.

Friday, June 18, 2010

We appreciate the concerns some NRA members have raised about our position on H.R. 5175, the “DISCLOSE Act.” Unfortunately, the mainstream media and other critics of NRA’s role in this process have misstated or misunderstood the facts. We’d like to set the record straight.
We have never said we would support any version of this bill. To the contrary, we clearly stated NRA’s strong opposition to the DISCLOSE Act (as introduced) in a letter sent to Members of Congress on May 26 (click here to read the letter).
Through the courts and in Congress, the NRA has consistently and strongly opposed any effort to restrict the rights of our four million members to speak and have their voices heard on behalf of gun owners nationwide. The initial version of H.R. 5175 would effectively have put a gag order on the NRA during elections and threatened our members’ right to privacy and freedom of association, by forcing us to turn our donor lists over to the federal government. We would also have been forced to list our top donors on all election-related television, radio and Internet ads and mailings—even mailings to our own members. We refuse to let this Congress impose those unconstitutional restrictions on our Association.
The introduced version of the bill would also have prohibited political speech by all federal government contractors. The NRA has contracts to provide critical firearm training for our Armed Forces and law enforcement agencies throughout the country. The bill would have forced us to choose between training our men and women in uniform and exercising our right to free political speech. We refused to let this Congress force us to make that choice.
We told Congress we opposed the bill. Consequently, congressional leaders announced they would exempt us from its draconian restrictions on political speech. If that happens, we will not be involved in final consideration of this bill in the House. If it doesn’t, we will strongly oppose the bill.
Our position is based on principle and experience. During consideration of the previous campaign finance legislation passed in 2002, congressional leadership repeatedly refused to exempt the NRA from its provisions, promising that our concerns would be fixed somewhere down the line. That didn’t happen; instead, the NRA had to live under those restrictions for seven years and spend millions of dollars on compliance costs and on legal fees to challenge the law. We will not go down that road again when we have an opportunity to protect our ability to speak.
There are those who say the NRA should put the Second Amendment at risk over a First Amendment principle. That’s easy to say—unless you have a sworn duty to protect the Second Amendment above all else, as we do.
The NRA is a non-partisan, single-issue organization made up of millions of individual members dedicated to the protection of the Second Amendment. We do not represent the interests of other organizations. That’s their responsibility. Our responsibility is to protect and defend the interests of our members. And that we do without apology.
Today, the fate of the bill remains in doubt. The House floor debate has repeatedly been postponed. Lawmakers and outside groups who once supported the bill, or took no position—including the Brady Campaign—have now come out against it because of the announcement regarding NRA. The outcome in the Senate is even murkier, as anti-gun Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) has announced her strong opposition to the proposed change.
No matter what may happen now, NRA members can be assured that protection of gun owners’ interests will remain NRA’s top priority. Please check in regularly at www.nraila.org for the latest news on this issue.

 

[JohnP82]

I have been a GOA member for several years now and am very happy with them. Larry Pratt the president really impresses me. Nothing against the NRA, but they just arent for me.

 

[JBrockman]

Staying with the NRA for sure! Have spoken several times personnally with their State rep on issues and I believe that some of the scuttle butt such as the rumor that W. LaPierre sat with Pelosi to discus a compromise is simply a rumor started by the Obama lovers and the Democratic party to cause bad feelings toward the NRA!
REMEMBER: United We Stand, Divided Oboyma and the Clintons get their way!

 

[christman]

As long as their fighting for gun rights, they have my support. Along with any other organization that does so. (Well, besides IndyMonkey's "Tranny's With Guns Movement," or the TWGM. [twiggem] )

 

[yotewacker]

I'm a NRA member. It just bothers me that the head of the NRA is on a $1 million a year salary. It's suppose to be a non-profit organization.