Are you a member of the NRA?

comments in the gungeon.

I would like another option..."No, no fucking way, NO!"

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/050400-01.htm


The National Rifle Association's second-ranking officer boasted at a closed meeting of NRA members earlier this year that if Republican nominee George W. Bush wins in November, "we'll have . . . a president where we work out of their office."
First Vice President Kayne Robinson, who is in line to succeed NRA President Charlton Heston, added that the NRA enjoys "unbelievably friendly relations" with the Texas governor. Robinson, who is also chairman of the Iowa Republican Party, made the comments Feb. 17 before 300 members in Los Angeles. He also described 2000 as "a critical election" in which Bush's success would ensure "a Supreme Court that will back us to the hilt."

Bush's presidential campaign denied he is that close to the NRA, citing instances in which he has disagreed with the group. "Neither the NRA nor any special interest sets the governor's agenda," said Bush spokesman Scott McClellan. "Governor Bush sets his agenda based on his priorities and principles."

Gun control groups say Bush has rarely strayed from NRA orthodoxy and for years has aggressively promoted its political platform. The NRA said it is proud of its ties to Bush.

more

Bush was not exactly a pro-Second Amendment wet dream. He was, apparently, in favor of the do-nothing-about-actual-crime "Assault Weapons Ban".

endorsed Harry Reid of NV, my home state

of course, the Democrats here are very pro gun.

The nra is a pro-2nd amendment organization. That is what they do, that is all they do. It shouldn't be surprising the are not fond of the party that brought us the Assault Weapons Ban.


It would be like a pro-choice organization backing a republican.


The NRA will back whoever is the most pro-2nd amendment.

Ultimately, once I was satisfied that the NRA does indeed endorse Democratic candidates who are better than their Replublican counterparts on firearms issues and the 2nd Amendment issues, I joined.

Still, I have a big problem with their hyperbole and I hope to join others in the the NRA who seek more intellectual honesty in the NRA.

the need to join up with people who still like to play with weapons.

20's. It cost me around $100, and the NRA wasn't as nuts then as it is now.

I started getting tons of junk mail from conservative beggars.
Once I took my name of the NRA list it stopped.

I have let my membership lapse a couple of times, but it seems that every time I do, the repubs at the Brady Campaign start off on some other wrongheaded crusade, and I decide to renew the membership again. I have my disagreements with them, but I don't see any valid alternatives to it at this point.

BTW, the political/lobbying organization is the NRA-ILA, not the NRA.

One Democratic representative to the state legislature called me during the last election and his first point was his strong endorsement by the NRA.

lots of deer and hog here. Hunting and college football are the big sports in my area.




edited for spelling

at the age of 98. After Nam, I lost all taste for hunting animals and killing them. No sport in it if they don't shoot back (my opinion only), and I'm too old to find that kind of competition appealing.

Being out in nature is among the most enjoyable things on earth. I hike often, take my children regularly, and teach them the joys of being in nature. But the NRA's political mission or more than gun rights and I will not pay them for the privilege of electing conservatives to office.

the NRA rates politicians on their views on RKBA not how conservative they are.

The NRA gives Bill Richardson, the current Governor of New Mexico, an A rating.

If you look through this 2006 ratings list, you WILL find Democrats with a good rating.
http://www.votesmart.org/issue_rating_detail.php?r_id=3492

There are many issues I want to see advanced. Having a positive rating by the NRA is a mark against any person I vote for, but it isn't my only issue.

a strong 2nd amend supporter but I don't hunt and I don't have anything against those that do hunt. I would just rather shoot an animal with a camera than a firearm

All the hunters I know do it to provide food for their families, get the kids out in the wild and teach them a healthy respect for nature and where food comes from.

Hunting is no more necessary in modern society than football. I see nothing wrong with people hunting, but it is never about survivial.

of the agri-meat industry. And one's view of self-reliance. Also, geography. One can be a part of "modern society" and still live far enough in the hinter-lands that obtaining meat at a store is less convenient than hunting.

