NRA Members???

[2Awarrior]

Wow. It didn't even take 48 minutes to ignore the substance of my post!

For the record 2Aw, I did not have you in mind at all when using the word "sycophant." You have shown that you are willing to accept the truth about the N R A, even if you kind of go back and forth between the appropriate thing(s) to do in response to those truths. You are not who I was talking about, but you still fulfilled my prediction. Umm....thanks?

Blues

LOL.
I hope you're not implying I ignored your post....(?) I read EVERYTHING you post. Although a lot of times I look like that RCA Victor dog...remember? He'd sit there gawking into the record player horn, transfixed on his master's voice?
Anyhooo, now I question everything the NRA does, hold their feet to the fire every chance I get, AND I expect to know what a sycophant is in the near future.
See what you did?!?
2A

 

[XD40scinNC]

Because until recently, our government has not been our adversary, at least not to the current level.

 

[Rhino]

Total and complete denial of the proven truth.

Obviously I don't share that opinion.
.

Yet you replied directly to my post that did use that terminology without mentioning that you considered it invalid. And I'm playing word games?

Maybe I should have been more specific at the time, but I thought my meaning was clear. I clarified it anyway. I almost forgot how you like to play these word games and try to twist people's statements against them. As I said, I think I made my meaning clear. I have no interest in playing an endless game of 'post tag' with you where you try to milk every possible meaning out of every word, comma and period I post in an attempt to turn it into anything except what I actually intended to say. Besides, it looks like you've already got one of those games in progress anyway. We'll just have to agree to disagree.
.

More sycophantic denial.

I think it's obvious I don't share your opinion on that either. How is trying to promote camaraderie and a common cause supposed to be sycophantic? And exactly who are the influential people here that I'm supposedly sucking up to? It certainly isn't you. And last I checked, none of those gun organizations are here either. You might know a lot of big words, but I'm not completely sure you know what all of them mean.

 

[BluesStringer]

How is trying to promote camaraderie and a common cause supposed to be sycophantic?

When I said "More sycophantic denial" it was in direct, quoted response to you saying "none" of the organizations being discussed are gun control .orgs. I have proved before, and proved again in reply to that sycophantic denial, that the N R A is indeed a gun control organization. The phrase wasn't used in relation to your promotion of camaraderie and a common cause, both of which I support, but neither of which do I believe the N R A can help us achieve with their proven history of working against our common cause by supporting gun control for the entirety of their 142 year history by their own multiple admissions.

Now it's your turn to say (again) that I twist your words and play word games, when the very obvious truth is that I simply respond, truthfully, to what you say.

And exactly who are the influential people here that I'm supposedly sucking up to?

I don't recall saying anything about you sucking up to anyone. I also don't recall saying anything about "influential people." Let me guess. You've found a definition for the word "sycophant" that doesn't fit the way I've used it here, and now you're going to say that that is the only valid definition and, therefore, I did imply sucking up to influential people? If that's what you've got in mind, save it. You'll be shown to be intentionally playing the word games that you consistently and disingenuously accuse me of playing.

From Thesaurus.com
[TABLE="class: grid, width: 400"]
[TR]
[TD]Main Entry:[/TD]
[TD] sycophant  [sik-uh-fuhnt, -fant, sahy-kuh-][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Part of Speech:[/TD]
[TD]noun [/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Definition:[/TD]
[TD]person who caters to another[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Synonyms:[/TD]
[TD]adulator, backscratcher, backslapper, bootlicker, brownnoser, doormat, fan, fawner, flatterer, flunky, groupie, groveler, handshaker, hanger-on, lackey, minion, parasite, politician, puppet, slave[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

I have put in bold the synonyms that most closely align with my use of the word in this thread, and increased the font-size of the two that are actually full-on synonymous with the meaning I intend. In the context of discussing the N R A, anyone who still thinks there is something to gain by promoting camaraderie and common cause with them after having it so indisputably proven that they are a gun control .org, can only say about such a person that they are a loyal minion, a fawner, a fan, an adulator, a groupie and a puppet. What it cannot say under any circumstance, is that they are a committed constitutional or 2nd Amendment originalist. They can continue to claim it, this is true, but anyone who accepts the history for what it is and has followed this thread with an open mind and the true commitment to the Constitution and 2nd Amendment required to let go of their status as a minion of a wholly phony, and worse, betraying .org, will know such a person is being dishonest with themselves at the very least, and may well support gun control just like the N R A does at worst.

