Quandary: To join the NRA or not? (Long)
Rob Frick
group for several months now and must say you all provide a wealth of
information. When the boss isn't around, this group is as entertaining
and helpful as sneaking into the restroom with a copy of Bowhunter. :)
Which is why I want to submit for your comments and insight a question I've
been asking myself for several years now - should I join the NRA?
I'm an avid hunter, angler, and consider myself fairly well
informed on environmental and conservation issues. I am not a member of
any local or national hunting or fishing groups (yet), nor am I beholden
to any particular political or moral philosophy. Every six months or so
an appeal to join the NRA comes in the mail. Each time, I read the
letter from Mr. La Pierre, consider the tangible benefits (the American
Hunter and Rifleman magazines are top notch publications), and wonder if
being a member will really help me become a better shooter, hunter, and
preserve the right for me and future generations to hunt or even own a gun.
Yesterday I received another membership appeal that really made me wonder
about the NRA motives. It contained a so-called tag poll with questions
asking my opinions on what may well be dubious or non-existent
issues. Now I have some experience in designing polls and gathering
information for both scientific and public policy uses, but this was
nothing more than a good example of fund raising PR, of which any number
of political, social service, religious, and charitable organizations
use. I don't have a problem with that. But I didn't like the nature of
the questions in the poll, nor did I care for the personal attacks,
innuendo, and just plain falsehoods directed at the president and "the
media".
I know there are real threats to our ability to own firearms, as well as
some ignorant and ill reasoned attempts to deny us our rights to
hunt and fish. The NRA is a powerful voice in these issues and I
understand and appreciate the need for a national organization that
supports honest gun owners and hunters. But this appeal, along with the
one I got last year (didn't have the infamous jack booted thug statement,
but did have a nice picture of nazi soldiers with FBI, ATF and other
federal agency acronyms stamped all over it) does nothing to raise my
comfort level and tell me that this is a group I want to be associated with.
Granted, the NRA gets a lot of bad press from media sources with definite
political agendas and by just plain ignorant reporters and commentators.
I don't believe everything I read or hear, which is why I try and get
news and info from several sources. I understand the NRA's sponsorship
of firearms safety courses, shooting ranges, youth organizations, and
support for law enforcement are all good things. These are whai I would
like to bea part of. But I don't want my supposed "spokesman to the media", as
this membership appeal likens itself, to only be a loud, angry, and
(maybe my not so informed opinion?) rigid pack of blowhards. Lord knows
there are enough of them in this country.
So I'm appealing to the experience and opinion of both the NRA members of
this newsgroup and nonmembers. Am I being thin-skinned? Should I
try to separate the message from the messanger? Perhaps if I
read my post again, I will find I've answered my own question, but then again,
there are probably a lot of things I haven't considered.
Please reply via email or post to the group if you think this is a worthy
topic for discussion.
Robert Frick
Technical Writer in Residence
bioMerieux Vitek
*****I don't speak for them, for which they are most appreciative.*****
Dan Teja
> snip
> an appeal to join the NRA comes in the mail. Each time, I read the
> letter from Mr. La Pierre, consider the tangible benefits (the
snip
> about the NRA motives. It contained a so-called tag poll with questions
I am in the same position. I was so offended by the letters I
received from Mr. La Pierre that I let my NRA membership lapse.
I feel kinda guilty about it but at the same time I am very
concerned about the people that represent me (thats why I get
so pi$$ed off at the governement). I thought the Tag poll was
a joke and insult.
I am still tempted to join the NRA though. I once asked a
refugee from Beruit if the PLO was really the voice of the
Palestinian people. He thought about it for a while and finally
said "They are, only because there is no one else to speak for
us". That is how I am beginning to feel about the NRA.
Just MHO.
d.t.
