# NRA Member?



## USCG Barebow (Feb 17, 2004)

*Nra*

I am because I enjoy all kinds of hunting.


----------



## harleyrider (Jul 5, 2006)

I am Taylor! :thumbs_up

HR


----------



## jbsoonerfan (Aug 15, 2008)

I am. Joined the week of the election. However, after their constant calling and asking for more money I will not be a member longer than a year. They called about 15 times within a 2 week period after I became a member. Sorry, but that isn't the best way to get me to donate more money.


----------



## Gary K (Nov 28, 2008)

AERO63 said:


> As the title reads...we're bowhunters here, but who's a member and who isn't?
> 
> Why or why not?


Bowhunting is a means to hunt, but so are the rifles, shotguns, and pistols I have. The libs want to take those away from us, and the NRA is the best organization standing in their way. Take for instance the new house bill introduced to start registering all firearm owners... supposedly due to interstate commerce (what a load of BS). We need the NRA to fight these nonstop attacks on our Constitutional rights.


----------



## draw29 (Dec 11, 2004)

I am a life Member. I am a little upset with them right now though. They were very instrumental in helping to get crossbows ok'd for use in Pa. I can't understand why they get involved with crossbows. Just maybe a lot of us bowhunters and NRA members had a different view on crossbow use in Pa.
The bill passed and you now can use a crossbow in Pa--NRA endorsement had a lot to do with it!!!!!:thumbs_do


----------



## wyetterp (Feb 28, 2008)

I'm paying payments for a life time membership. They've actually never called me. Mailed me some stuff though. 

They do a lot for our 2nd amendment rights, but also do a lot for hunting as well. Lately they takin a lot of steps to blend most of there initiatives w/hunting. i.e. assualt weapons, starting a movement that people use ar's for hunting. 

Either way they help & have a lot of government pursuadtion.


----------



## Bobmuley (Jan 14, 2004)

I was... I can only give to so many organizations and feel they need my help the least at the moment. Would love to give to all of them.


----------



## cannonman (Nov 29, 2008)

I am and probably always will be. Although I get tired of the solicitations for more money and then see one of the higher ups on some exotic hunt that I could never afford to go on.


----------



## bonessij (Jan 28, 2009)

i am. all kinds of hunting in my house


----------



## bbtownman (Oct 28, 2008)

*Catch 22*

I have been a member off and on through the years but like other posts, I got tired of the solicitation. I understand that they are most likely the single most powerful group in protecting our rights to arms, but some of their tactics do not sit well with me. I am not a member now, but try and find other ways to support the cause.


----------



## F16Mickey (Aug 22, 2006)

I am, I own guns and want to keep all of them. Including the "evil" ones with high capacity Mags.


----------



## Crazy_Boxer (Apr 24, 2008)

Absolutely !


----------



## Scoutman (May 7, 2007)

life member


----------



## fx4hauler (Jan 12, 2009)

I am. We need to remember that the reason we can still own guns is because the NRA was fighting for our 2nd amendment right. I believe that if they did not we would not be able to legally own guns. 
Has anyone tried telling the NRA when they call to solicit money to put you on their no call list?


----------



## slim9300 (Dec 4, 2004)

Any American that feels the 2nd Amendment is worth protecting and can afford it, should be a member of the NRA. And if you're a hunter (even if it's just with a bow) the same thing applies in my mind.


----------



## 116Buck (Dec 12, 2004)

I just upgraded to Patron member. If not for the NRA we would be in big trouble.


----------



## Rooselk (Aug 24, 2003)

When the NRA attacks our achery seasons, or tells us that we must allow crossbows in our archery seasons, then the NRA can take a hike as far as I'm concerned. Although I am a stong supporter of the Second Amendment, I have no use whatsover for the NRA.


----------



## teflonhunter (Sep 22, 2006)

Yes I am and if you hunt you should be to. They also work to protect our hunting rights.


----------



## sits in trees (Oct 9, 2006)

u just gotta be, that simple.


----------



## red44 (Apr 11, 2005)

I am. Darn tootin'. :wink:
Think of it this way, if your not an NRA member, your almost counted as an anti as far as politics goes. I may not be the loudest member, but I'd rather be counted as for, rather than against.


----------



## Shufigo (Apr 12, 2006)

*No, they chased me away.*

I belonged - twice - because of the need of an organization like that. But when they - repeatedly - after being phone called and asked to cease and desist - refused to stop their constant solicitations - I let my membership lapse. In this age of computers there must be a way to note a member's wishes in their system.