It certainly isn't you.

Oh, no illusions over here about that, believe you me. But then, I am neither influential or one who wishes to be sucked up to. If I wished anything at all, it would simply be that people accept the truth when it's presented to them, even the hard truths. It would make things a lot less frustrating and contentious between, oh, say, you and me, but just in general across the board too. It doesn't compute to me when I present the N R A's own words saying they support gun control, present reams of material showing their dishonest, stealthy ways of supporting gun control under the radar, and present current videos of them being bumbling fools about how the ownership and/or use of modern accessories that are perfectly legal should make felons out of the gun owners they're supposed to be protecting the rights of - none of that computes when the recipients of that information come back and deny that it's a valid charge that the N R A is a gun control .org.

And last I checked, none of those gun organizations are here either.

We're engaged in a discussion on a discussion forum about the N R A, and other .orgs have come up in the natural course of conversation. What does them being, or not being, "here" have to do with anything?

You might know a lot of big words, but I'm not completely sure you know what all of them mean.

Yeah, good luck with substantiating that. See above if that was intended the way I think it was, or clarify what the heck it's supposed to mean if your intent relates to some other word usage that you question my understanding of. It might be fun to play a real word game with you Rhino, but it would be thoroughly off-topic and a distraction for anyone who actually is open to learning something from this thread. But maybe that's your real intent....

Blues

 

[JimTh]

I want to know how many of those 80 million gun owners voted for obama.

 

[One78Shovel]

I want to know how many of those 80 million gun owners voted for obama.

Quite few here at USA Carry did I can see.

The NRA debate is tiresome. The thread asked for opinions and so they came. It is what it is.

Link Removed

http://jpfo.org/articles-assd02/gca68-nra4.htm

At the end of the day, I am completely confident we would not be having this conversation if NOT for the NRA. We would of been disarmed along time ago unless a rebellion flourished.

What we have is those who may not have been old enough to have made a difference in 1968 and yet they complain about this or that, but have no political capital to spend. They are the typical court room jesters bringing no value added to the conversation or a plan on how to correct things. Lets here it, what are YOU doing at this moment (other than this thread) to correct the injustice you feel the NRA provided us? Give to other groups that celebrate a court ruling reducing your firearm purchase, or the burden of paperwork required to LTC, from 8 pages to 5?

Like slavery, there are bad laws. What we have to do is change them today. Not ***** and moan on why they were passed in the first place.

-178S

 

[foxytwo]

This thread is sounding like a bunch of children arguing and I think it should be closed.

 

[2Awarrior]

This thread is sounding like a bunch of children arguing and I think it should be closed.

If we closed down threads for that reason, this forum and most others would shrink to a quarter of their size, be less informative, and frankly less fun and interesting.

This particular thread, I believe, has educated a lot of folks on both sides of the issue. It has been the kind of exchange of ideas and facts that a discussion should be. Couldn't ask for more.

 

[BluesStringer]

Quite few here at USA Carry did I can see.

Care to substantiate the claim that you can "see" that? Didn't think so.

The NRA debate is tiresome.

Yes, it probably is a tiresome endeavor to hold so fiercely to delusions that are so thoroughly exposed as such now. Sometimes the truth hurts. Avoiding and/or denying truth prevents the initial hurt from healing though, and defending and promulgating lies is much more hurtful in the long run. Your discomfort with the subject is self-imposed at this point.

The thread asked for opinions and so they came. It is what it is.

Nope. The OP asked why anyone wouldn't join the N R A. It didn't ask for a bunch of sycophants who can't recognize the truth when it's presented to them to try to talk those of us who answered honestly out of our positions. It didn't ask you to brainlessly imply that anyone who thinks joining the N R A is counter-productive to asserting our rights is necessarily an Obama supporter. That's an obligation you took upon yourself, and you've done an absolutely horrible job of it.

