How long does it take to have the NRA acknowledge your membership application????
- Thread starter kramden
- Start date
SR9
New member
I keep getting renewal notices every couple of months and am a current member whose membership is paid well into 2017. But, yet they keep sending renewal requests. Seems to me they know how to waste money that could be spent more wisely elsewhere. If it cost $1 to send a renewal notice to those that are already members for multiple years, just this of the cost to send renewal notices to a Million members that have multiyear memberships. Seems to me in this Computer Age, they could at least know who does or doesn't need to renew. My last renewal was for 3 years( a/o 1/21/2014), making it good to 1/21/2a17, and yet I have received countless renewal notices, and probably will get more.
And the mass "gun give-aways" that they do multiple times a year. Has anyone ever won any of them. I don't even know of anybody the ever heard of a winner of any of these "gun give-aways", have any of you?
I support the NRA, but come on, really?
And the mass "gun give-aways" that they do multiple times a year. Has anyone ever won any of them. I don't even know of anybody the ever heard of a winner of any of these "gun give-aways", have any of you?
I support the NRA, but come on, really?
Bellevue Pistol
New member
6 to 8 weeks for NRA membership acknowledgment
XD40scinNC
New member
You will probably get an URGENT request to renew your membership before it expires, and before you receive your membership package. My URGENT renewal came within 3 weeks of joining, and before my membership came by at least 2 weeks.
DavidWhite
Banned
America's largest gun control organization
Archived from Citizen Review On Line
NOTE: — Be sure to read other articles on NRA "Lapses in Principle"
By Vin Suprynowicz
On Jan. 16, 1968, in an address to the New York State University law school in Buffalo, Sen. Robert Kennedy, D-N.Y., stated: "I think it is a terrible indictment of the National Rifle Association that they haven’t supported any legislation to try and control the misuse of rifles and pistols in this country."
NRA Executive Vice President Franklin L. Orth took great umbrage at this remark in the October 1968 issue of the NRA’s magazine, The American Rifleman, terming Sen. Kennedy’s accusation "a great smear of a great American organization." Mr. Orth then went on to point out, "The National Rifle Association has been in support of workable, enforceable gun control legislation since its very inception in 1871."
Really? But the NRA has always been portrayed in the mainstream press as a radical anti-gun-control organization. Is it? Has it ever been?
In that 1968 issue of The American Rifleman, associate editor Alan C. Webber picked up the defense of the NRA’s gun-control credentials. I quote again from the NRA’s own, official organ:
"Item: The late Karl T. Frederick, an NRA president, served for years as special consultant with the Commissioners on Uniform State Laws to frame the Uniform Firearms Act of 1930. ... Salient provisions of the Act require a license to carry a pistol concealed on one’s person or in a vehicle; require the purchaser of a pistol to give information about himself which is submitted by the seller to the local police authorities; specify a 48-hour time lapse between application for purchase and delivery."
Remember, I’m not asking whether you think these are good ideas. I’m asking whether the NRA is the pack of wild-eyed, take-no-prisoners, "pure language of the Second Amendment, take my gun from my cold dead fingers" radical extremists which the national press corps would have us believe. In fact, can the NRA rightly be said to be a "gun rights" organization, at all?
"Item," Editor Webber of The American Rifleman continued back in 1968: "The NRA supported the National Firearms Act of 1934 which taxes and requires registration of such firearms as machine guns, sawed-off rifles and sawed-off shotguns. ...
"NRA currently backs several Senate and House bills which, through amendment, would put new teeth into the National and Federal Firearms Acts. ... "
Nor is there much room to believe the NRA has changed its stripes in the past 23 years.
In Utah this year, Utah Gun Owners Alliance lobbyist and M.D. Sarah Thompson had worked to get through "a good bill that would have honored concealed-carry permits from any other state without restriction," notes Dennis Fusaro, who himself was let go from GOA in March for not being cooperative enough with the gun-grabbers at the NRA.
In the final days of the session, however, NRA lobbyist Brian Judy arrived in Salt Lake City and made a deal to accept an amendment that the out-of-state permits would only be honored for 60 days.
"Sarah had the senators pretty well under control and was pushing them with grass-roots pressure, and then Brian Judy goes in the back room and accepts this bad amendment," Fusaro reports.
Says Thompson: "Read their magazine. The NRA helped write the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968. ... Here in Utah they backed our Olympic gun ban" (restricting the right of Utah citizens to carry permitted weapons at Olympic venues while the winter Olympics are in town, so as not to offend the hoplophobic foreigners).
