View Full Version : NRA = Nolonger Relevent Association
30 cal slut
03-23-11, 08:52
kick me in the nuts if you will, i am losing faith.
i get calls from NRA and SAF all the time for my hard earned money.
i have been a life member of both organizations for some time.
i feel NRA seems to be sitting on its ass because post-heller there are few federal issues to fret about.
but the antis are nibbling away at us at the state level, and I feel like the NRA isn't here whe i really need them the most.
as i type this, our state legiscritters are considering a law banning magazines holding more than ten rounds. an outright mag ban. ****ing ridiculous ... get rid of them before July 1 or you are a felon.
you'd think this kind of draconian legislation would be on the front page of NRA-ILA's website.
i don't recall getting any e-mail alerts from NRA. hell, NSSF sent me an alert a few weeks ago. not a peep from NRA. i called NRA-ILA this morning, they were like, meh, it's on your state website.
is NRA getting complacent? do they really expect us to be happy getting useless trinkets in the mail and irrelevent alarmist alerts?
don't get me wrong ... NRA is no substitute for shitty grassroots activism. if our gun owners had their shit together like, say, the VCDL, I wouldn't be typing this. i have done my part calling, e-mailing, meeting with legislators, etc. repeatedly. so i am not just sitting on my ass doing nothing, and complaining about my lot.
i understand NRA relies a lot on state associations.
but today I feel NRA hasn't done shit.
flame away.
I cancelled my membership years ago after becoming sick of the endless piles of junk mail clogging my mailbox and the incessant pleas for more and more money.
I cancelled my membership years ago after become sick of the endless piles of junk mail clogging my mailbox and the incessant pleas for more and more money.
Agreed. The NRA mail volume is highly obnoxious. However, I don't know of any other org representing law abiding gun owners, so I stay. I just rip my name off their junk mail and then it goes straight to the trash.
The NRA is not the end-all be-all, nor are they omnipotent. They're simply a pro-2A organization with considerable lobbying power and lots of money. That said, you can only lobby with politicians that choose to actually deal with you in the first place.
All they can do is BACK good legislation, they can't start it on their own unless they have a victim to represent. If you live in or around a liberal cesspool, unless you or someone else introduces pro-2A legislation or starts a lawsuit for 2A rights, then they have nothing to back. It's that simple.
What do you expect them to do? Call? Complain? Picket? It's not like mag capacity bans haven't been enacted before. And if you're from CT (based on your details), then there's simply too much liberal influence to do any good from lobbying. It's a lost cause for them from the get-go, especially if the state legislature is primarily liberal.
The biggest factor of 2A rights stems from local voters voting for local government officials. If the state government wants to ban magazines over 10 rounds (and its done by an overwhelming majority), then chances are that the NRA will have little effect anyways. Look at California for an example.
FURTHER...
The NRA only has, what 3,000,000 members? In a country of 300,000,000, that's just 1% of the population. Sure, they might be the largest pro-2A organization, but that's like being the biggest goldfish in a fishbowl. If you want them to have more power, get them more memberships, starting with keeping your own. Get your friends involved, buy your neighbors a membership (the NRA was giving out free 1-year memberships for new members a while back), remind them of why they need it. Our country is growing quickly and if the NRA doesn't get or maintain more than a 1% response rate from the American public, chances are it could lose whatever little power it has.
State-level laws fall squarely on the voters of that state. Do your part and vote and encourage others to do the same. If you want to do more, then start a lawsuit. Whining about how the NRA is ineffective is somewhat hypocritical when the most you've done is call and complain, as that's about the most the NRA could do at this point.
I cancelled my membership years ago after become sick of the endless piles of junk mail clogging my mailbox and the incessant pleas for more and more money.
I started a thread on this exact issue a couple years ago. It's not only the volume of crap they send, it's the dopey dramatic wording implying that the end is always near. End of what, their mailing solicitation budget?
Plus they do absolutely nothing here in my state. Didn't renew last year and don't see myself doing so again soon.
30 cal slut
03-23-11, 10:47
State-level laws fall squarely on the voters of that state. Do your part and vote and encourage others to do the same. If you want to do more, then start a lawsuit. Whining about how the NRA is ineffective is somewhat hypocritical when the most you've done is call and complain, as that's about the most the NRA could do at this point.