Rick Eads
: Yesterday I received another membership appeal that really made me wonder
: about the NRA motives. It contained a so-called tag poll with questions
: asking my opinions on what may well be dubious or non-existent
: issues. Now I have some experience in designing polls and gathering
: information for both scientific and public policy uses, but this was
: nothing more than a good example of fund raising PR, of which any number
: of political, social service, religious, and charitable organizations
: use. I don't have a problem with that. But I didn't like the nature of
: the questions in the poll, nor did I care for the personal attacks,
: innuendo, and just plain falsehoods directed at the president and "the
: media".
Rob,
Thanks for bringing this up as this points out one of the things I'd
like to see the NRA fix. I've worked in marketing for over 10 years
now and have been involved in a number of survey and choice modeling
experiments. One thing you learn early on is that you never combine
fund rasing with data gathering if you hope to get reliable results.
The NRA has always seemed to combine fund raising with "data
gathering" (at least since I was 13 or so). This of course makes any
conclusions drawn from their surveys suspect from a scientific point
of view. If they want data they should get the data, If they want
money they should just ask for money and not try to combine both
efforts in a single piece. To do otherwise might imply that they do
not consider the data received to be the primary goal of the
exercise.
: I know there are real threats to our ability to own firearms, as well as
: some ignorant and ill reasoned attempts to deny us our rights to
: hunt and fish. The NRA is a powerful voice in these issues and I
: understand and appreciate the need for a national organization that
: supports honest gun owners and hunters. But this appeal, along with the
: one I got last year (didn't have the infamous jack booted thug statement,
: but did have a nice picture of nazi soldiers with FBI, ATF and other
: federal agency acronyms stamped all over it) does nothing to raise my
: comfort level and tell me that this is a group I want to be associated with.
This is the reason I belong to the NRA. It is a powerful force in
the political arena and, though it might not be the perfect
organization, is certainly worth supporting.
If you hunt, shoot, or otherwise believe in the second ammendment
we'd love to see you join the NRA.
Regards,
Rick Eads
ea...@col.hp.com
buddy...@shivasys.com
>Which is why I want to submit for your comments and insight a question I've
>been asking myself for several years now - should I join the NRA?
>I'm an avid hunter, angler, and consider myself fairly well
>informed on environmental and conservation issues. I am not a member of
>any local or national hunting or fishing groups (yet), nor am I beholden
>to any particular political or moral philosophy. Every six months or so
>an appeal to join the NRA comes in the mail. Each time, I read the
>letter from Mr. La Pierre, consider the tangible benefits (the American
>Hunter and Rifleman magazines are top notch publications), and wonder if
>being a member will really help me become a better shooter, hunter, and
>preserve the right for me and future generations to hunt or even own a gun.
I have been a life member of NRA for 20 years and recently
upgraded to Endowment Member. The NRA is the only voice
protecting the Second amendment with the necessary clout to
be a player. Like any institution however it must bend to
the will of its vocal membership. The silent have never
gotten much accomplished but the squeaky wheel always gets
greased. Also like any organization it is a political
machine. The difference is: the agenda is something I feel
is not only something I usually agree heartily with, but is
necessary to maintain the liberties of this country.
To answer your question, however...MOST DEFINITELY you and
every other person who wishes to protect the guarantees of
the second amendment should be an active and outspoken
member of theNRA. If you're not a member, it's a bit like
not voting....no bitching rights.
>use. I don't have a problem with that. But I didn't like the nature of
>the questions in the poll, nor did I care for the personal attacks,
>innuendo, and just plain falsehoods directed at the president and "the
>media".
More reason to be a member. The administrators of the NRA
will definitely pay more attention to a member rather than a
mere grumbler. Regardless of your outlook YOU must make
that feeling known, and with the NRA on the net and
available via email it is a simple task. (WWW.NRA.ORG)
>federal agency acronyms stamped all over it) does nothing to raise my
>comfort level and tell me that this is a group I want to be associated with.
The jack-booted thugs may have been overkill but it raised
the matter to a high level to get results. Sure the fund
raising gimmicks get crass but nobody ever went broke
underestimating the lack of taste of the public. Look at
the Talk shows both TV and radio. Not to justify low level
tactics but sometimes all organizations slip into the
cesspool of public whim.
