In order to keep the Charlton Heston thread free of NRA talk lets use this one instead. You seem to hold an opinion that I am wholly misinformed about the NRA, which is fine, we’re all entitled to our opinions. I submit the following in support of my contention that the NRA is N O T the gun rights organization that they claim to be and oh so many misinformed individuals think it is.

The NRA was never meant to be a gun rights organization; it was founded due to the atrocious marksmanship displayed by the Yankees during the Civil War. From the NRA’s website itself, the very first paragraph of their history

They supported the 1934 National Firearms Act (NFA) Here’s a link to a transcript of the proceedings where the then NRA President spoke ill of a number of firearms and carrying them. http://www.keepandbeararms.com/NRA/NFA.asp

They even touted their support for the 1934 NFA in the March 1968 edition of American Rifleman.

—NRA Executive Vice President Franklin L. Orth
NRA's American Rifleman Magazine, March 1968, P. 22

—American Rifleman, March 1968, P. 22

Also found on that page…
If you think I made that up go find a copy through your local library or search the net. It’s there, bigger than day.

The NRA supported and endorsed the 1968 Gun Control Act (GCA), they supported the 1986 MG ban, they supported the 1989 Import Ban, they supported and if not for them we would not have had the 1994 AWB. They refuse to acknowledge or support a repeal of the section 922r of the 1968 GCA “sporting purposes” clause, among other things. They also constantly bombard me with send us money requests, despite the fact that I am on the “No mail” list. I returned from a recent business trip to find a fi****l of requests for money from the NRA. If they spent half as much time fighting for what they claim to instead of asking me for money we’d all be in better shape.

Now, I ask you sir, just how am I so misinformed on the NRA?

 

Thanks. I learned something!

 

so which organization is a better alternative in terms of political persuasion in DC and state govt?

i've heard grumblings before, but i'm curious if there exists an better org that has anywhere near the political influence?

 

No problem, that's the whole point of this thread. Before anyone jumps on the "You're an anti, dumbazz, idjit who hates guns" bandwagon, I am a paid in full Life Member and it was a shock to see what really went on.

 

GOA - http://www.gunowners.org/
JPFO - http://www.jpfo.org/
and SAF - http://www.saf.org/default.asp

You don't have to he Jewish to join JPFO

All of those organizations have made great strides for Freedom with far fewer members and a whole lot less budget than the NRA.

 

thanks--i've heard of goa before, but haven't checked them out...i'm all for trimming the fat and bs in the effort to protect my rights

 

I'm also a Life Member of the GOA.

They're a great organization, few requests for money, no sweepstakes, and they send out post cards for you to sign and mail into your reps. They also offer an online "Write your reps" tool. You can go to the site, put in your zip code and with just a few clicks send a pre-written letter to your Senators, House Reps, and or the President. You can even use the tool to draft and send your own letter.

EDIT: For people in VIRGINIA there is the Virginia Citizen Defense League (VCDL) These are some TOP NOTCH guys. Very professional and have made absolutely tremendous strides here in the Commonwealth. Well worth the $20 or so a year for membership.

 

Jeez Pony Driver, you would have to bring up the NRA. The little lady in the other room, her father was on the Board of Directors NRA in the 60's and he and I went around a time or two about the way the NRA spends its money. If you want more info on the NRA, research the issues between Neal Knox and the NRA mishandling funds to the tune of tens of millions of your dollars. I knew Neal and he was the finest man to join the NRA but was railroaded out by those that were stuffing their pockets. There's loads of info on the internet about it. I can posts links but I would also have to find it. Unfortunately, the NRA is the "best" that the gun owner has for support in Washington. They don't do much for the individual states though. Classic example, look at the gun rights for the folks in the great state of Kalifornia. Now they are up against no lead bullets and the pending legislation that ALL ammo will be serial numbered and the same number MUST appear on the bullet for ID. The buyer must sign for the serial numbered ammo and be totally responsible for it even if stolen. That kinda makes reloading out of the question and any ammo that they have stored away will be illegal. But where is the NRA on this- back in Washington DC having tea. And if you get a chance, ask for a copy of their last tax return. Don't act surprised if you get a copy. They've been working in the red for years. This is a sample of the money flow of the NRA. I can post more if you like:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...121401328.html

Just for the record, I'm am extremely pro-gun and firmly believe that it is every citizens right to own and carry a firearm with the exception of convicted felons.

 

Neal isn't the only one to be rail roaded by the NRA machine. He won't be the last. Then there's the giving A & B ratings to proven anti-gunners. They are in the business of staying in business.