----------



## zyxw (Feb 19, 2007)

Nope but am a RMEF member


----------



## Newbie13 (Feb 16, 2005)

*Nra . . Yes*

who else is working harder to protect my 2A rights


----------



## FLDXT (Feb 15, 2008)

I am a member, but the constant solicitation does get old, but I will continue to be a member. 
I read an article once with an interview with an old Japenese officer who stated that the only reason the Japenese didn't attack the US mainland was due to the fact that the majority of the population were gun owners at the time, and we would establish an instant militia. 
I am tired of liberal lawmakers taking the guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens that go through the correct channels to purchase and carry firearms. How many gang banger homies or career criminals have purchased there guns from a legal gun dealer and are liscensed to carry, I would guess the percentage is fairly low. All this new legislation would do is help ensure that when one of these criminals breaks into my house or tries to mug me they wouldn't get two rounds in their brain. 
I will never give up my rights to carry and use my firearms in any manner I feel fit.


----------



## Campo (Sep 20, 2006)

No I am not a member of the Numbskull Republicans of America... :wink:

Who would want to be?


----------



## jkcerda (Jan 25, 2007)

nope, was once will never be again, they dont do crap for Kommiefornia, I now belong to the CBHA, they also fight for my right to hunt and they do it here in Kommiefornia.


----------



## Reflexman (Dec 14, 2008)

Life member


----------



## Bowhunter57 (Dec 14, 2002)

Gary K said:


> Bowhunting is a means to hunt, but so are the rifles, shotguns, and pistols I have. The libs want to take those away from us, and the NRA is the best organization standing in their way. Take for instance the new house bill introduced to start registering all firearm owners... supposedly due to interstate commerce (what a load of BS). We need the NRA to fight these nonstop attacks on our Constitutional rights.


Gary K,
You have my response, exactly! The NRA is the only organization standing for gun owners' rights. :thumb:

Good hunting, Bowhunter57


----------



## 410gage (Dec 14, 2008)

Campo said:


> > No I am not a member of the Numbskull Republicans of America... :wink:
> >
> > Who would want to be?


I would want to be! It takes slimy bottom feeding lawyers to successfully fight against slimy sell their soul politicians. I hire the NRA lawyers at $35 a year to speak for me. A pretty good deal, and thanks for asking.


----------



## WiseGuy (Dec 15, 2004)

NRA who? Where have they been lately. I was a member at one time. They're to busy with fund raising to actually do anything anymore. *They have lost their way*. Sad.


----------



## OH_Hunter24 (Nov 3, 2008)

YES! And I always will be a member.


----------



## JOEKILLA (Jan 14, 2009)

Life Member


----------



## Tecumseh (Jan 14, 2007)

Life Member. :thumbs_up


----------



## Hootie (Jul 21, 2003)

I am a proud NRA Life Member



I believe in gun control:
Being able to hit your target...


----------



## Rooselk (Aug 24, 2003)

red44 said:


> I am. Darn tootin'. :wink:
> Think of it this way, if your not an NRA member, your almost counted as an anti as far as politics goes. I may not be the loudest member, but I'd rather be counted as for, rather than against.


Not so. I live and hunt in the west. The NRA supports more than a few politicians who have nothing but contempt for our public lands. As a matter of fact if some of these same politicians could have their way they would sell our public lands to the highest bidder. However, that was certainly not the view of Theodore Roosevelt, who believed in public lands so that wildlife and hunting would be preserved forever and always be a part of American life. 

If hunting ever becomes an activity only for those with the means to afford it, then we will follow in the footsteps of the Europeans and hunting will indeed become a thing of the past. If one wants to defend hunting, then one must also defend our public lands. And, I'm sorry, but the NRA supports many who are enemies of our common public land heritage.


----------



## ridin_red (Mar 18, 2008)

Rooselk said:


> Not so. I live and hunt in the west. The NRA supports more than a few politicians who have nothing but contempt for our public lands. As a matter of fact if some of these same politicians could have their way they would sell our public lands to the highest bidder. However, that was certainly not the view of Theodore Roosevelt, who believed in public lands so that wildlife and hunting would be preserved forever and always be a part of American life.
> 
> If hunting ever becomes an activity only for those with the means to afford it, then we will follow in the footsteps of the Europeans and hunting will indeed become a thing of the past. If one wants to defend hunting, then one must also defend our public lands. And, I'm sorry, but the NRA supports many who are enemies of our common public land heritage.



Who do they support in WA that is an enemy to our public land?