>news and info from several sources. I understand the NRA's sponsorship
>of firearms safety courses, shooting ranges, youth organizations, and
>support for law enforcement are all good things. These are whai I would
>like to bea part of. But I don't want my supposed "spokesman to the media", as
>this membership appeal likens itself, to only be a loud, angry, and
>(maybe my not so informed opinion?) rigid pack of blowhards. Lord knows
>there are enough of them in this country.
Your spokesman to the media may not always speak as you wish
but then they are pressured to respond to the majority.
That happens to be the majority trhey hear from, that as you
know may not always be the real majority. Also I have found
their research to be very well done, and very few glaring
oversights or blatant errors. Also, usually the source ie
FBI UC reports etc are cited. More than I can say for other
organizations and the mainstream media.
>So I'm appealing to the experience and opinion of both the NRA members of
>this newsgroup and nonmembers. Am I being thin-skinned? Should I
>try to separate the message from the messanger? Perhaps if I
>read my post again, I will find I've answered my own question, but then again,
>there are probably a lot of things I haven't considered.
Definitely separate the message from the messenger and if
you don't care for the messenger let them know, in
writing... But a united front is necessary to continue to
protect the greatest freedoms the world has ever seen.
73
Buddy Sohl
buddy...@shivasys.com
KC4WQ
Thomas H Miller
: Greetings fellow hunters. I've lurked and read the postings on this
: group for several months now and must say you all provide a wealth of
: information. When the boss isn't around, this group is as entertaining
: and helpful as sneaking into the restroom with a copy of Bowhunter. :)
: Which is why I want to submit for your comments and insight a question I've
: been asking myself for several years now - should I join the NRA?
: Robert Frick
: Technical Writer in Residence
: bioMerieux Vitek
Dear Robert:
If not the NRA, than who will protect our rights to own firearms?
If you do want to join, than consider a life membership. This will allow
you to vote in the next board selection and will allow you to fix what
you don't like.
I don't always agree with the NRA's tactics, but in the big picture, we
would sure be worse off without them.
Tom
--
*************** Will Rogers never met Bill Clinton ****************
** Tom Miller ** |"No man should be criticized for
E-mail tmi...@umabnet.ab.umd.edu | defending his rights"
Chief of Engineering, Md EMS Comm | Justice Robert G. Gillepsie
Happy!
I was in this position three years ago. As a seventeen year old
kid (at the time) $25 represented a good quarter of a pay check but I
decided to get a full on memebrship in the organization. Before I had
even received my first copy of "American Hunter" I received a letter
saying dues would go up to $35 per year and although not bound to pay the
extra ten bucks, I should feel compelled to as a decent American. I was
insulted and have since taken the same amount of money and joined the
Arizona Wildlife Federation, an organization that really has it together.
I would recommend to everyone not so sold on the NRA they make an
equivalent financial contribution, if the money is not the concern, to a
local organization. If the NRA needs support so they can brag about
numbers (3.5 million, etc.), make an effort to have your organization
write a letter of support to the NRA to get that number in tact (i.e. "We
the members of Bob's Backyard Safari Club, representing 150 voting
Americans in Cobb County, GA, give our full support to the NRA on the
issue of providing every new boy scout with his own snipe hunting gunny
sack...", etc.).
If you really believe government needs to get out of Washington
and into the states and communities (which I know many of you do), the so
shouldn't the organizations you support represent the same philosophy?
Cheers,
Matt
On Wed, 10 Jan 1996, Dan Teja wrote:
> Rob Frick wrote:
> > snip
>
> > an appeal to join the NRA comes in the mail. Each time, I read the
> > letter from Mr. La Pierre, consider the tangible benefits (the
>
> snip
>
> > about the NRA motives. It contained a so-called tag poll with questions
>
JT McBride
Still, I really, really HATE some of the stupid fund raisers they mail
out, and the 'TAG POLL' they've been using for about 10 years is about
the worst. They badly need to hire a direct mail consultant to shape
things up again - direct mail has changed a lot in the last 20 years.