As for "they're the best" I don't buy it. They're the biggest, that doesn't mean best. We could make a spookily similar argument for Republicans vs conservatives but I don't want to digress from the topic at hand. Suffice to say that the situations are parallel.

If more people would nut up and support the other organizations we'd all be far better off. I need to hit the sack so I don't have time to detail some of the long list of compromises that he NRA has made on "our behalf".

 

Still waiting on JMBdevotee's reply, so, subscribing

 

Well I just saw this thread so here we go:

First off my post in response to your post was out of my character. My intention was not to call you out as being misinformed as to the issues you addressed, I am sorry that it came out that way. My irritation stems from those who seem not to give consideration to the whole picture that is the NRA, firearms culture and legislature in America. I get irritated when people bash the NRA and here is why:

Regarding firearms laws:


There are two things to consider when you talk about “support” for previous gun legislation by the NRA:

1) Political Climate – You must have some understanding of “political clout”. If the NRA jumps out and demands that every single piece of gun legislation be rejected, even when the political climate is OVERWHELMINGLY in favor of it they will have no clout when it comes time to stand up against legislation when it actually has a chance to be overturned.

2) The Organization’s leaders – Just like every association/organization/corporation if goes through good times and bad times. Just because Franklin Orth supported the 1934 NFA (…tax law) does not mean Wayne LaPierre supports the same thing. We all wish we could say the NRA is the perfect organization but it is not, one has never existed and the NRA is no different.


The only reason there was a sunset clause in the 1994 AWB is because of the NRA. Given the political climate of the time there was NO DOUBT that the ban would be passed. Do you stand fast or do you play the political game? If the NRA did not “join on” there would be no sunset clause and we would still be running around with “pre-ban” 30 round magazines and collapsible stocks on our AR’s.

The bottom line is the NRA is the ONLY gun rights organization in Washington that is taken seriously. Show me a gun rights organization that has lobbyists on the hill FULL TIME and I will support them as well.

Are those reasons to excuse their support for specific legislation in the past? No, not for me (nor you obviously), does that mean they won’t ever get my support, NO. If you don’t like the way the NRA stands against legislation complain about NRA-ILA, they have been established since 1934. Don’t lump the rest of the organization into the same bin, they do too much for gun owners in this country to make that mistake.

Regarding the role and mission of the NRA.
If you continue to read down the very page you quoted you will see various other objectives:
...continued below

 

Also if you read the NRA bylaws their mission statement states:
…The NRA is much more than just a lobbying organization.

Additionally look at the number of programs the NRA runs.
http://www.nra.org/programs.aspx

15 different divisions of programs that benefit ALL shooters, again they are not just a lobbying organization. As I mentioned that is just the job of ILA, yet another division. Yet they have only 3.5 million members. The last census data, from the 1990’s IIRC, shows that we have 80 million gun owners. If you consider that perhaps 40% may be active shooters/hunters that is 32 million making NRA members around 10% of active gun owners.

I have a copy of their 2006 annual report that shows their annual budget of just under $200mm. Show me an organization that has the power they do in Washington and does as much as they do with a $200mm budget.

I will continue to contribute to the NRA, I will continue to VCDL, I will continue to keep my status as a certified firearms instructor, I will continue to volunteer on the committee for my local Friends of NRA chapter, I will continue to make it my goal to introduce 20 new shooters to the sport each year (which I have exceeded for the past two years.) …and frankly I don’t think that is enough.

If you have ever been to NRAHQ in Fairfax the desk in the lobby says, “Welcome to your NRA”
If you don’t like the way it is run try your best to change it. Nominate people for the board of directors and write letters when you don’t like what they do, but consider the bigger picture.

I hate having to spend time amongst gun owners defending the NRA. Please don’t make me out to be an NRA apologist that is not my objective. I know they are not perfect but they are the most effective champions of our right to bear arms and best promoter of the shooting sports.

I hope we can continue this as a healthy debate perhaps even while putting a few rounds downrange one day.
I really have little interest in participating in an internet forum debate but I realize I bought this upon myself.

Carryon as you see fit…

 

It's midnight and I just finished a project for work so again I'm too tired to get into it too deeply right now, however points of contention.

1. I fully understand politics and the political climate

2. Compromise is unacceptable when it comes to rights. I don't care who overwhelmingly supports infringing and denying them

3. If it wasn't for the NRA there never would have even BEEN a 1994 AWB which was part of the Omnibus Crime Bill Clinton signed into law to appear tough on crime. No need for a sunset clause if the law never went into effect.