I've done my part and then some.
Everyone should be a member of the NRA because that is the only group the antis and the liberals and the media look at when it comes to gun owners. Their numbers alone are important.
If the NRA loses membership, gun owners take a hit because they are assumed to have less clout and fewer people care about gun owners. It is all about perceptions.
I am not saying you have to give them any money or anything. Their strength is the size of membership, which is a proxy for the strength of gun owners everywhere.
(I regularly get NRA-ILA emails showing all state issues including CT mag ban issues)
Send them a nice certified letter demanding they stop bothering you for donations or calling you.
If you are a NRA member ask to be put on the DO NOT SOLICIT list.
They won't call you, almost no junk mail will arrive.
Make any donations to the NRA-ILA and they won't be used to solicit money from members and can only be used for legislative action.
30 cal slut
03-23-11, 13:25
it's not the solicitations that are bothering me so much, as the perceived return on my investment.
i feel NRA really hasn't helped that much in our local situation.
****ing mag confiscation bill should be front and center on their website.
Unless there is some sort of hidden strategic brilliance adhered to ignoring northeastern states, I'm lost on what they are doing sending so many mailers while not paying people to help overturn the legal suppression we are forced to live with. And it's not like there's a sparse population around here either, they are ignoring many millions.
If they serve you well where you live, that's great. But maybe if they happen to notice enough un-renewed subscriptions in the now ignored northeast they'll remember that there's 50 states in the union and we could all use a return on our investment.
Unless there is some sort of hidden strategic brilliance adhered to ignoring northeastern states, I'm lost on what they are doing sending so many mailers while not paying people to help overturn the legal suppression we are forced to live with. And it's not like there's a sparse population around here either, they are ignoring many millions.
If they serve you well where you live, that's great. But maybe if they happen to notice enough un-renewed subscriptions in the now ignored northeast they'll remember that there's 50 states in the union and we could all use a return on our investment.
Do you have any idea of the general cost of what you're proposing vs the return on investment (i.e. responses)? It's prohibitively expensive. It doesn't help that most Northeastern states are also liberal.
variablebinary
03-23-11, 14:10
I'd rather have the NRA, than not have the NRA.
I'd rather have the NRA, than not have the NRA.
So would I, but I simply don't understand the reasoning for such logic and hope to send my humble message. Of course they could chalk it up to a bad economy...
I live here and paid for 2 decades, but like many others am seemingly ignored. To us the AWB of '94 is alive, well and uncontested here by the NRA. And if they're that scared of liberals then they aren't worth my money. No such cause should be deemed lost here in the United States of America.
Even if it is N.J.
I found out about the CT magazine ban proposal through an email from NRA-ILA. (And I live in Utah)
30 cal slut
03-23-11, 16:30
Jesus. Anyone watch the CT mag ban testimony today?
Second-string NRA lobbyist who came to testify was clueless.
Worse, the NRA lobbyist had the gall to take credit for introducing the Castle Doctrine legislation (yes, we have one pending) and got called out by the Republican legiscritter who actually wrote the bill.
Can you believe this crap?
WTF.
Worse, the NRA lobbyist had the gall to take credit for introducing the Castle Doctrine legislation (yes, we have one pending) and got called out by the Republican legiscritter who actually wrote the bill.
If that's the case, then that Republican is STUPID. Calling out an NRA lobbyist when they're trying to vie for gun rights? Might as well join the anti-gun crowd, because scenes like those only give the impression that legislation is needed. Correct them after the fact.
Geeze. :rolleyes:
Well my guess would be because the Supreme Court has stated that states and local entities can still enact certain gun control measures. There is no "outright" ban in many cases, they are simply neutered weapons.
It's the same reason (correct me if I am wrong) that they don't challenge many of the anti-CCW laws.
So would I, but I simply don't understand the reasoning for such logic and hope to send my humble message. Of course they could chalk it up to a bad economy...
I live here and paid for 2 decades, but like many others am seemingly ignored. To us the AWB of '94 is alive, well and uncontested here by the NRA. And if they're that scared of liberals then they aren't worth my money. No such cause should be deemed lost here in the United States of America.