NRA needs to realize their members are pretty savvy folks - which is
the only reason the appeals still 'work' - the members send in money
overlooking the affront of the appeal, because they support the goal.
I also object to a lot of the free merchandise appeals - I buy NRA-
emblazoned doodads now and again, but sending a check for $50 to get
an NRA hat is a tad silly, isn't it?
Maybe we members should boycott the appeals, and send a PostIt note
on every check to NRA and NRA-ILA saying: "I send this in spite of
your recent appeal". Money talks, they say.
I'm also going to write checks for $50.21 rather than put a $.32 stamp
over the post-paid return metering (just what does this cost now?).
Okay, finally, for those who disagree with NRA's national efforts, I
would urge you to seek out a state hunter's rights or gun rights
organization that you CAN agree with, and send them a donation, or
ask how you can support the agenda (eg. calling or writing legislators).
The PETA folks and HCI folks are involved; are you?
Jim
--
"You make demands, you're outta hand... You have been high-handed, setting super
standards... We've been inflicted, you better stop fixing, pretty soon you're
gonna have your day, get your way." -- Debbie Harry. `Def, Dumb, & Blonde'
Frank J. Takacs
HUNTING Magazine. It raises the same questions you have, and gives some
good common sense answers....
Frank
NRA for Life
/E00680/cstevens/Carl Stevens
: I am in the same position. I was so offended by the letters I
: received from Mr. La Pierre that I let my NRA membership lapse.
snip
: said "They are, only because there is no one else to speak for
: us". That is how I am beginning to feel about the NRA.
Wow, talk about summing up one's feelings. I find myself in a similar
quandry. I'd like to add my support but find myself particulary
repulsed by some of their bandying about of phrases.
--
Carl Stevens
cste...@ladc.lockheed.com
Ron Guidry
ramport on all sides so I made a conscience decision to ignore it.
The postings, PR and retoric upset me also BUT there isn't a single
political issue that the NRA fights for that I disagree with. Stiffer
penalities for crimes commited with guns, three strikes and your out,
more jail spaces, common sense gun law, Eddy Eagle, Refuse To Be a
Victim, Concealed Weapon Carry Reform, etc. etc.
I chose to judge the NRA by the things they support and fight for.
Once I did this, I realized they fight for many things I believe in.
--
________________________________________________________________
Ron Guidry rgu...@relay.nswc.navy.mil
NSWCDD Dahlgren, VA My views and opinions are my own!
We don't understand the software or the hardware but we can *SEE*
the blinking lights!
Blindeye
>Rob Frick (fr...@vitek.com) wrote:
>: Yesterday I received another membership appeal that really made me wonder
>: about the NRA motives. It contained a so-called tag poll with questions
>: asking my opinions on what may well be dubious or non-existent
>: issues. Now I have some experience in designing polls and gathering
>: information for both scientific and public policy uses, but this was
>: nothing more than a good example of fund raising PR, of which any number
>: of political, social service, religious, and charitable organizations
>: the questions in the poll, nor did I care for the personal attacks,
>: innuendo, and just plain falsehoods directed at the president and "the
>: media".
Thanks for pointing this out. I've been an NRA member for quite some time ( My
father enrolled me when I was a child), and I've bec=
ome increasingly disappointed by the vociferous attacks and slanted, innacurate
politics. I personally feel that the group was hija=
cked by the extreme right wing of the group, and that they more closely resemble
the "jack-booted thugs" that they warn me lurk in t=
he government. I'm pretty sure, too, that there were a greater quantity and
more restrictive gun control laws passed during the Bu=
sh era than the Clinton era. The NRA opposed them, but I don't remember hearing
the personal attacks like we do now. Oh well. The=
y're the only powerful, organized lobby we've got who'll stand up for us, so I
suppose we're stuck with them. I won't bail out on t=
hem as long as there is a threat to firearms ownership, but I'm not happy with
them at all. I'd like to see them expend as much en=
ergy protecting and improving hunting as they do on politics.