And we wouldn't have had vegetables were it not for canning. I remember standing in line as a kid to get our big block of government cheese and a bag of pinto beans.

Would we have survived without the meat that hunting provided? Probably. Would have we have been malnourished? Likely.

Many of my father's brothers who are all retired now (or on disability from working the coal mines) still hunt each year, and use what they kill to supplement what little they receive in SSI / UMWA benefits.

They may not shoot back, but if you use a firearm with a single round, or a bolt action, you're in for a night of exciting survival.


Or you're on the menu.

But their mailings and literature are great for starting fires on cold winter nights.

is this...this organization is about making money thru inciting people. If it was just an organization for people who owned guns and all the comrade ship it would be different. BUT IT IS ONLY A MONEY MAKING ORGANIZATION and they want to keep it like that so they push and push for violence and conflict.

"BUT IT IS ONLY A MONEY MAKING ORGANIZATION and they want to keep it like that so they push and push for violence and conflict."

Any organized pressure group, NARAL, ACLU, Sierra Club, etc., "makes money" in order to push their agenda.

The rest of your statement "push for violence and conflict" is pure rubbish, and you know it. You cannot focus your of hated guns into fictions in your own mind and expect a serious response from anyone, other than those who share your views in this culture war.

whatever that is.

The NRA does an enormous amount of good for gun owners. They offer many programs for shooters.

visit:
http://www.nra.org/programs.aspx

You may not like the NRA or the NRA-ILA (the political decision). That's your right. But the NRA does far more than make money and I don't believe they, in any way, push or promote violence and conflict.

the most ridiculous statement about the NRA I have ever heard and I have heard some good ones. Care to back that up with facts and links?

And extremely devisive.

How sad for you.

Nope, I'm the typical left/liberal type who has no guns in their house and finds lots of alternatives for my grandson to play with other than toy guns.

I'm the typical left/liberal type who has guns in the house, and was fortunate to have a father who taught me the difference between real guns and toy guns. When we learned about the real ones, he forbade us to play with the toy ones (pointing any gun at someone is a no-no) lest we lose our training.

There are a lot of left/liberal types who own guns. Gun-control, IMO, is really a "modern-day" adaptation of Jim Crow to (ironically) northeastern cities, D.C., Chicago, and SF. The issue is deeply entrenched with the DLC -- those who run the Party, now -- and they won't let up on the issue, being the politically tone-deaf iron-butts that they are. And as we both know, they brook no tolerance of "left/liberal types."

The NRA does a lot of good for the shooting community of which I am a member.

Without Marion Hammer who was the first female President of the NRA and the National Rifle Association's lobbyist in Tallahassee for three decades, I wouldn't have my concealed carry permit. I also wouldn't have the protection of Florida's "Stand your Ground" law, or the right to leave my firearm in my locked vehicle in my employer's parking lot.

The efforts of the NRA helped pass these same laws in many other states.

Plus the NRA provides training to many firearms instructors and through them to citizens interested in gun safety. Their competitive shooting division provides a wide range of shooting activities.

I could go on, but if you are interesting in what the NRA does, visit:
http://www.nra.org/programs.aspx

Like many people I get tired of the constant propaganda the NRA-ILA puts out. It's almost as bad as that put out by the Brady Campaign and the VPC. I simply ignore it.

But I don't mind them.

I'm a liberal gun-owner and I support most folks who want to make sure our rights aren't taken away.

including the same options as above but with additional datum of gun ownership or not.

I own guns and am not an NRA member.

Which reminds me I don't think I've seen a gun poll on DU for a while. I'll start one and see how long it stays out of the gungeon.

but thinking seriously about rejoining (after many years).

The ACLU defends most of my constitutional rights.

The EFF does great for my rights online.

But most noticeably absent in their protection is the Second Amendment.

The NRA fills that gap.