Link Removed

Your fellow sycophants are really going to be pissed at you now. I think I've made my case very well, but still, I guess I should thank you for this link, as it supports my position that the N R A not only has a long history (since it's inception, in fact) of being a gun control organization, but that it has used stealth and blatant dishonesty with its membership in doing so. From your own link:

Interestingly, the National Rifle Association (NRA) leaders initially supported the measures and even engaged in drafting Dodd's bill. Yet the NRA leadership did not wish to alienate its more radical rank and file, so they neglected to divulge this to their members. Instead, in a letter to each of its affiliates, the NRA claimed its executive vice-president testified against the bill and prevented it from being voted out of Committee. The NRA publication The Rifleman criticized the bill as a product of "irrational emotionalism," and the first four issues of The Rifleman in 1964 dedicated more than thirty columns to firearms legislation, never telling its members of the NRA leadership's support of the bill. These publications provoked the grass roots members to send off a great number of angry letters opposing the bill to Congress.

First of all, the Dodd bill (GCA68) that they "initially" supported was a nearly verbatim rip-off (by Dodd) of the Nazi Weapons Law of 1938. How can you excuse that? How can you send them money today knowing that they have never acknowledged their evil indirect entanglement with Nazi policies, much less that they've never expressed remorse or given an apology to the gun owners whose rights they were supposed to be protecting?

Secondly, though the above linked piece is honest about the N R A's dishonesty and support for GCA '68 in the excerpt I provided, it goes from there doing exactly what the sycophants in this thread have done; making excuses for their betrayals, ignoring the truth that they were supportive of a bill that came directly from the minds of the most evil genocidal brains of the 20th Century, and pretending that the N R A's claimed opposition to gun control subsequent to their "initial" support for the GCA of '68 was anything other than the same dishonest manipulation of its membership as a way of getting more money from them just exactly as they describe above. How can the author of that piece be accurate in pointing out that the N R A "...even engaged in drafting Dodd's bill..." and then claim a couple of paragraphs later that they were four-square opposed to it? The writer never explains in the piece why their "initial" support changed to opposition, even though he documents that the "initial" opposition was disingenuous while they continued to support the bill under the radar of their membership. You simply can't get there from here without that explanation, and the reason the author didn't offer it is because no valid explanation exists!

Why is this so difficult for people to grasp? Why do you demand explanations for my positions, which I have given freely and honestly, and with voluminous documentation to support them, and yet you won't accept the truth about the N R A when it's given, and continue to foist recriminations on anyone who tells the truth about them?

http://jpfo.org/articles-assd02/gca68-nra4.htm

It is obvious once again that you cannot be trusted to read and/or understand the links you post here as support for your sycophantic position. The JPFO is the source for the vast majority of my knowledge about N R A betrayals. If you think the above link supports your position that the N R A is a paragon of virtue in the fight to maintain and/or restore the full measure of our 2nd Amendment rights, you couldn't be more wrong. Try reading the link you, yourself, posted here. You might actually learn something, but I doubt it.

At the end of the day, I am completely confident we would not be having this conversation if NOT for the NRA. We would of been disarmed along time ago unless a rebellion flourished.

You have only the illusion of having not been disarmed already. Every single major (and most minor) piece of gun control legislation on the books today were either fully supported by the N R A, or compromised by them to keep the illusions of easily-fooled N R A myrmidons like you alive. It is inconceivable to me that you can live in CA and claim to have not already been disarmed, and then further claim that it's thanks to the N R A that you're "not" disarmed. You're *allowed* to own a handful of weapons, many of which have to be manufactured specifically to comply with laws in CA that the N R A neither stopped from passing, nor have they mounted a single legal challenge to get overturned, and here you are licking their boots claiming that you aren't already disarmed. The cognitive dissonance in your posts rises to the level of obsessive myopia. It is truly becoming sad to watch.

Lets here it, what are YOU doing at this moment (other than this thread) to correct the injustice you feel the NRA provided us?

First, I am not sending them money to help them further lie to you about what they are and who they are. You should thank me. I'm welcome.

Second, I tell the truth about them every time I'm asked. I know, that's such an outdated form of political discourse. What can I say though? I'm a traditionalist.

Third, I don't "feel" that the N R A has foisted injustices on us, I know it, I have proven it, and I withhold my support for them appropriately because of it.

Give to other groups that celebrate a court ruling reducing your firearm purchase, or the burden of paperwork required to LTC, from 8 pages to 5?

Do you ever type accusations in here that you can substantiate? Not so far you haven't. Better luck next time.