>
>Rob,
>
>Thanks for bringing this up as this points out one of the things I'd
>like to see the NRA fix. I've worked in marketing for over 10 years
>now and have been involved in a number of survey and choice modeling
>experiments. One thing you learn early on is that you never combine
>fund rasing with data gathering if you hope to get reliable results.
>The NRA has always seemed to combine fund raising with "data
>gathering" (at least since I was 13 or so). This of course makes any
>conclusions drawn from their surveys suspect from a scientific point
>of view. If they want data they should get the data, If they want
>money they should just ask for money and not try to combine both
>efforts in a single piece. To do otherwise might imply that they do
>not consider the data received to be the primary goal of the
>exercise.
Yep, I think this sums up a lot of my feelings as well. The way they play the
game sound more and more like the way Congress and th=
e Senate play the game. And that game is the reason I despise politicians as
much as I do.
Jack A. Barnett MD
>the questions in the poll, nor did I care for the personal attacks,
>innuendo, and just plain falsehoods directed at the president and "the
>media".
>but did have a nice picture of nazi soldiers with FBI, ATF and other
>federal agency acronyms stamped all over it) does nothing to raise my
>comfort level and tell me that this is a group I want to be associated
>with.
>like to be a part of. But I don't want my supposed "spokesman to the
>media", as this membership appeal likens itself, to only be a loud,
>angry, and>(maybe my not so informed opinion?) rigid pack of
blowhards.
>So I'm appealing to the experience and opinion of both the NRA members
>of this newsgroup and nonmembers. Am I being thin-skinned?
Good question. If you were a student of the slugfest trying for gun
control during the year or so before the last election and still waver
in your decision, I see no benefit to you in joining. Costs money to
join and there are appeals for money even during membership. Takes
chips to keep the "right" for you, me and others.
Jbarnett
NRA LIFE MEMBER
Joseph & Anna Orgeron
>Rob Frick <fr...@vitek.com> wrote:
>>Which is why I want to submit for your comments and insight a question I've
>>been asking myself for several years now - should I join the NRA?
>>I'm an avid hunter, angler, and consider myself fairly well
>>informed on environmental and conservation issues. I am not a member of
>>any local or national hunting or fishing groups (yet), nor am I beholden
>>to any particular political or moral philosophy. Every six months or so
>>an appeal to join the NRA comes in the mail. Each time, I read the
>>letter from Mr. La Pierre, consider the tangible benefits (the American
>>Hunter and Rifleman magazines are top notch publications), and wonder if
>>being a member will really help me become a better shooter, hunter, and
>>preserve the right for me and future generations to hunt or even own a gun.
I have been a life member of the NRA for the past 10 years. I would
strongly recommend that you join. As for the comments about "Jack
Booted Thugs", If the shoe fits, wear it. as my pappy said. I find
that if an organization or person starts to scream that what you are
saying is not politically correct, then what you say about them might
be true.
Sometimes to get a persons attention, you have to hit them between the
eyes with a 2X4, as pappy said.
Please do join the NRA. You will get a lot more out of it than you
would put in to it. Unless you are afraid that It might be politically
incorrect to join.
Joe
Anna Orgeron, USAF Retired & Wildlife Rehabber &
Joseph Orgeron, USAF Retired & Hunter
e7...@tesser.com
"Half Bleed Cajun, If I was full Bleed, I coud't stood Myself." (Justan Wilson)
onet...@chrysalis.org
> : received from Mr. La Pierre that I let my NRA membership lapse.
> snip
> : said "They are, only because there is no one else to speak for
> : us". That is how I am beginning to feel about the NRA.
>
> Wow, talk about summing up one's feelings. I find myself in a similar
> quandry. I'd like to add my support but find myself particulary
> repulsed by some of their bandying about of phrases.
they won't change direction. You have to participate to make a difference.
The NRA *is* a voice on the hill that gets heard. If you want to goal to
remain the same but the methodology to change - you have to change them from
within.