Is there such a thing as an effective liberal organization protecting the Second Amendment?

advocates for 2nd Amendment issues and explicitly supportive of Obama, but they weren't always that way and I still remain supportive of them but suspicious.

It would be like joining the National Right to Life Committee to protect abortion rights.

They brought Zak Johnson of the Gun Owners Caucus of the Democratic Party of Oregon (aka the Blue Steel Democrats) on board, and explicitly added to their agenda promoting the right to own firearms for self-defense and opposition to a renewed ban on so-called "assault weapons."

Daniel Barnett of the Amendment II Democrats (who posts here as derby378) speaks well of the AHSA in its current state, and I have a high regard for his opinion.

Worth looking into.

Maybe we finally have an organization that protects the Second Amendment but isn't overrun by RW nuts.

It didn't start getting really political until about the time Chris Dodd's father, Thomas, and staunchest voice for outlawing handguns in Congress dropped his Colt's Pocket Model on the floor of the Senate.

Back then high schools and youth groups had rifle teams. The local hardware store sold guns and Sears or Western Auto would deliver by mail what he didn't stock. Democrats were blue collar, fought in WW2, and took guns and gun rights for granted. Pete Shields and HCI were 20 years into the future. And Homer Cummings, Roosevelt’s Attorney General, the force behind repeated attempts at Federal handgun registration before the war was a dim memory.

That the NRA supports pro gun candidates should be no surprise. That the Democratic party fields some candidates that are irrevocably and virulently anti-gun it should be evident that the NRA supports whoever oppose those candidates, regardless of party, as long as they a pro-gun. In the event both sides are anti-gun they support neither the Democrat nor the opposition.

Yes and I own guns
Yes and I do not own guns
No and I own guns
No and I do not own guns

Just as someone could own firearms and not belong to the NRA, somone could not own firearms but belong to the NRA.
For example, one might not be colored or gay but still donate to the NAACP or one of the many pro GLBT groups.

I'm also a member of GOAL (Gun Owners Action League... a MA NRA sister RKBA organization).

I'm also a NRA certified firearms instructor and range safety officer.

1) The range I belong to requires it (an insurance thing I think, I'm not crazy about the requirement though)
2) They accredit me as an instructor - I accept this and strongly respect and support the work they do in safety and education.

There are quite a few thing I don't like about the NRA, which made me hesitant to join, but a few years back, somebody pointed out to me that you can't improve the organization if you refuse to have anything to do with it. It's not like the NRA is wanting for members, so withholding your support until they change the things you don't like is unlikely to have much impact. Conversely, if you're willing to commit to being a member first (and put your money where your mouth is), you might actually get listened to, at least locally (e.g. at the range or at the gun shop).

And the fact is, they are the most effective gun rights group around, and nobody does anywhere near as much to provide training in firearms safety and handling.

That said, I don't expect anyone to join if they're just too uncomfortable with the leanings of the national leadership. The line-up of speakers for this year's annual meeting was almost enough to make me quit right there (New Gingrich, Ollie North, Glenn Beck and a prayer breakfast led by Jonathan Falwell), but changing the organization from within is going to take time, and is an uncertain prospect. I can't blame anyone for not having the patience for it.

And will not be until they jettison all the BS rhetoric about jack-booted-thugs from the UN coming to take my guns, or whatever the fright of the day currently is. I prefer a little more honesty and less showmanship from my advocacy groups...

Some of them are here in this forum. And some are elected and appointed officials in our government.

Behind many a wild exageration is frequently some kernel of truth...

My contemporaneous poll shows 61% of GD/Gungeon respondents own guns.

Only 30% here are NRA members. Obviously not a scientific sample or survey by any means, but does imply only half of DU gun owners are NRA members.

I lump them in with PETA and Sea Shepherd as groups of well intentioned people administered by crazy, self-aggrandizing attention whores.

They do a lot to impart some very useful skills, and the rank and file membership are no more nutty than the general population, but there are some major conservative assholes at the top of the hierarchy.