Like slavery, there are bad laws. What we have to do is change them today. Not ***** and moan on why they were passed in the first place.

Umm....yeah, especially not if the N R A was responsible for why they were passed in the first place.

This thread is sounding like a bunch of children arguing and I think it should be closed.

HA! Another hard-core rights-supporting poster chimes in, huh? You support the 2nd Amendment so strongly that you call for truthful, honest and well-documented speech to be censored and/or stifled if you don't like the subject-matter!

The fact is, I respect Luke immensely because he allows this thread to exist on his site. I know that it's highly unlikely that he agrees with a single word I've said in this thread. It could even be said that he would have a legitimate vested interest in closing, or even deleting it, but the fact that he has done neither speaks volumes about his instincts in recognizing the value of the free exchange of ideas, even those he disagrees with.

You? Obviously, not so much.

Blues

 

[Rhino]

If we closed down threads for that reason, this forum and most others would shrink to a quarter of their size, be less informative, and frankly less fun and interesting.

There would certainly be far fewer threads around here. That much is true.

 

[Rhino]

Yes, it probably is a tiresome endeavor to hold so fiercely to delusions that are so thoroughly exposed as such now.

Doesn't seem to tire you. You're certainly entitled to your opinion just as everyone else is. But to tout your opinion as fact that all others must accept is the height of arrogance and delusion.

 

[BluesStringer]

Doesn't seem to tire you. You're certainly entitled to your opinion just as everyone else is. But to tout your opinion as fact that all others must accept is the height of arrogance and delusion.

As per usual with all those who ignore the evidence, you cite a perfectly valid statement I made in context to another person's reply, and disingenuously and inaccurately apply it to literally everything I have posted in this thread to arrive at a conclusion that does nothing to support your and your fellow sycophants' assertion that the N R A is not a gun control organization. Your out-of-context quote only supports, in your twisted way of viewing the exchange, you asserting your perceptions of negative traits you think I possess. The umm...fact is Rhino, I have not touted my "opinion" as fact at all. Rather, I have provided facts that have informed my opinions. What you sycophants are deluded about is illustrated in the above quote for all to see. You can't distinguish between the facts the evidence proves and the opinions of the messenger whom you think arrogant and delusional because he accepts those same facts as valid evidence leading to a logical conclusion that you don't want to hear about!

If you want to challenge anything that I have presented as fact, then do it by challenging the N R A's own admissions of their gun control history. Do it by explaining how the GCA '68 that the N R A not only supported, but participated in drafting, is an almost verbatim English translation of the Nazi Weapons Law of 1938. Do it by explaining how it's a 2nd Amendment-supporting mindset when your .org's current President says that users/owners of a perfectly legal accessory that the BATFE has issued one of the most widely publicized authorization letters ever stating the same, should be felons if they use/own that accessory.

Those are just three facts that I have presented in this thread. For you to suggest that I don't have the right to draw my own conclusions from facts that I have spent countless hours researching and uncovering in a relentless pursuit for truth, is what's the height of arrogance here Rhino.

You ignore facts as-stated by your own N R A upper-echelon leaders. You ignore evidence of support for a gun control act whose origins are either directly sourced from the 1930s Nazi gun laws that preceded their rise to power, or originated from an American Senator who participated in prosecuting the surviving genocidal maniacs of that regime at the Nuremberg Trials and just thought the same law up himself without ever being exposed to the NWL '38 (yeah, riiiiiiiight), and yet you state unequivocally that "none" of the organizations, the N R A included, being discussed are gun control organizations. And you have the unmitigated gall to say I'm delusional because I draw logical conclusions from the facts I've learned about over the years?

Your accusation of my state of delusion is nothing more than another example of your delusional state.

Blues

 

[Rhino]

The umm...fact is Rhino, I have not touted my "opinion" as fact at all. Rather, I have provided facts that have informed my opinions.

Exactly. You have indeed provided facts to support or inform your OPINION. And those who dare to disagree with that opinion you label as sycophants and delusional, as you did in the very next sentence after this one. Again, your'e perfectly entitled to your opinion, welcome to it in fact. But others are not lacking in any way simply by disagreeing with you. That's arrogance and delusion itself. And quite frankly it cheapens your argument. But heck, I guess you're entitled to do that too, so delude and cheapen away.