4. They supported the 1934 NFA and threw us under the bus in 86 with the closing of the MG registry. For that they can kiss my Royal Irish Azz. Not much had changed in 50 years it seems.

5. They supported NICS/ Brady Law

6. They support Project Exile

Hopefully I can respond to this tomottow, technically later today after some sleep and then coffee.

Cheers till then.

 

Again, that is great to say but try that in Washington and see how far you get. Who's fault is that? Ours, we [the people] have voted these yahoo's into office time and time again, we allow them to govern as they do and we are paying the price. You can't blame the way Washington works, and how the NRA has proceeded in that climate totally on the NRA.

Please show me citation where the NRA drafted the 1994 AWB, preferably not from an organization that wants what the NRA has. Not trying to call you out here, I personally would like to see it. Thanks.

I agree, this is sad indeed. I hate to say it but if the NRA had taken a hard stand against the MG ban in '86 the NRA would have been done for. At a minimum it may now just be recovering.

So did the majority of members at the time... as ridiculous as that may be.

Project Exile is a redundant law. Prosecute individuals who commit a violent crime with a firearm. The law is BS, it just says "lets create a law to enforce the laws we already have", it is government waste at its worse. It is a no brainier to support it when it will gain you political clout.

Here is my point as to why it irritates me when people pro actively say other gun owners should not support the NRA.

1. Show me another organization that sets the world standard for firearms safety.

2. Show me another organization that sets the world standard for firearms instruction.

3. Show me another organization that has trained more than 50K instructors to provide quality firearms instruction.

4. Show me another organization that sets the world standard for marksmanship and firearms competition.

5. Show me another organization that has provided as much training to Law Enforcement.

6. Show me another organization that has set the standard for hunter education.

7. Show me an organization that has provided firearms safety education (Eddie Eagle program) and marksmanship training (NRA Youth programs) to hundreds of thousands of kids.

8. Show me an organization that provides support and grant money to help keep our shooting clubs and ranges open.


... I could go on all day. The fact of the matter is that by pro-actively telling people not to support the NRA you are doing a GREAT disservice to the gun owners of this country.

The NRA is not perfect, far from it. But even if they fail going up against every piece of legislation you and I think they should stand against they still deserve the support of the gun owners of this country.

ETA: I do not mean to come across as argumentative, so I hope you don't read it that way. Just a healthy discussion that hopefully other can benefit from.

 

Part 1

Now you're touching on a subject that can easily stray into real politics but one that parallels this subject, but I digress. If it is our fault that we have elected these yahoos into office time and time again, just how do you suppose continuing to support them will affect change?


I did not say that they drafted it, but they supported it and due to that support cause some legislators to vote in favor of it. Clinton did some serious horse trading and the NRA "got a sunset clause put in" like they were doing us a favor. THAT sunset clause is the reason it even squeaked through. Yeah, some favor they did for us there. How many millions did they collect to defeat the legislation they helped enact?

I vehemently disagree. The NRA has the money and clout, or so some say, to get the word out, but they don't. The NRA's kow towing and pandering at Senator Kennedy's remarks in the 1960's is what led them to being behind the 1968 GCA. They SHOULD have stood tall, but they refused to do so. They have a long history of not doing so.

Because the NRA is full of duck hunters and ignorant Rednecks who think the second amendment is about duck hunting and their daddy's shotgun. Being one myself, Rednecks are near and dear to my heart, but their ignorance of civics and the Constitution are killing us. The NRA represents sportsmen, they have done so almost from the beginning. Look at how many of the members and even the leadership views EBR's and anything not "sporting".


It's BS and supporting it is equally BS. If they really took such a hard line as they claim then they would not support legislation that says we're going to enforce this other legislation. Furthermore the definition of "illegal gun" is in violation of the 2nd. There is no illegal gun according to our Founding Father's and the documents they left behind to rule and govern this nation they gave us. But we don't pay attention to those anymore, they're just quaint relics that prohibit people from doping what's right for us in todays society. (notice for those with broken sarcasm detectors: the last part was blatant sarcasm and directed to those who wish to disregard our Constitution and Bill of Rights so they can better "protect" us. This is an issue with no political bounds, they're in both big parties).

Has not a thing to do with supporting the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Safety and Marksmanship are completely and utterly outside the realm of protecting that right. Those are skills, we're talking about the preservation of a right.

Again, instruction, safety, and training are skills. They have nothing to do with maintaining and preserving that right.

You are awfully hung up on instruction. Instruction does not equal keeping a right.

Fluff, and irrelevant to the RKBA