----------



## mmcaleer (Dec 20, 2005)

bbtownman said:


> I have been a member off and on through the years but like other posts, I got tired of the solicitation. I understand that they are most likely the single most powerful group in protecting our rights to arms, but some of their tactics do not sit well with me. I am not a member now, but try and find other ways to support the cause.


I can understand the solicitation. That is done by a marketing firm they hire. Ever heard of "out of sight, out of mind"? If they don't solicit you every chance they get you might give your money to another cause, like the local bar.

I am curious, what "tactics" don't you like? It is very simple. We have the right to keep and bear arms. The libs will find any way to get them out of your hands. I don't hear them arguing in front of congress to get rid of the first amendment.

All sportsmen need to stay together. Stop saying, "I don't hunt with a semi-auto rifle. Let them take it, and they won't come for my bolt action rifle." That is exactly what they want. Divide and conquer. The antis want to separate us all into our hunting/shooting cliques then pick us off one by one.

And by the way, the second amendment isn't about hunting. It is about protecting ourselves from a government becoming too powerful. The Second Amendment, the difference between Politicians and Rulers.


"NO FREE MAN SHALL EVER BE BARRED THE USE OF ARMS" - JEFFERSON


----------



## mmcaleer (Dec 20, 2005)

Rooselk said:


> Not so. I live and hunt in the west. The NRA supports more than a few politicians who have nothing but contempt for our public lands. As a matter of fact if some of these same politicians could have their way they would sell our public lands to the highest bidder. However, that was certainly not the view of Theodore Roosevelt, who believed in public lands so that wildlife and hunting would be preserved forever and always be a part of American life.
> 
> If hunting ever becomes an activity only for those with the means to afford it, then we will follow in the footsteps of the Europeans and hunting will indeed become a thing of the past. If one wants to defend hunting, then one must also defend our public lands. And, I'm sorry, but the NRA supports many who are enemies of our common public land heritage.


The NRA supports politicians based on a grade they receive on their voting record on gun control. They don't necessarily look at their other voting records. They give you the tools and information you need to make up your mind when you go to the polls.


----------



## harleyrider (Jul 5, 2006)

FLDXT said:


> I am a member, but the constant solicitation does get old, but I will continue to be a member.
> I read an article once with an interview with an old Japenese officer who stated that the only reason the Japenese didn't attack the US mainland was due to the fact that the majority of the population were gun owners at the time, and we would establish an instant militia.
> I am tired of liberal lawmakers taking the guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens that go through the correct channels to purchase and carry firearms. How many gang banger homies or career criminals have purchased there guns from a legal gun dealer and are liscensed to carry, I would guess the percentage is fairly low. All this new legislation would do is help ensure that when one of these criminals breaks into my house or tries to mug me they wouldn't get two rounds in their brain.
> I will never give up my rights to carry and use my firearms in any manner I feel fit.


I like your style!:thumbs_up

HR


----------



## red44 (Apr 11, 2005)

Rooselk said:


> Not so. I live and hunt in the west. The NRA supports more than a few politicians who have nothing but contempt for our public lands. As a matter of fact if some of these same politicians could have their way they would sell our public lands to the highest bidder. However, that was certainly not the view of Theodore Roosevelt, who believed in public lands so that wildlife and hunting would be preserved forever and always be a part of American life.
> 
> If hunting ever becomes an activity only for those with the means to afford it, then we will follow in the footsteps of the Europeans and hunting will indeed become a thing of the past. If one wants to defend hunting, then one must also defend our public lands. And, I'm sorry, but the NRA supports many who are enemies of our common public land heritage.


I can't say that I agree with every viewpoint of the NRA, but I do want to be able to have my SGs and rifles and HGs. They are undoubtedly the biggest voice protecting that RIGHT. I live in a very Kennedy state, I do fear losing that right to keep and bear arms. Untill there is a better group to grab onto, the NRA will keep me as a member.


----------



## harleyrider (Jul 5, 2006)

mmcaleer said:


> And by the way, the second amendment isn't about hunting. It is about protecting ourselves from a government becoming too powerful. The Second Amendment, the difference between Politicians and Rulers.


Truer words never spoken. It's the basis for how we became a free country and honestly, it's the basis for how we remain a free country.

HR


----------



## ALLEN66 (Jan 15, 2009)

Was a member fo several years but got fed up with the constant begging for money. The more you donate the more they want. If they stopped the calls and mailings and used the yearly dues for the cause, they'ed have plenty of money.