Even if it is N.J.
30 cal slut
03-23-11, 16:46
Well my guess would be because the Supreme Court has stated that states and local entities can still enact certain gun control measures. There is no "outright" ban in many cases, they are simply neutered weapons.
It's the same reason (correct me if I am wrong) that they don't challenge many of the anti-CCW laws.
Iraqgunz, if I recall correctly, SAF is presently challenging NJ's CCW issuance.
SAF NJ Link Here (http://saf.org/viewpr-new.asp?id=346)
I don't see the NRA anywhere, except to take credit for any victory after the fact.
Well my guess would be because the Supreme Court has stated that states and local entities can still enact certain gun control measures.
Correct. And as far as I know such state rulings can be challenged if deemed unconstitutional. In fact some are being challenged in this state right now, just not by the NRA.
Why are they on the sideline while a smaller, less funded group fights the noble fight? I honestly just don't understand the possible reasoning.
30 cal slut
03-23-11, 16:50
If that's the case, then that Republican is STUPID. Calling out an NRA lobbyist when they're trying to vie for gun rights? Might as well join the anti-gun crowd, because scenes like those only give the impression that legislation is needed. Correct them after the fact.
Geeze. :rolleyes:
Skyyr,
With all due respect, it was DUMB for the NRA lobbyist to LIE. This was public testimony before a state government body.
With all due respect, it was DUMB for the NRA lobbyist to LIE. This was public testimony before a state government body.
I'm not contesting that, but he proverbially cut off his nose to spite his face. It would be just like the vice president calling out the president on a lie in front of a press conference - the harm as already been done, so making it public only makes it worse.
Either he was just stupid or he was for the legislation to begin with.
The NRA is not perfect, but they their part to defend our 2nd Amendment rights. Do you really think Obama would have wanted to meet with Wayne if the NRA was no longer relevant?
30 cal slut
03-23-11, 16:57
I'm not contesting that, but he proverbially cut off his nose to spite his face. It would be just like the vice president calling out the president on a lie in front of a press conference - the harm as already been done, so making it public only makes it worse.
Either he was just stupid or he was for the legislation to begin with.
No. The legiscritter who called out the NRA lobbyist is pro-gun and is against the mag ban. The legislator was irked that the NRA was trying to take credit for something the legislator did.
30 cal slut
03-23-11, 16:58
The NRA is not perfect, but they their part to defend our 2nd Amendment rights. Do you really think Obama would have wanted to meet with Wayne if the NRA was no longer relevant?
no disagreement in that regard.
they're just not being terribly helpful to our immediate situation, and were useless when both of our state AWB's were passed (yes, TWO AWB's).
...if the NRA was no longer relevant?
It's not that they are no longer relevant, its just that there's a legitimate perception they are strangely and politically selective in where they fight on "our" behalf. If you've lived in a mid-western state all your life (or even neighboring PA), you can't fully understand our plight.
30 cal slut
03-23-11, 17:19
It's not that they are no longer relevant, its just that there's a legitimate perception they are strangely and politically selective in where they fight on "our" behalf. If you've lived in a mid-western state all your life (or even neighboring PA), you can't fully understand our plight.
yeah.
it's akin to feeling like God has abandoned us.
If that's the case, then that Republican is STUPID. Calling out an NRA lobbyist when they're trying to vie for gun rights? Might as well join the anti-gun crowd, because scenes like those only give the impression that legislation is needed. Correct them after the fact.
Geeze. :rolleyes:
I find it a little troubling that the only thing that you had to say about that is a slight twist on Reagan's eleventh commandment. Sure you threw in a token "I'm not contesting that..." after the fact but look, the NRA is not some sacred cow immune from criticism; and the root cause of the problem in that hearing was someone making shit up. Period.
People are free to vote with their wallets if they so choose, or attempt to get the organization that is representing them to represent them. If no one tells them that they have a problem with them, how are they supposed to know?
Might as well join the anti-gun crowd, because scenes like those only give the impression that legislation is needed.
A correction of facts regarding who did what in the legislative/political world gives the impression that anti-gun legislation is needed? Come on man that's a hell of a reach.