"In the 2000 (Utah) Legislature the NRA backed a midnight gun control bill that vastly expanded the list of people prohibited from owning guns in the state, a retroactive ban on people who were adjudicated years ago. As a result of this I get calls from people who have been hunters for years who now have to go through a background check, who did something wrong as a juvenile 30 or 40 years ago, and they’ve lost their gun rights."
The test case for whether GOA or the NRA remains a true "gun-rights organization" will be "what’s going on with (President) Bush’s proposal for Project Safe Neighborhoods," Thompson warns.
Project Safe Neighborhoods is designed to prove the Bush administration is not against "sensible" gun control, she explains, "and the tagline on it is, ‘If you use a gun illegally you will do hard time.’
"But you don’t have prosecutors saying ‘We're not going to prosecute rapists because they're really good people.’ That’s not the problem. Those laws are already enforced. So the people they’re really going after are people who are violating one of the 20,000 unconstitutional gun laws, people who put a flash suppressor on their rifle, or have a high capacity magazine on their firearm, or who drive by the school with a hunting rifle in the back of their truck; it’s all the unconstitutional, politically correct gun control laws they’re going to be enforcing."
from http://www.lvrj.com/cgi-bin/printable.cgi?/lvrj_home/2001/Jun-03-Sun-2001/opinion/16231491.html
Vin Suprynowicz, the Review-Journal’s assistant editorial page editor, is author of "Send in the Waco Killers." His column appears Sunday.
smalline
Back to Top
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Archived from Citizen Review On Line
NOTE: — Be sure to read other articles on NRA "Lapses in Principle"
By Vin Suprynowicz
On Jan. 16, 1968, in an address to the New York State University law school in Buffalo, Sen. Robert Kennedy, D-N.Y., stated: "I think it is a terrible indictment of the National Rifle Association that they haven’t supported any legislation to try and control the misuse of rifles and pistols in this country."
NRA Executive Vice President Franklin L. Orth took great umbrage at this remark in the October 1968 issue of the NRA’s magazine, The American Rifleman, terming Sen. Kennedy’s accusation "a great smear of a great American organization." Mr. Orth then went on to point out, "The National Rifle Association has been in support of workable, enforceable gun control legislation since its very inception in 1871."
Really? But the NRA has always been portrayed in the mainstream press as a radical anti-gun-control organization. Is it? Has it ever been?
In that 1968 issue of The American Rifleman, associate editor Alan C. Webber picked up the defense of the NRA’s gun-control credentials. I quote again from the NRA’s own, official organ:
"Item: The late Karl T. Frederick, an NRA president, served for years as special consultant with the Commissioners on Uniform State Laws to frame the Uniform Firearms Act of 1930. ... Salient provisions of the Act require a license to carry a pistol concealed on one’s person or in a vehicle; require the purchaser of a pistol to give information about himself which is submitted by the seller to the local police authorities; specify a 48-hour time lapse between application for purchase and delivery."
Remember, I’m not asking whether you think these are good ideas. I’m asking whether the NRA is the pack of wild-eyed, take-no-prisoners, "pure language of the Second Amendment, take my gun from my cold dead fingers" radical extremists which the national press corps would have us believe. In fact, can the NRA rightly be said to be a "gun rights" organization, at all?
"Item," Editor Webber of The American Rifleman continued back in 1968: "The NRA supported the National Firearms Act of 1934 which taxes and requires registration of such firearms as machine guns, sawed-off rifles and sawed-off shotguns. ...
"NRA currently backs several Senate and House bills which, through amendment, would put new teeth into the National and Federal Firearms Acts. ... "
Nor is there much room to believe the NRA has changed its stripes in the past 23 years.
In Utah this year, Utah Gun Owners Alliance lobbyist and M.D. Sarah Thompson had worked to get through "a good bill that would have honored concealed-carry permits from any other state without restriction," notes Dennis Fusaro, who himself was let go from GOA in March for not being cooperative enough with the gun-grabbers at the NRA.
In the final days of the session, however, NRA lobbyist Brian Judy arrived in Salt Lake City and made a deal to accept an amendment that the out-of-state permits would only be honored for 60 days.
"Sarah had the senators pretty well under control and was pushing them with grass-roots pressure, and then Brian Judy goes in the back room and accepts this bad amendment," Fusaro reports.
Says Thompson: "Read their magazine. The NRA helped write the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968. ... Here in Utah they backed our Olympic gun ban" (restricting the right of Utah citizens to carry permitted weapons at Olympic venues while the winter Olympics are in town, so as not to offend the hoplophobic foreigners).