----------



## OH_Hunter24 (Nov 3, 2008)

mmcaleer said:


> All sportsmen need to stay together. Stop saying, "I don't hunt with a semi-auto rifle. Let them take it, and they won't come for my bolt action rifle." That is exactly what they want. Divide and conquer. The antis want to separate us all into our hunting/shooting cliques then pick us off one by one.
> 
> And by the way, the second amendment isn't about hunting. It is about protecting ourselves from a government becoming too powerful. The Second Amendment, the difference between Politicians and Rulers.
> 
> ...


Very good point. I have to admit I had that mindset and couldn't have cared less if they got rid of 'assault rifles'. But now, I see the importance of keeping them around, even though I might not use them because once they start taking, they'll keep going.

I might also add that the gun-grabbers are going further than some might think. I have been reading just about all of the gun-related legislation that I can get on my computer screen and have found some surprising things. Probably the most surprising thing I saw was one piece of legislation calling for the ban of such shotguns as the Remington 1100! They specifially mentioned this model. This is the shotgun that my dad handed down to me and I would like to hand down to a son of my own, to be created in the future.


----------



## Lyanz (Jan 6, 2009)

Yes I am a member..... as for why..

SECOND AMENDMENT
A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be
infringed.


----------



## kingvjack (Mar 26, 2008)

AERO63 said:


> As the title reads...we're bowhunters here, but who's a member and who isn't?
> 
> Why or why not?
> 
> I am. :thumbs_up


I am not... because I am not a propaganda guy... I'm an activist.
I actively work in conservation.
I actively hunt
I actively support organizations that support hunting... not sport


----------



## dmason390 (Jun 30, 2008)

kingvjack said:


> I am not... because I am not a propaganda guy... I'm an activist.
> I actively work in conservation.
> I actively hunt
> I actively support organizations that support hunting... not sport


Agreed to an extent. The NRA has lost it's way and become more of a political tool of the far right. They seem to really push things issues with slants that are not quite accurate and will really slant things to seem more "dire" than necessary to solicit more money. I am pro hunting, pro second amendment, but commonsense tells me that certain arms are not sold for hunting...... I get self defense and if I have learned nothing else it is to fear the police if you have an unarmed populace ( ever notice police organizations are the biggest anti NRA folks?), but please tell me the legitimate use of a street sweeper or a fully fully automatic SK? Better yet what are you hunting and how do realistically manuver an SK in tight quarters for defense? Example........ The hype for the 2008 election..... when did Obama, Hillary or even Biden suggest banning firearms or even raising taxes on ammo? Yet the hysteria drove up the sales of arms and even ammo...... for what? I am from Va owned a fire arm since I was young, but seriously...... I quickly saw through the hype!


----------



## mmcaleer (Dec 20, 2005)

dmason390 said:


> Agreed to an extent. The NRA has lost it's way and become more of a political tool of the far right. They seem to really push things issues with slants that are not quite accurate and will really slant things to seem more "dire" than necessary to solicit more money. I am pro hunting, pro second amendment, but commonsense tells me that certain arms are not sold for hunting...... I get self defense and if I have learned nothing else it is to fear the police if you have an unarmed populace ( ever notice police organizations are the biggest anti NRA folks?), but please tell me the legitimate use of a street sweeper or a fully fully automatic SK? Better yet what are you hunting and how do realistically manuver an SK in tight quarters for defense? Example........ The hype for the 2008 election..... when did Obama, Hillary or even Biden suggest banning firearms or even raising taxes on ammo? Yet the hysteria drove up the sales of arms and even ammo...... for what? I am from Va owned a fire arm since I was young, but seriously...... I quickly saw through the hype!


Again, the Second Amendment is NOT about hunting. You could lose that faster than your right to keep and bear firearms. Only the Constitution protects your right to keep and bear arms, and it says NOTHING about hunting.

Fully Auto - The assault weapons ban has nothing to do with automatic weapons; NOTHING. Those are regulated by the BATF.

The Election Hype - Look at their voting record. Obama is against firearm ownership. Look at Obama's voting record.

* Ok for states & cities to determine local gun laws. (Apr 2008)
* FactCheck: Yes, Obama endorsed Illinois handgun ban. (Apr 2008)
* Respect 2nd Amendment, but local gun bans ok. (Feb 2008)
* Provide some common-sense enforcement on gun licensing. (Jan 2008)
* 2000: cosponsored bill to limit purchases to 1 gun per month. (Oct 2007)
* Concealed carry OK for retired police officers. (Aug 2007)
* Stop unscrupulous gun dealers dumping guns in cities. (Jul 2007)
* Keep guns out of inner cities--but also problem of morality. (Oct 2006)
* Bush erred in failing to renew assault weapons ban. (Oct 2004)
* Ban semi-automatics, and more possession restrictions. (Jul 1998)
* Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers. (Jul 2005)

NRA is a Political Tool - Correct, that is one of their purposes and one you hear the most about. It is the sole purpose of the NRA-ILA. It is your collective voice to Congress. We as individuals have little influence but as a collective group of over two million we have a large influence.