MAJ - Life CNF5665D
-------------------------------------
E-mail: onet...@chrysalis.org (Mark A. Johnson)
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a
little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
--Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790), reply of the Pennsylvania
Assembly to the governor, November 11, 1755 <<later, motto of
the Historical Society of Pennsylvania, c. 1759>>
-------------------------------------
Tom Nagel
This is a very valuable discussion, and I just hope that some of
the higher-ups at the NRA are following it. A whole lot of hunters and
shooters are p;ut off by the NRA's fund raising tactics and right wing
political slant. But who else lobbies for us as effectively?
I too had the quandary, and decided to resolve the matter by
balancing my karma, so to speak. I am now a card carrying member of the
NRA, the ACLU and the Sierra Club. And I get an interesting mix of junk mail.
--
_________________
|
Tom Nagel /O\ Columbus, OH
------------------------------(___)------------------------------
Earl Perry
>Which is why I want to submit for your comments and insight a question I've
>been asking myself for several years now - should I join the NRA?
<snip>
Rob,
I've been troubled by many of the same questions you raise. There are
some other questions that you do not raise, that as a hunter I find
more troubling still.
1) The NRA has associated itself with the wise-use movement, which if
granted its way with the western public lands will mean there are no
western public lands. This would put an end to the kind of hunting I
do, not just by pricing me off the former public lands, but because
the companies most likely to buy those lands have a lousy record of
environmental stewardship and would not likely allow the ecologic mix
we now have on BLM and USFS lands.
2) The NRA has consistently opposed wilderness designation. My best
memories of hunting trips are of the ones where I packed into the high
country with bow or rifle, either on foot or blundering around with
resentful horses. On none of those trips did I kill, but they are the
memories that matter and the hunts that were real hunts. The NRA is
somewhat schizoid about this, as many of their articles laud hunting
in Alaskan wildernesses, and yet they act and talk as if the Bill of
Rights granted rights not just to people but to ATVs. They have also
opposed National Park designation for "hunting" reasons, in places
(like the California Desert Lands) where hunting was of absolutely
minimal importance (10 or 12 deer a year from millions of acres)
compared to the preservation of a menaced ecosystem.
3) The articles in the NRA American Hunter often betrayed a
blast-em-and-let-em-rot mentality which extended beyond varmints
(where I still find it somewhat distasteful) to larger "trophies." I
canceled my subscription some years ago after reading an article where
the author complained that Alaska was actually going to force him to
provide for human consumption of the meat of a moose he'd shot during
the rut; he actually had to get all this stinking meat out, instead of
just the antlers and cape. Most people I know are neutral on hunting;
you can tip that neutrality to positive by pointing out that you feed
your family with your hunting and either use the hides or provide them
to others who use them. You can tip that neutrality to negative by
whining in print that the state is actually forcing you not to leave
the carcass of a noble animal to rot. Their stances on hunting are
often offensive to the people I hunt with, and would certainly be
repellent to the non-hunting public if they were better-publicized.
I think much of the hunting mentality of the NRA was formed in the
Reagan- Watt years, and is taking a while to wash out. If you even
care to call it a hunting mentality. The NRA president who just died,
Thomas Washington, was a ray of light. There are some people on the
board like Nugent who seem to understand that hunting is sacred. But
in the main, the people who write and speak for the NRA aren't hunters
as I understand the term.
My decision was to join the NRA for political reasons, which I would
be happy to email you (since they are not really on-target for
rec.hunting). When they are obnoxious in print to my values as a
hunter, I write them, as do others of my friends. I think they are
making some progress. They have much yet to make.
-- Earl Perry
PS -- with regard to those fake polls they send as fundraisers,
Handgun Control does the same thing, with dummy issues and fake
questions that (if possible) are yet more stupid. It's really a
toss-up, based on those polls, whether HCI or NRA has more contempt
for its members. I just write them and tell them I won't send money
based on this crap. And don't.
Don Mutsch
>Greetings fellow hunters. I've lurked and read the postings on this
>group for several months now and must say you all provide a wealth of
>information. When the boss isn't around, this group is as entertaining
>and helpful as sneaking into the restroom with a copy of Bowhunter. :)
>Which is why I want to submit for your comments and insight a question I've
>been asking myself for several years now - should I join the NRA?