 

[BluesStringer]

Exactly. You have indeed provided facts to support or inform your OPINION. And those who dare to disagree with that opinion you label as sycophants and delusional, as you did in the very next sentence after this one. Again, your'e perfectly entitled to your opinion, welcome to it in fact. But others are not lacking in any way simply by disagreeing with you. That's arrogance and delusion itself. And quite frankly it cheapens your argument. But heck, I guess you're entitled to do that too, so delude and cheapen away.

My arguments stand not only as factually accurate and documented as such, but in this thread at least, they also stand as unrefuted, except for a few instances of childish name-calling and recriminations for having the audacity to form my own opinions based on the very facts that you and others have ignored. That you continue to say that the N R A is not a gun control .org without a scintilla of evidence to counter all the presented facts to the contrary is what I consider to be indicative of delusion, not because you or anyone else disagrees with me personally. You appear to be attempting to apply some amount of logic here, but again, your abilities in that regard have failed you.

But just for the fun of it, let's take a fact and figure out where the fact ends and an individual's opinion begins.

Is it a fact, Rhino, that the un-clouded sky during daytime hours is blue? I would say it is a fact, and no accusations of disloyalty to a cause, or name-calling, or people using all-caps to yell "HORSE$H!T" at me would dissuade me from stating my opinion that the sky is blue based on that fact. I would think anyone attempting to deny that fact to be delusional, and I would not stifle myself from giving that opinion of them. Would you? Or would you, instead, withhold your opinion just because the individual seems so sure of their erroneous position that the sky is actually, oh, I don't know, let's say they think it's chartreuse? At what point would you allow your opinion, which is firmly grounded in proven fact, to be shouted down by a gang of followers of the "Church of the Chartreuse Sky" without telling them they're delusional sycophants following a false leader? Because that's what you're demanding of me, that I don't tell people the truth of the matter. So where does the fact end and your fact-based opinion that should be allowed to be shouted down by people promulgating a false meme begin in the preceding example? Absent the very minor amount of sarcasm, it's a serious question.

There's nothing inherently insulting about words like "delusional" or "sycophant" as far as I'm concerned. I have found myself to be delusional more than once in my life. The times that someone (or a group of someones) have used factual and compelling arguments to break through my delusions, I have let the delusions go and replaced them with valid, fact-based beliefs, thoughts or understandings. I am now a sycophant (minion, fan, whatever) of the Bible. I have a sycophantic fealty to an originalist view of the Constitution. Would I take it as an insult if someone said that about me? Of course not. I don't take offense to the truth. I actively and relentlessy seek it.

In light of the facts that have been presented by both myself and several others in this thread, and in light of the fact that you and (most) others in the thread cling to the notion that the N R A is not a gun control organization, please explain what they might have to do differently than they have done since their inception before you would say they were a gun control .org. My bet is that no one will accept that challenge, because the available facts simply don't support the conclusion that they aren't a gun control .org, and to argue the case against those facts is either blind loyalty or delusional or both, only in my very, ever-humble opinion, of course.

Blues

 

[One78Shovel]

My arguments stand not only as factually accurate and documented as such, but in this thread at least, they also stand as unrefuted, except for a few instances of childish name-calling and recriminations for having the audacity to form my own opinions based on the very facts that you and others have ignored.

Wow- Talking about the kettle calling the pot black

But just for the fun of it, let's take a fact and figure out where the fact ends and an individual's opinion begins.

Blues

No, you have formed an opinion based on your perceptions of what it means to be an advocate for gun control. I am sure you have heard the phrase 'Opinions are like a$$holes, everybody has one'?

While its quite apparent you get lost in an endless sea of rhetoric that takes us beyond death by Power Point, I feel I can sum up your position with far less fanfare. Is it not reasonable for us to assume that for you, in your opinion, the NRA has done more harm to your 2A defense than good? Hhm, yea, now that I think of it- yea, if not for the NRA, we could all sell guns internationally, own machine guns and the like. If not for the NRA, we would have elected leaders who fear the people, not those same people via the voice of the NRA. If the NRA had not supported the bills previously mentioned in this thread, we would be better off today. They would of never passed these bills without NRA support. Yea, that NRA is a paper tiger.