The NRA has many different divisions for different purposes such as Hunter Service which has a great program for kids called YHEC (Youth Hunter Education Challenge), Shooting Sports which supports competition shooting like the Olympics and many others.


----------



## WiseGuy (Dec 15, 2004)

"The NRA has many different divisions for different purposes such as...."

Yeah too many!! Try and follow that convoluted website of different divisions - it's ridiculous.
FOCUS LIKE A LASER BEAM on the target (which is not my wallet)- there right on our *****. 
The price they pay for every dollar in fund raising has got to be outrageous. For every dollar from us, they must spend .75 to get another dollar. Just go buy a few senators - that's how it works!!


----------



## Cyrille (Nov 30, 2008)

I have been an annual member sice the early seventies and will continue to be one as long as the NRA and I are in exsitance. I do not agree with a number of NRA doings, such as accepting ads from 4 wheelers and bedroom merchants [what do bedrooms have to do with gun rights/hunting etc?] I particularly do not approve of their constant solicatations for money. I will, however continue to send in my yearly dues because they are our best hope for preserving the second amendment as it stands against those who would strip us of the entire bill of rights enshrined in our constitution.


----------



## WiseGuy (Dec 15, 2004)

I didn't hear a peep from them this last election. Must have been planning there next fundraiser.


----------



## Matt Musto (May 12, 2008)

I was until I canceled my membership yesterday after seeing them back crossbow inclusion in PA's archery season:angry:


----------



## OH_Hunter24 (Nov 3, 2008)

Matt Musto said:


> I was until I canceled my membership yesterday after seeing them back crossbow inclusion in PA's archery season:angry:


:set1_thinking: Seriously? I think you will see in about 2 years that this rash decision was a mistake. I understand why Pennsylvania hunters are having a temper tantrum over this (heck, if I didn't already know that crossbows didn't hurt Ohio's herd I might feel the same way) but everything will be OK.


----------



## UCNYbowhunter (Mar 31, 2007)

Yup always will too


----------



## mmcaleer (Dec 20, 2005)

Matt Musto said:


> I was until I canceled my membership yesterday after seeing them back crossbow inclusion in PA's archery season:angry:


Cut off you nose to spite your face? I guess you'll quit shooting your bow if ASA or IBO make a rule change you don't like?

I'm not happy about that decision either. I don't think they should add crossbows into regular archery season either.

I have never voted for a politician that had 100% of my views on politics. That didn't stop me from voting for one of them. Sometime you just have to choose the lesser of two evils.


----------



## teflonhunter (Sep 22, 2006)

Campo said:


> No I am not a member of the Numbskull Republicans of America... :wink:
> 
> Who would want to be?


 Campo , Campo , Campo , :bartstush:


----------



## akacornelius (Jan 14, 2009)

draw29 said:


> I am a life Member. I am a little upset with them right now though. They were very instrumental in helping to get crossbows ok'd for use in Pa. I can't understand why they get involved with crossbows. Just maybe a lot of us bowhunters and NRA members had a different view on crossbow use in Pa.
> The bill passed and you now can use a crossbow in Pa--NRA endorsement had a lot to do with it!!!!!:thumbs_do


( I dont have a problem per say, with crossbow hunting.)I hate to say it, but there is a big problem with hunters. They are not getting any younger any time soon. Nothing wrong with that. This is just my observation. 

I was really irritated a few months back when me and 2 buddies went to the local gun club on their annual open house week. This was to try and recruit new members. Everyone in the building was over 50. All were snobby and rude to us. Talking down to us about our guns. Talking up about their thousands of dollars worth of arsenals.

News flash grandpas!!! YOU NEED US. YOU WANNA CARRY ON TRADITION??
YOU WANT TO PRESERVE WHAT YOU LOVE?

EMBRACE YOUNG BLOOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I VOTE, AND SO DO MY FRIENDS.


----------



## polarbear06 (Oct 30, 2007)

I just can't believe we have members of our community that don't support the NRA. The media really has done a great job misrepresenting what the NRA does and what it stands for. Even our own kind have been sadly mislead.