>
>Please reply via email or post to the group if you think this is a worthy
>topic for discussion.
>Robert Frick
>Technical Writer in Residence
>bioMerieux Vitek
>*****I don't speak for them, for which they are most appreciative.*****
I'm an NRA life member for many reasons. The #1 reason is that the
NRA is really the only organazation that has, and can successfully
defend your firearms rights. Recent victories in Wisconson has been
shutting down a ban on handguns in Milwaukee and shutting down an
trigger lock law.
This does not mean that I think everything is well with the NRA. I am
personally offended when they represent the entire members of the NRA
and start to bash various political opponents. Think about it this
way, if you want someone to listen to your opinion and take you
seriously, you MUST take out the emotions and stick with the facts.
When the NRA attacks various political figures publicaly, I feel that
the NRA looses credability, and I feel offended. Remember when George
Bush left the NRA. Even though I do beleive that it was rediculous for
him to do that. He had to know what the effects of doing this would
be.
Just my $.02 worth.
Don
Evan Hubbard
ONLY GROUPS THAT TRY TO PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF GUN OWNERS.
I, HAVE BEEN A MEMBER OF THE NRA FOR YEARS AND AM ALSO A MEMBER OF NORTH
AMERICAN HUNTING CLUB. AND PLAN TO STAY.
YOU MIGHT NOT ALWAYS AGREE, BUT THEY DO TRY.
IF ALL HUNTERS UNITED UNDER ONE GROUP, THEN THE ANTI'S WOULD NOT BE SUCH
A PROBLEM.
EVAN
Bob
Defense fund also.
Bob (NRA for life)
In article <4db5rn$i...@acme.freenet.columbus.oh.us>,
tomn...@freenet.columbus.oh.us says...
Ronnie L. Hoover
have seen many changes , some good some bad. But is that not
the case with life itself ? I cant think of any organization or
even any group of more than 10 people that will agree on
everything. The NRA is composed of Millions , so there has to
be some dissagreemnet in the ranks, heck, it's even healthy.
But as far as the pleas for money , I have set aside a regular
time of the year when I send a contribution and I ignore the
rest of the letters, unless it is an inportant issue such as
the Brady Bill and I will kick in a few more dollars. But I can
promise you one thing for sure. Without the NRA we would VERY
SOON be without guns !! Just My 2 cents..
Ron
John Anderson
don't agree with EVERYTHING the NRA stands-for, or EVERYTHING the NRA
has published, or EVERYTHING that an NRA-official or NRA-member has
said, et cetera.
My question for these people is this:
Is it possible to totally agree with EVERYTHING an
organization: stands-for, has published, who's members
have said, et cetera ?
I say it is nearly impossible.
For example, if you are a member of a political party, do you agree
with their views on EVERY issue ? Do you agree with what is stated in
EVERY fund raising letter ? Do you agree with EVERYTHING their
candidates/members say ?
Go back to the previous example and substitute "religion" or any other
type of organization that you belong to. Can you answer YES to all of
the questions ?
I belong to the NRA because they are a major force in protecting
hunting, and protecting my 2nd amendment rights. That's why you should
join too.
John
--
|John D. Anderson
|andr...@cig.mot.com
|+1-708-632-4259
Scott Smay
John Anderson <andr...@chekov.cig.mot.com> writes:
> I belong to the NRA because they are a major force in protecting
> hunting, and protecting my 2nd amendment rights. That's why you should
> join too.
I have strongly considered joining the NRA, but haven't yet for the
following reasons:
1. When I see that Senator Larry Craig is on the board of directors, I
see the NRA aligned with anti public land policies I see as a greater
threat to the sport of hunting than anti-gun forces.
2. The violent rhetoric the NRA uses to attract new members and
articulate its policy seems likely to increase the number of
unnecessary violent confrontations between law enforcement and armed
citizens. I believe this will result in more obstacles to gun
ownership, not fewer.