-178S

 

[BluesStringer]

My arguments stand not only as factually accurate and documented as such, but in this thread at least, they also stand as unrefuted, except for a few instances of childish name-calling and recriminations for having the audacity to form my own opinions based on the very facts that you and others have ignored.

Wow- Talking about the kettle calling the pot black

Still making "points" that have no point I see. I haven't ignored a single fact that you or any of the umm....fans of the N R A have presented, because you have offered exactly zero facts to counter those that I and others have presented. And the couple of times that you have tried have blown up in your face because you didn't bother to read (or couldn't understand, as the case may be) the links you, yourself, posted.

Secondly, you appear to consider the use of perfectly good English words to describe you and others to be "name-calling" (I guess - I admit, I have trouble following your posts, so I could be mistaken about that). The words that I have used have been in direct response to thoughts you and others have expressed. That cannot be said of the name-calling that has come my way. I am not a racist, and not one single paragraph, sentence, word, or punctuation mark that I have posted in this thread (or anywhere on the entire freakin' internet) supports calling me one. I am not a felon, nor am I a Nazi or Hitler-esque, and not one single paragraph, sentence, word, or punctuation mark that I have posted in this thread (or anywhere on the entire freakin' internet) supports accusing me of being such.

I have not answered a single post or question with brainless one-word answers like "HORSESHIT!" I concede though, that those like you who have such horrendously deficient reading comprehension skills probably wish I would answer in brainless one-word answers so that you wouldn't get caught and called-out so many times making brainless, baseless accusations like the one above.

I, as the "pot," have done nothing to mimic you or anyone else as the "kettle." I have presented facts, and drawn perfectly valid conclusions based entirely on those facts. You have gotten angry, frustrated and insulted that anyone might think lowly of the .org that you support no matter what betrayals they foist upon you. You can't even bring yourself to acknowledge that they are betrayals. You simply ignore them as though they never crossed your field of vision. I am decidedly not the uninformed, self-deluded, sycophantic "pot" to your "kettle." You and I are nothing alike, and I'll thank you to quit accusing me being anything approaching your level of blindness.

While its quite apparent you get lost in an endless sea of rhetoric that takes us beyond death by Power Point, I feel I can sum up your position with far less fanfare.

More brainless blather, but continue please.....

Is it not reasonable for us to assume that for you, in your opinion, the NRA has done more harm to your 2A defense than good?

Like I said, it is difficult to follow your syntax, but I will make an honest attempt to decipher this twaddle.

First, I fail to see why, at this point in this thread, you would think it necessary to "assume" anything about my position(s). I have been nothing but honest, unambiguous and unequivocal about them.

Second, I don't believe the N R A has done any good to "my" 2A "defense," or to yours or anyone else's either. I am a constitutional originalist. I believe what the Constitution says. I don't need courts or politicians or lobby groups to inform me what it says, or what the words they used to say it mean. If I don't understand a word, phrase or concept, I go to the Federalist Papers or the Declaration of Independence or other writings and speeches contemporaneous with this country's founding to find out what they meant to convey. The N R A muddies those waters so completely that they are literally useless to the goal of restoring the 2A to its original meaning. Their entire strategy begins and ends with compromise (at best), and compromise in the context of 2A meaning is just another word for weakening the original meaning. How can compromising or weakening the 2A also be "defending" it at the same time? To this originalist, it can't be.

Hhm, yea, now that I think of it- yea, if not for the NRA, we could all sell guns internationally...

Who said a single word about selling guns internationally? Certainly not I. Why do you make stuff up to make your "points?"

...own machine guns and the like.

Is this something you join the N R A in disagreeing with? Do you believe the 2A gives government the authority to outlaw access to machine guns? The N R A does, and the dismissive way you write the above would suggest that you may as well. But if you do disagree with the N R A on this score, that would mean you agree with me (GASP!!!!) that they have convinced WAY too many gun-owners to accept a constitutional usurpation in the name of "compromise" that doesn't compromise anything, it simply steals the full measure of our rights. A compromise is a give-and-take proposition. We, as citizens, were born with our rights. What has the government (or the N R A) given in return for our allowing our rights to be weakened? Not a damn thing. Why is that so hard to understand, or more on-point, why are you insulted by that analysis? It's nothing but the verifiable truth.