----------



## Ohio_3Der (Jul 19, 2002)

Over here in Ohio we've had crossbows since I can remember. We're still having problems killing enough deer. Next season the urban zones will be unlimited bag limits to bowhunters. 

I would cringe if my son wanted to buy a crossbow for hunting. They aren't for me, and I hope I pass that along to both of them. But, we, as bowhunters and hunters alike, need to stick together. The more people we have in the woods, the bigger voice we'll have in the future against more important fights, like trying to save our hunting privledges all together. 

Just an opinion from a NRA life member. (the absolute best way to get them not to send you anything ever again!  )


----------



## rjtfroggy (Dec 5, 2006)

Cyrille said:


> I have been an annual member sice the early seventies and will continue to be one as long as the NRA and I are in exsitance. I do not agree with a number of NRA doings, such as accepting ads from 4 wheelers and bedroom merchants [what do bedrooms have to do with gun rights/hunting etc?] I particularly do not approve of their constant solicatations for money. I will, however continue to send in my yearly dues because they are our best hope for preserving the second amendment as it stands against those who would strip us of the entire bill of rights enshrined in our constitution.


 Exactly how I feel. All hunters reguardless of chosen weapon should unite to ward off the anti everythings.


----------



## wis_archer (Jul 27, 2007)

I will be joining the NRA soon, so I voted yes.


----------



## jetthelooter (Feb 9, 2009)

my take on the NRA is that they are not the organization they used to be. i see them now as a political animal and far more concerned with keeping their pet politicians in power than doing what is right.

for instance back ground checks are a common sense thing. it is unconctitutional for a felon to own a firearm. the NRA opposes any sort of background check leaving the honest gun shop owner to decide by looking at a person if that person is a felon or not...

the NRA opposes checks for guns sold at gun shows. see above for reasons. 

so instead of coming at it from removing waiting periods and coming up with methods of insuring that felons are not buying guns they just oppose anything at all regardless of how much sense it makes. this does far more harm to the cause of gun ownership than it does good.

i am a huge fan of firearms but i have never been a member of the NRA as i have not been convinced they have any real desire to protect consitutional ownership of firearms. they reach for my money with one hand and pat politicians on the back with the other and are more concerned with getting any old politician elected that has an R behind his/her name regardless of the worth of that person.


----------



## Silver Pine (Dec 9, 2005)

jetthelooter said:


> for instance back ground checks are a common sense thing. it is unconctitutional for a felon to own a firearm. the NRA opposes any sort of background check leaving the honest gun shop owner to decide by looking at a person if that person is a felon or not...
> 
> the NRA opposes checks for guns sold at gun shows. see above for reasons.
> 
> ...



Your take on the NRA is incorrect. The NRA has worked with legislators to write laws requiring computerized "instant" criminal records checks on firearm purchaser and those who carry firearms for protection in public. They have also worked for sentencing convicted violent criminals to actual prison time instead of probation.

As far as protecting the Constitution, appearently you didn't hear the outcome of DC vs Heller. The Constitution won and the NRA was primarily responsible. You also might not have heard that it was the NRA that filed restraining orders against Mayor Nagin and the City of New Orleans to stop their ILLEGAL and UNCONSTITUTIONAL gun grab after Katrina. All of the media outlets covered the story, I guess you missed it. 

You're also wrong about the NRA only backing Republicans. They/I have a rating system based on the candidates positions and voting records. The NRA backs politicians who support the 2nd, who support firearm owners, hunters, and target shooters and who believe that THE PEOPLE have a natural, inalienable right to self-defense. Even Domocrats. You might be confused on this issue because there are NO senior Democrat Congressmen or Senators who aren't in favor of disarming Americans one gun at a time. 

Where did you get your misinformation from? Hillary? Kennedy? Sarah Brady?

:dontknow:


----------



## OH_Hunter24 (Nov 3, 2008)

:set1_signs009: Well put


----------



## jetthelooter (Feb 9, 2009)

Silver Pine said:


> Your take on the NRA is incorrect. The NRA has worked with legislators to write laws requiring computerized "instant" criminal records checks on firearm purchaser and those who carry firearms for protection in public. They have also worked for sentencing convicted violent criminals to actual prison time instead of probation.
> 
> As far as protecting the Constitution, appearently you didn't hear the outcome of DC vs Heller. The Constitution won and the NRA was primarily responsible. You also might not have heard that it was the NRA that filed restraining orders against Mayor Nagin and the City of New Orleans to stop their ILLEGAL and UNCONSTITUTIONAL gun grab after Katrina. All of the media outlets covered the story, I guess you missed it.
> 
> ...