Perhaps a verbal reprimand will have a Pavlovian effect of encouraging NRA lobbyists to stop making shit up for fear of public embarrassment.
All that said, I am a member of the NRA. I'm not a member of any other pro-gun organizations. I think the NRA is needed, but at the same time I have a lot of respect for groups like SAF who aren't afraid to go into Chicago, DC, NJ, wherever instead of writing them off as a lost cause or hopping on the coattails once the ball gets rolling.
...
I think you mis-read. It has nothing to do with the fact he was called out; it has everything to do with the fact he did it publicly before a the bill has either been passed or dismissed.
How good does it look when a Republican publicly calls a lobbyist out, one who is trying to reason for reasons not to ban regular-capacity magazines, for lying? It potentially splinters what support is given against the introduced legislation. This same lobbyist is making arguments for why magazines are needed and... he gets called out for lying. Naturally, people are going to question what else he said is a lie. It's only human to do so. In effect, it causes people to doubt the truthfulness and validity of the lobbyist's arguments and sways people away from compromise. It was literally very stupid to do what he did publicly.
What he should have done was privately spoken with him and demanded him to correct himself after the fact, not basically call him a liar. It's entirely about the long-term consequences.
I think you mis-read. It has nothing to do with the fact he was called out; it has everything to do with the fact he did it publicly before a the bill has either been passed or dismissed.
How good does it look when a Republican publicly calls a lobbyist out, one who is trying to reason for reasons not to ban regular-capacity magazines, for lying? It potentially splinters what support is given against the introduced legislation. This same lobbyist is making arguments for why magazines are needed and... he gets called out for lying. Naturally, people are going to question what else he said is a lie. It's only human to do so. In effect, it causes people to doubt the truthfulness and validity of the lobbyist's arguments and sways people away from compromise. It was literally very stupid to do what he did publicly.
What he should have done was privately spoken with him and demanded him to correct himself after the fact, not basically call him a liar. It's entirely about the long-term consequences.
How good does it look when a lobbyist makes shit up? Again, that is the initial domino to fall. If people want to have credibility, they should be credible. Even if it was a "stupid" thing to do (which I do not concede), the legislator shouldn't have been in that position in the first place.
And forgive me, but I still consider it one hell of a reach to suggest that this incident will weigh at all in the outcome of the legislation in question.
This is purely a matter of opinion so we'll just have to agree to disagree.
It's not that they are no longer relevant, its just that there's a legitimate perception they are strangely and politically selective in where they fight on "our" behalf. If you've lived in a mid-western state all your life (or even neighboring PA), you can't fully understand our plight.
It's not a perception, its a reality. The NRA is simply afraid to back a loosing horse. They've become so averse to it that they wait until a victory is virtually assured to step in and take credit for work that others have done. They now refuse to back pro-gun legislation if there's a hint that it won't pass. They refuse to fight at the state level and leave it to their state affiliates. The state affiliate here in Oklahoma is as worthless as tits on a boar hog. They're currently OPPOSING an open carry bill and using false statements to condemn it!
The NRA is well on the road to becoming a bad apple in the barrel. If they don't correct their course, they will become irrelevant. :mad:
30 cal slut
03-23-11, 19:57
never thought i'd post a thread like this.
pains me to do so, but i am pissed off.
I've done my part and then some.
And I have also:
I spent Saturday at the range handing out fliers about SB1094 & asking people to get involved & this evening after work made a showing in Hartford for the hearings.
Everybody has to get involved & not just think someone else will do it!
30 cal slut
03-23-11, 22:42
Great job Paul!
I'm told that 6 people showed up to testify in support of the bill.
In sharp contrast, over 500 people showed up to testify in opposition to the bill.
Hearing started at ten am and concluded after 10:15 pm. A long day for many.
Hope the politicians got a clue.
LowSpeed_HighDrag
03-23-11, 22:50
Im in a bit of a twist right now. I have been an NRA member for a few years, always renewing 2 years at a time. Now that its time for my renewal, Im not sure if I want to give them my money. I havent seen them helping out CA much if it all, and I cant stop the constant emails as they send them out from random proxies.
It's not that they are no longer relevant, its just that there's a legitimate perception they are strangely and politically selective in where they fight on "our" behalf. If you've lived in a mid-western state all your life (or even neighboring PA), you can't fully understand our plight.
