Nra - Page 2
You are Unregistered, please register to use all of the features of FirearmsTalk.com!    
Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > General Discussion Forums > The Club House >

Nra


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-29-2007, 01:31 AM   #11
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Declaration Day's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 94
Liked 1 Times on 1 Posts

Default

BLS 33, that's an interesting opinion, would you please elaborate?
__________________
God, grant me the courage to do what I know is right, even when I think it is hopeless.

www.michiganmilitia.com
Declaration Day is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2007, 02:45 AM   #12
Administrator
FTF_ADMIN.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
notdku's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hill Country,Texas
Posts: 5,563
Liked 702 Times on 388 Posts
Likes Given: 729

Default

How does the NRA stop anti-2nd amendment bills. Do they hire lobbyists?

I've done research on the NRA when I wanted to join a pro-2nd amendment PAC group but I couldn't find much information on exactly what the money they get goes to.
__________________
Not Registered? Register now! - It's free and helps the community grow.
notdku is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2007, 03:06 AM   #13
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 22
Default

The NRA is about the only thing standing between Schumer, Fienstein, Boxer, Clinton, Obama etc. and our guns. If you truly value the 2A and gun ownership, you need to join. Ever wonder why the antis hate the NRA so much? It's because we are a powerful group. The NRA represents 4-5 million freedom loving Americans. That makes any elected official sit up and take notice.

No, you can't just send in the $35.00 then sit back and watch. You have to write some letters, make some phone calls and send an e-mail or two. It's pretty easy, you can do it.

Most states have an affiliate organization, the ISRA is an example in Illinois. They bear the brunt of the battle on the state level. The could use members too.

To those that won't join, I'll send some $$$ to the NRA to cover for you . You can continue to enjoy your firearms and it won't cost you a dime . Just say a silent "thank you" to those that do next time your at the range.
john1911 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2007, 03:39 AM   #14
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
BLS33's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 607
Liked 2 Times on 2 Posts

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Declaration Day View Post
BLS 33, that's an interesting opinion, would you please elaborate?
That statement is drawn from people that I know that are active members of the NRA. Obviously they don't stand for every NRA member but it's the same story with most NRA people I have dealt with. By "gun nut" I mean they take any gun legislation as a slap in the face. Like I think background checks at gun shows are a good thing, while guys I've talked to go crazy about it. Legislation is not always a bad thing, a lot of the times it is but not always. I think gun enthusiast realize that sometimes gun legislation is okay as long as it isn't really restricting our second amendment rights.
BLS33 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2007, 03:58 AM   #15
bkt
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 6,973
Liked 1305 Times on 664 Posts
Likes Given: 151

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BLS33 View Post
I think gun enthusiast realize that sometimes gun legislation is okay as long as it isn't really restricting our second amendment rights.
Respectfully, isn't that a slippery slope you're putting yourself on? The Constitution makes no provisional granting of arms-owning rights: if you're a citizen, you may own arms. Period. If you give the left an inch, they'll take your rights away entirely.

The Clinton SAW ban is still in effect here in New York, and if legislation already passed by the State Assembly passes the State Senate, I will turn into a criminal without having even touched my AR. This is the left's idea of "reasonable restrictions" to gun ownership.

The VA-Tech shooting is still fresh in everyone's memory. But had Virginia not sought to deny faculty, staff and students their rights to bear arms, fewer people would be dead today. Just like poverty, you will never get rid of mental defects. Deal with them as they come along and never, ever limit your options for doing so.

Obviously, we need to cull the herd of wackos. That should fall to the Justice Department to ensure penalties fit the crimes. Rape, murder, child molestation, armed robbery: kill the bastards. (Ropes are cheap and you can use 'em more than once. Think of the taxpayers.) For lesser crimes, keep the pukes in prison longer. Bring back hard labor, get rid of cable TV and weight rooms.

We must make criminals pay rather than limiting law-abiding citizens.