no need for insults. i simply gave my impressions which is what the original poster was asking for.

i get my information from their actions. the NRA supports non-sensical things and often goes off the deep end on things that do nothing to supoort the cause. it makes me wonder if they have their prioirties right. it is what holds me back from joining them. i think you are confusing my points with a strict black and white outlook. 

i am neither a republican nor a democrat or a green party or nadarite or any other wacky group. i consider myself a constitutionalist. i believe that the government we have today is completely out of bounds. there are two groups in this country those that have rights and those that have forfeited them all some or none by choice. the ones that have forfeited some or all are what we call felons.

one of the major areas where i split ways with the aims of the NRA is their views on background checks. their stand on fighting all checks is ridiculous. how can a gun seller or trader at a gunshow know that a person coming in the door and looking to buy is a felon or not?? i totally object to arming people who already have shown and proven they have little to no regard for the law and the rights of others. 

so if you think that is jumping in and joining obama on a anti-gun run through the country you obviously only read what you wanted to read with what i actually said.


----------



## SteveB (Dec 18, 2003)

> it is unconctitutional for a felon to own a firearm.


Can you point out where in the constitution this is?
Don't ever remember seeing it.

Steve


----------



## jetthelooter (Feb 9, 2009)

SteveB said:


> Can you point out where in the constitution this is?
> Don't ever remember seeing it.
> 
> Steve


Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. 

this enables this ammendment:

Amendment XIV
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. 

The right of felons to keep and bear arms are recognized to be duly removed through due process of law as enumerated in amendment XIV. this is where the constitution says a felon may not own guns. their rightto ammendment 2 is recognized as removed in accordance with ammendment X as the jury of the people having the right to remove said right of bearing arms in accordance with amendment XIV.

perhaps you should do more than read and comprehend just one of the many items in the constitution. the constitution is not merely a document that outlines rights. it governs our everyday society and all laws created by the states and by the united states congress. that leads us into the primary function of the supreme court. they determine if the laws we as the people and the states create are constitutional or not.


----------



## jetthelooter (Feb 9, 2009)

one other thing. people often get wrapped up in the second ammendment right to own guns. it does not refer in any fashion to guns to begin with it is further reaching than that narrow view. the second amendment covers the right to bear arms. this includes bows, xbows, knives, swords, ninja throwing stars, automatic weapons, grenades, tanks, warships etc.

the second amendment covers the rights of the people and the government itself to keep and bear arms. it makes no difference what that weapon is whether it is club with a spike on the end or the laser from the death star (if it was real). 

my argument is that the NRA ONLY focuses on one type of firearm. not all arms. i am sorry if i did not make my point as well as i could have i am not the most eloquent person in the world. the NRA squirrels off the path of doing the right thing chasing shadows when they real threat is burning the forrest down around them.


----------



## jetthelooter (Feb 9, 2009)

kingvjack said:


> Hype... Propaganda... It's all good....
> Just keep believing that your money you throw at those folks does something. Especially with the new restrictions Obamas gonna put on lobbyists...
> I'm sayin, join DU, NWTF, Quail and Pheasants forever... Join a hunting heritage fund...
> Don't toss your funds at the NRA just because some dude said it would save your rights... because its not going to.
> ...



this is exactly correct. john mccain and feingold opened the door on removing your right to free speech which is FAR FAR FAR more important than the gun issue. once you lose your right to speech it is so easy for the socialists to take away all the rest. 

the first thing that occured in venezuala when hugo chavez took over is he removed the right to free speach. he didnt touch the gun issue.

the liberals in this country are made of bait and switch they keep the NRA and gun lovers looking at one hand while they strangle your REAL rights with the other.


----------



## SteveB (Dec 18, 2003)

> perhaps you should do more than read and comprehend just one of the many items in the constitution


.

Thanks for the answer - not for the attitude.
I was simply inquiring as I had never heard that felons where precluded by the constitution - I was not expressing an opinion either way. But now that you have given your interpretation, I have to say I see it different. But continuing the discussion would be pointless, as you consider your opinion as fact.

Steve


----------



## jetthelooter (Feb 9, 2009)

SteveB said:


> .
> 
> Thanks for the answer - not for the attitude.
> I was simply inquiring as I had never heard that felons where precluded by the constitution - I was not expressing an opinion either way. But now that you have given your interpretation, I have to say I see it different. But continuing the discussion would be pointless, as you consider your opinion as fact.
> ...


sorry, my apologies to you. i felt i was being attacked for holding the opinion i do about the NRA. i am an avid gun owner and i truly enjoy my weapons whether they shoot bullets or arrows. sometimes the printed word does not do justice in giving the intent and emotion of the author. so i apologize for my words coming out as harsh as they did.