If not for the NRA, we would have elected leaders who fear the people, not those same people via the voice of the NRA. If the NRA had not supported the bills previously mentioned in this thread, we would be better off today. They would of never passed these bills without NRA support. Yea, that NRA is a paper tiger.

Again, your posts are hard to follow. Why would it matter if the country would've elected the same people without the N R A's support for them? If the N R A supports politicians who are going to compromise away bits and pieces of our rights, that's the pertinent information, not what The People would do if the N R A had never been part of the equation. They are part of the equation. That's just the reality.

And yeah, you're absolutely right that if the N R A hadn't supported the NFA '34, GCA '68 and FOPA '86, plus a whole lot more, we would be better off, as we wouldn't have been led down the primrose path of compromising that which God gave mankind, the unalienable right to defend themselves against tyranny, which your vaunted N R A VP La Pierre agreed with Lindsey Graham in a congressional hearing recently, was an illegitimate meaning of the 2A. You're damned skippy that we'd be better off without that compromising fool running around speaking for *us* as the victims of the compromises they give away without the consent of at least 75 million gun owners who don't pay 'em to do just that!

But you do pay 'em, so rather than accepting the truth about them, you are insulted by the truth about them. You shoot the messenger, so to speak. It is utterly baffling how or why you keep trying to divert from the facts to take pot-shots at me personally, while never offering a single thing that would tend to mitigate or refute the facts I and others have given you. I speak in terms of knowledge, liberty, the law, founding principles and God-given rights, and you not only speak in terms of compromising all of those things, but you actually pay someone else to accomplish those compromises in DC. That is the truth, and anyone reading this thread with anything approaching an open mind, knows it.

Blues

 

[dustoffuh1]

I've been a Life Member since 1981. No clue why anyone who owns a firearm isn't a member. They send me stuff once in a while, but I don't get "tons" of stuff from them. When they ask for money, I feel my Life Membership is good enough. However, I did contribute after the latest gun free zone, shooting. I figured they could use all the "ammo" they could get.

 

[BluesStringer]

I've been a Life Member since 1981. No clue why anyone who owns a firearm isn't a member. They send me stuff once in a while, but I don't get "tons" of stuff from them. When they ask for money, I feel my Life Membership is good enough. However, I did contribute after the latest gun free zone, shooting. I figured they could use all the "ammo" they could get.

That's all very interesting, but it neither answers the question posed in the OP (Why would any gun owner not join the N R A?), nor does it address the substantive issues raised in response to that question. In fact, like all the rest, it completely ignores those issues.

I take it back. Not really very interesting at all.

Blues

 

[av8r]

I just joined the NRA.

I'd been thinking about it for a while when I found this thread. The OP almost made me jump in right then and there, but I continued to read the thread and eventually, with great determination I managed to read it all. I was hoping to find some information about someplace better to put my money than the NRA, but that did not happen.

I realize the NRA, like many large successful organizations has its faults. I have belonged to other organizations in other fields that also have flaws. They are not perfect but they each seem to be doing more good than harm for the particular cause involved than anybody else. It would be too easy to take an extreme attitude toward these faults and do nothing, but I think it's more responsible to contribute to the good that these organizations can do.

The other day I ran across a copy of the February 2013 issue of American Rifleman. The column Standing Guard on page 12 dealt with the National School Shield Emergency Response Program. A lot of politicians seem determined to pass new laws that they say are "common sense" solutions. To me, they are in fact nonsense solutions. We have quite enough laws that don't work, and in fact make the problems worse. It seems more like a "we must do something even if its wrong or incredibly stupid" attitude. The NRA's proposal on how to make our schools safe is the only one I've seen or heard that seems to be truly "common sense" in my view. This really helped me make my decision to join. It goes along with my thinking on the subject. In Connecticut, for example, the law is already there. It says that firearms are prohibited in schools unless the school gives permission. In addition to a hired, armed security guard or two, there are no doubt staff members at most schools who would be willing, capable and responsible concealed armed guards. I doubt that the cost would be too prohibitive to provide some training to some carefully chosen staff members who may even be already trained and prepared, if only they would be allowed to protect our children. I think this is the kind of "common sense" thinking that is sorely needed in this country and the NRA promotes that kind of thinking so they get my vote.

 

[Rabbitcreekok]

Glad to hear you joined the NRA, av8r. Welcome to USACarry and I really like your first post.