Last edited by bkt; 05-29-2007 at 04:01 AM.
bkt is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2007, 05:08 AM   #16
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
BrassMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: SW Illinois
Posts: 324
Liked 9 Times on 8 Posts

Default

While I don't always agree with the NRA they are our attack dog in Washington. If not for the NRA I doubt we would still have the gun rights today that we still enjoy. Remember the sunset clause was put into the 94 AWB as a direct result of the pressure from the NRA.
BrassMonkey is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2007, 06:27 AM   #17
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 67
Liked 1 Times on 1 Posts
Likes Given: 1

Default

I have been a member of NRA on and off several times over the past 25 years. I think that they are a little overboard on some of the things that are being easily abused in our country today. For example, some of the ammunition that is being produced that serves no purpose than penetrating body armor or bullet proof vests to kill the person wearing it. That type of round should not be available for anyone outside law enforcement and/or military. Some assault weapons need to be restricted from certain people having them.

We are all in favorite of the 2nd Amendment, but the Founding Fathers who wrote it would be mortified at what weapons have developed today that are being abused in the streets. And the police are facing these everyday.

However, the NRA is taking on a relentless foe of our 2nd Amendment rights and they need out support.
marmac is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2007, 10:04 AM   #18
bkt
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 6,973
Liked 1305 Times on 664 Posts
Likes Given: 151

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by marmac View Post
For example, some of the ammunition that is being produced that serves no purpose than penetrating body armor or bullet proof vests to kill the person wearing it. That type of round should not be available for anyone outside law enforcement and/or military. Some assault weapons need to be restricted from certain people having them.
In other words, you don't see a "need" for civilians to have these, therefore they shouldn't be allowed to. Am I correct? You're free to think what you like, of course. But don't expect me to vote for you if you ever run for office.

Quote:
Originally Posted by marmac View Post
We are all in favorite of the 2nd Amendment, but the Founding Fathers who wrote it would be mortified at what weapons have developed today that are being abused in the streets. And the police are facing these everyday.
So by all means, let's ban weapons from law-abiding citizens because of what criminals are doing.

If the Founding Fathers would be appalled at anything, it would be our legal system that fails to properly punish criminals.

Quote:
Originally Posted by marmac View Post
However, the NRA is taking on a relentless foe of our 2nd Amendment rights and they need out support.
You seem fickle on what you will and will not support.
bkt is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2007, 11:15 AM   #19
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
BLS33's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 607
Liked 2 Times on 2 Posts

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bkt View Post
Respectfully, isn't that a slippery slope you're putting yourself on? The Constitution makes no provisional granting of arms-owning rights: if you're a citizen, you may own arms. Period. If you give the left an inch, they'll take your rights away entirely.

It is a slippery slope, but clearly there is legislation in place right now that makes sense. Age limits and restrictions based on criminal record weren't mentioned in the constitution as far as the right to bear arms is concerned but I don't think you see many people opposing those. With most politicians, left or right, when you give an inch they take a mile which almost makes any legislation a slippery slope. I think politicians really need to take a look at what a massive gun ban would cause. I huge blackmarket for already circulating banned would form, people would make shotty homemade pieces that would be dangerous for anyone to use. The thing is most crimes commited with guns are commited with illegally purchased guns, so punishment for illegal gun ownership needs to be harshened before gun bans are put in place.
BLS33 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2007, 05:05 PM   #20
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 22
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by marmac View Post
I have been a member of NRA on and off several times over the past 25 years. I think that they are a little overboard on some of the things that are being easily abused in our country today. For example, some of the ammunition that is being produced that serves no purpose than penetrating body armor or bullet proof vests to kill the person wearing it. That type of round should not be available for anyone outside law enforcement and/or military. Some assault weapons need to be restricted from certain people having them.
You do know that all centerfire rifle rounds are capable of defeating body armor?
john1911 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes




Newest Threads