----------



## Silver Pine (Dec 9, 2005)

jetthelooter said:


> no need for insults. i simply gave my impressions which is what the original poster was asking for.
> 
> i get my information from their actions. the NRA supports non-sensical things and often goes off the deep end on things that do nothing to supoort the cause. it makes me wonder if they have their prioirties right. it is what holds me back from joining them. i think you are confusing my points with a strict black and white outlook.
> 
> ...



I haven't insulted anyone. I asked you a question. 

Now I'll ask you another question - What nonsense-icle things are you referring to exactly?

The NRA is in favor of instant background checks. They don't back the registration/confiscation background checks endorsed by the Brady Bunch where all transactions are registered and kept by the BATFE or any other government agency. 

Licensed dealers, even at gunshows, are required to do background checks. Individuals are not required to submit sales information, same rules as outside of gunshows. 

The NRA is NOT in favor of arming people who lost their right to bear arms. They never were and never will be but you keep repeating that. 

Where did you get this incorrect information from?


DU wasn't instrumental in overturning the DC gun ban. The NRA was. 
NTWF didn't stop the illegal firearm confiscations in New Olreans. The NRA did.
Quail and Pheasants forever didn't recently force 4 Illinois cities to recind their gun bans. The NRA did that. 

These are all fine organizations in their own right but they don't have the legal expertise or manpower of the NRA. 

For only $35 a year, the NRA is pretty cheap insurance that we don't lose our firearms.

:cocktail:


----------



## jetthelooter (Feb 9, 2009)

Silver Pine said:


> I haven't insulted anyone. I asked you a question.
> 
> Now I'll ask you another question - What nonsense-icle things are you referring to exactly?
> 
> ...


you seem to be against my opinon to begin with since it does not agree with your view on things. you contradict yourself. you say in one place that the nra is for checks then say they are not.... which is it. my argument is that indivuals should not be excluded from that type of check. the NRA DOES NOT support something as common sense as that. 

i am against arming people that have already proven they have no regard for my right to life liberty and property. i have no issue with the government keeping track of who sells a firearm to whom. they keep track of vehicles travel how much money one spends where people live; they keep track of who we live with marry love and bear children with. what makes guns any different?? 

i am not one that thinks just not having a record of who has a gun and who doesnt will stop jack-booted thugs from searching homes for weapons. so why are you hating me for my opinon?? 

your statements above of the NRA not supporting background checks for private sales is one thing of many where i differ with them on. it is one reason i refuse to join the NRA. i do not believe they are truly supporting my interests.

you are entitled to your opinion and i am not certain why you and the NRA think it is ok for gangs to hire non-felons to go to guns shows and buy guns from private citizens with no record of who or where such deadly items are going. 

i am not and have never been for banning guns. i am for confiscating guns from evil people who use their clean background to arm felons. the NRA is for keeping that pipe line open. you say it yourself so where am i getting info from??

i am getting it directly from the NRA and its supporters. thats where. so if you are done harranguing me from holding a different opinon in a thread that appears to ask for such you hold your opinion i will hold mine and leave it at that.


----------



## Bllade (Sep 13, 2008)

Life Member, because your gun rights are as important to me as mine are.

It never ceases to amaze me of the shortmindedness of some people. If they can not have it all their way then it is no good and anybody else is ignorant.
As far as solicitations, I have not recieved one from the NRA in over two years.


----------



## Silver Pine (Dec 9, 2005)

jetthelooter said:


> you seem to be against my opinon to begin with since it does not agree with your view on things. you contradict yourself. you say in one place that the nra is for checks then say they are not.... which is it.
> 
> you are entitled to your opinion and i am not certain why you and the NRA think it is ok for gangs to hire non-felons to go to guns shows and buy guns from private citizens with no record of who or where such deadly items are going.
> 
> ...



Harranguing you? Hating you? Insulting you? 

("Quote me as saying I was misquoted." - Groucho Marx)

You have an interesting ability to channel your imagination into ever-soaring levels of suspicion and paranoia. You obviously don't understand what I wrote about the different backgound check bills that have been introduced over the last several decades and who supports which. Your information does not come from NRA supporters. It's only your mis-interpretation to suit you personel bias.


No cocktail for you.


----------