Here is a question..is perhaps their involvement at the state level contingent on that states level of commitment? The NRA seems to be pretty danged active in Florida. Is that because of Marion Hammer and his efforts or because our legislative environment more pro 2A? Or did the NRAs activities at the state level help to grow that friendly attitude and legislation?
Here is a question..is perhaps their involvement at the state level contingent on that states level of commitment? The NRA seems to be pretty danged active in Florida. Is that because of Marion Hammer and her efforts or because our legislative environment more pro 2A? Or did the NRAs activities at the state level help to grow that friendly attitude and legislation?
fixed it for you
30 cal slut
03-23-11, 23:31
LOL. FL is lucky to have Marion.
I have said earlier ... NRA is no substitute for local grassroots activism.
However ... it would be nice for us guys behind enemy lines to get some more vigorous support from them.
LOL. FL is lucky to have Marion.
I have said earlier ... NRA is no substitute for local grassroots activism.
However ... it would be nice for us guys behind enemy lines to get some more vigorous support from them.
Read this to read more about Marion
http://www.tampabay.com/news/environment/wildlife/students-pick-osprey-for-floridas-new-state-bird/1034493
Exactly how would you like them to help you? I believe that they have been involved in stuff such as the ridiculous ammo bill.
All the other stupid shit that California does is permissble as far as I know- i.e. Assault Weapons Bans, selective CCW, etc...
Once again I am pretty sure the courts have held that states may enact their own controls.
Im in a bit of a twist right now. I have been an NRA member for a few years, always renewing 2 years at a time. Now that its time for my renewal, Im not sure if I want to give them my money. I havent seen them helping out CA much if it all, and I cant stop the constant emails as they send them out from random proxies.
Exactly how would you like them to help you? I believe that they have been involved in stuff such as the ridiculous ammo bill.
All the other stupid shit that California does is permissble as far as I know- i.e. Assault Weapons Bans, selective CCW, etc...
Once again I am pretty sure the courts have held that states may enact their own controls.
Not criticizing you or purporting to know the answer to exactly which issues the NRA should or should not address, but that said; the NRA does (and should) interject itself into issues that may be "permissible" under the current system. I just went to the NRA homepage and the very first thing I see is a letter from LaPierre about carrying firearms on college campuses; something that is surely permissible as a state control.
Wherever we are on the spectrum of gun control (nationally or locally), there are plenty of antis who want to push us towards the direction that England has chosen. We have to have people on our side to not just fight to maintain the status quo, but push in the direction of freedom; which may entail fighting to get laws passed to reverse anti-gun legislation that may be permissible as far as the courts are concerned.
Great job Paul!
I'm told that 6 people showed up to testify in support of the bill.
In sharp contrast, over 500 people showed up to testify in opposition to the bill.
Hearing started at ten am and concluded after 10:15 pm. A long day for many.
Hope the politicians got a clue.
That kind of thing is always inspiring.
Last year or the year before we had a liberal douche (former member of SDS... LOL) from the neighborhood in Seattle with the statue of Lenin put up an AWB bill in WA. I was able to get the day off and go down to the public hearing. There were hundreds of people there who signed in against, only a handful for. Most people there were carrying openly or concealed as we are allowed to carry in the state capitol in WA with a CPL. It was a sight to see.
Hope with your strong showing you have success as we did.
30 cal slut
03-24-11, 14:12
Somewhat of a side-track, but since we're beating up on the NRA, I'm posting following short memo that NRA submitted to our legiscritters yesterday re: reasons why to oppose mag ban.
It's good reading.
http://cga.ct.gov/2011/JUDdata/Tmy/2011SB-01094-R000323-Andrew%20Jennison,%20NRA-ILA%20Connecticut%20State%20Liaison-TMY.PDF
No mention that multiple rounds per target on multiple targets might be needed to prevail in perfectly reasonable/lawful self defense situations?
Epic fail.