"In the 2000 (Utah) Legislature the NRA backed a midnight gun control bill that vastly expanded the list of people prohibited from owning guns in the state, a retroactive ban on people who were adjudicated years ago. As a result of this I get calls from people who have been hunters for years who now have to go through a background check, who did something wrong as a juvenile 30 or 40 years ago, and they’ve lost their gun rights."
The test case for whether GOA or the NRA remains a true "gun-rights organization" will be "what’s going on with (President) Bush’s proposal for Project Safe Neighborhoods," Thompson warns.
Project Safe Neighborhoods is designed to prove the Bush administration is not against "sensible" gun control, she explains, "and the tagline on it is, ‘If you use a gun illegally you will do hard time.’
"But you don’t have prosecutors saying ‘We're not going to prosecute rapists because they're really good people.’ That’s not the problem. Those laws are already enforced. So the people they’re really going after are people who are violating one of the 20,000 unconstitutional gun laws, people who put a flash suppressor on their rifle, or have a high capacity magazine on their firearm, or who drive by the school with a hunting rifle in the back of their truck; it’s all the unconstitutional, politically correct gun control laws they’re going to be enforcing."
from http://www.lvrj.com/cgi-bin/printable.cgi?/lvrj_home/2001/Jun-03-Sun-2001/opinion/16231491.html
Vin Suprynowicz, the Review-Journal’s assistant editorial page editor, is author of "Send in the Waco Killers." His column appears Sunday.
smalline
Back to Top
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
You were right on the money with that statement! The guy on the phone wanted me to "re-up" right now. I told him I hadn't even gotten my membership card yet! I've gotten other calls ,e-mails and mailings to extend my membership or buy NRA related stuff. I bought a 3 year membership but I don't know if I'll renew. I'm abit disgusted with all the moves to have me spend more $$$ with them right NOW. I fully support what the NRA does for our 2nd amendment rights but I don't like be hounded for more money before I even know if I like being a member. Oh and an added note I was supposed to receive a free CAMO bag as a new member. I got my members card a couple days ago. Have'nt received anything else. No note saying the bag will ship later or anything. The NRA ought give a new member time to breath before hitting them up for more funds!!
XD40scinNC
New member
I have not renewed. Yes I support their cause, but the constant money solicitation is over the top. I support GOA and GRNC, both are effective and only remind me to renew when it is time.
Another 'stunt' the NRA pulled was to send me an unsolicited DVD, and ask me to pay for it or return it. Then I gut a 'dunning' reminder to pay or return the DVD. Both ignored
BluesStringer
Les Brers
[h=2]The NRA -- America's largest gun control organization[/h]
The NRA is a business, not a rights advocacy group. They fought against Heller. They supported NFA34, GCA68, FOPA86 (including the Hughes Amendment), their president has said in public that perfectly legal accessories like the Slide Fire Stock should be illegal and even claimed that people who own/use one "are felons."
If we ever won the "cause" of which everyone speaks, the NRA would be put out of business. They have a vested interest in keeping Second Amendment infringements alive, and they have acted on that self-interest "since their very inception" (their ex-VP's words, not mine).
You'll get as close to "winning" the "cause" they lie about advocating for by supporting the NRA as you will voting for Hillary. The NRA will never advocate for the full width and breadth and/or original, intended meaning of the Second Amendment ever. The other .orgs are only a little better, but they are better. The NRA is at the top of the heap as the worst.
Blues
The NRA is a business, not a rights advocacy group. They fought against Heller. They supported NFA34, GCA68, FOPA86 (including the Hughes Amendment), their president has said in public that perfectly legal accessories like the Slide Fire Stock should be illegal and even claimed that people who own/use one "are felons."
If we ever won the "cause" of which everyone speaks, the NRA would be put out of business. They have a vested interest in keeping Second Amendment infringements alive, and they have acted on that self-interest "since their very inception" (their ex-VP's words, not mine).
You'll get as close to "winning" the "cause" they lie about advocating for by supporting the NRA as you will voting for Hillary. The NRA will never advocate for the full width and breadth and/or original, intended meaning of the Second Amendment ever. The other .orgs are only a little better, but they are better. The NRA is at the top of the heap as the worst.
Blues
New Threads
-
-
Mystic Seaport Museum, Shelburne Museum Vermont
- Started by Harry45255
- Replies: 0
-
-
Reloading Newbie Here—What’s the Real Cost Advantage?
- Started by michaelstrahan
- Replies: 4
-
Members online
No members online now.