Shadow1198
03-24-11, 21:52
My only real major gripe with the NRA is the perceived image they portray that basically gives off the idea that hunting/sporting is their primary focus, yet the actual true intentions behind the 2A, DEFENSE, (in every facet) are just a miniscule side note. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that all they focus on is hunting/sporting. However, the perception I have from all of their media sources, advertisements, media campaigns, etc.....the thing we tend to see the most is hunting this, sporting that. Sorry but, my honest opinion is hunting/sporting should be a VERY small side note. As far as I'm concerned, this hunting/sporting bias in a lot of their various media forms only further serves to keep those on the fence or those uninformed from realizing the true intent of the 2A.
What I would personally like to see is the NRA focus almost solely on media forms dedicated purely towards self defense. This would help educate the uninformed what this is all really about. Instead, honestly I think a large number of people on the fence and uninformed view the NRA as the "Fudd" organization for skeet shooting and deer hunting. This only further helps convince these people of the ill-conceived notion that the 2A is about novelties as opposed to being a civil right vital to our freedom and national security. The NRA isn't perfect. The NRA has still done quite a bit and made positive legislative improvements. Still, the NRA can make a DRASTIC improvement in the image they are portraying to more accurately represent us. In this regard, I think they have fallen far behind the times and need some new blood to modernize things and bring us into the new century. Honestly, I'm just sick and tired of the Fudd shit the NRA constantly appears to be about. If I don't ever see another NRA ad with some dude in his hunting gear, bird dog, and an over under slung over his shoulder.....it will still be too soon. :rolleyes:
LowSpeed_HighDrag
03-24-11, 22:02
Exactly how would you like them to help you? I believe that they have been involved in stuff such as the ridiculous ammo bill.
All the other stupid shit that California does is permissble as far as I know- i.e. Assault Weapons Bans, selective CCW, etc...
Once again I am pretty sure the courts have held that states may enact their own controls.
If the NRA won't fight what is "permissable" but clearly wrong, then I won't support them.
Right now I have a mag-locked rifle with 10 rounds in it, a pistol I cant carry, and a 10 day waiting period with a firearm registration to boot. If they see this as permissable, well, so does the anti crowd.
My only real major gripe with the NRA is the perceived image they portray that basically gives off the idea that hunting/sporting is their primary focus, yet the actual true intentions behind the 2A, DEFENSE, (in every facet) are just a miniscule side note. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that all they focus on is hunting/sporting. However, the perception I have from all of their media sources, advertisements, media campaigns, etc.....the thing we tend to see the most is hunting this, sporting that. Sorry but, my honest opinion is hunting/sporting should be a VERY small side note. As far as I'm concerned, this hunting/sporting bias in a lot of their various media forms only further serves to keep those on the fence or those uninformed from realizing the true intent of the 2A.
What I would personally like to see is the NRA focus almost solely on media forms dedicated purely towards self defense. This would help educate the uninformed what this is all really about. Instead, honestly I think a large number of people on the fence and uninformed view the NRA as the "Fudd" organization for skeet shooting and deer hunting. This only further helps convince these people of the ill-conceived notion that the 2A is about novelties as opposed to being a civil right vital to our freedom and national security. The NRA isn't perfect. The NRA has still done quite a bit and made positive legislative improvements. Still, the NRA can make a DRASTIC improvement in the image they are portraying to more accurately represent us. In this regard, I think they have fallen far behind the times and need some new blood to modernize things and bring us into the new century. Honestly, I'm just sick and tired of the Fudd shit the NRA constantly appears to be about. If I don't ever see another NRA ad with some dude in his hunting gear, bird dog, and an over under slung over his shoulder.....it will still be too soon. :rolleyes:
Sadly, it's not a perception, it's a reality. There are a lot more fudds out there than those who take the 2A serious enough to fight for it. The NRA knows that, so they cater to the fudds. :mad:
I never said that. But, the Supreme Court which is where any challenge to what you just mentioned would end has already ruled that states have the right to do it. The same way that states like Arizona have the right to loosen their laws.
The problem with California is California. People keep voted for idiots that make stupid laws. I know, I lived there most of my life until I sought asylum in Arizona.
If the NRA won't fight what is "permissable" but clearly wrong, then I won't support them.
Right now I have a mag-locked rifle with 10 rounds in it, a pistol I cant carry, and a 10 day waiting period with a firearm registration to boot. If they see this as permissable, well, so does the anti crowd.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.