3. I see the NRA membership broadly interpreting the 2nd amendment but
narrowly interpreting the 1st and possibly others. Before I give money
to the NRA, I want to make sure that it doesn't fund efforts to limit
other of my rights while preserving my 2nd amendment rights (for
example, by funding Larry Craig's reelection).
scott smay
/Everything I know is wrong./
Britt
<andr...@chekov.cig.mot.com> wrote:
> I've heard people say that they don't belong to the NRA because they
> don't agree with EVERYTHING the NRA stands-for, or EVERYTHING the NRA
> has published, or EVERYTHING that an NRA-official or NRA-member has
> said, et cetera.
>
> My question for these people is this:
>
> Is it possible to totally agree with EVERYTHING an
> organization: stands-for, has published, who's members
> have said, et cetera ?
>
> I say it is nearly impossible.
>
Well said!!!!
BENEDICT RUBINO
The NRA is not the only pro-gun/pro-hunting organization out there, but
it is the most powerful one and the one with the highest profile.
Directly due to NRA lobbying efforts, we now have a
REPUBLICAN-controlled congress (for good or bad). Now that's power !
just remember;
1= there are thousands of people working each day to get your second
I truly dislike it when these holier-than-thou liberal skunks on "the
news" vilify NRA; it's just this sort of person (and I do use the term
loosely) who voted for the 15 day waiting period in california, and then
ran to the gun stores demanding the means to defend themselves with the
world fell apart in L.A. after the Rodney King verdict.
cv...@pcshs.com
dollars on building a new complex in the Virginia
suburbs and because the directors of the NRA make too much money. If they
really believe in championing the cause of the 2nd
Ammendment, they should do it for almost no money at all. I have no problem
with them getting paid for their efforts, but let's be
realistic on how much money they get.
I quit the NRA over two years ago. They STILL send me their mailings.
My opinions are soley my own.
Michael W. McGaharan
> hunting, and protecting my 2nd amendment rights. That's why you should
> join too.
I have strongly considered joining the NRA, but haven't yet for the
following reasons:
1. When I see that Senator Larry Craig is on the board of directors, I
see the NRA aligned with anti public land policies I see as a greater
threat to the sport of hunting than anti-gun forces.
2. The violent rhetoric the NRA uses to attract new members and
articulate its policy seems likely to increase the number of
unnecessary violent confrontations between law enforcement and armed
citizens. I believe this will result in more obstacles to gun
ownership, not fewer.
3. I see the NRA membership broadly interpreting the 2nd amendment but
narrowly interpreting the 1st and possibly others. Before I give money
to the NRA, I want to make sure that it doesn't fund efforts to limit
other of my rights while preserving my 2nd amendment rights (for
example, by funding Larry Craig's reelection).
scott smay
I appreciate your dilemma, however, you should remember, the NRA is
the CLOSEST thing we have to a united voice among law abiding pro-gun
citizens. That it is not exactly what you want should not deter you. Join,
become active, and fight for change in the organization. You certainly are
not the only one who does not like everything they see in todays NRA.
I became a life member to show my commitment, and I am personally a
little insulted that what I considered a considerable sum of money, is not
enough for NRA. I have still worked with NRA to put on fundraisers and
other events which I feel are more productive than mass mailings. We all
need to voice our opinions to the board of the NRA and urge them to take
whatever direction we feel appropriate.
It truly is our NRA and I urge you to join it and strengthen its
ranks, not only financially, but with your ideas and energy. Only a united
voice and goal, from a true cross section of American citizens, makes the
NRA what we need it to be. THE VOICE of pro-gun, and pro-constitution America.
JOIN TODAY!!!
Mike
--------------------------------------
Michael W. McGaharan Phone: 6357
Mail Stop:03-04 Fax: Email: mwm...@most.fw.hac.com
MESC, 1313 Production Road, Fort Wayne, IN 46808
William Bates
the
>ACLU.
>
>
>There's just no way to please everyone
I'm a member of both. I kind of like all of the Bill of Rights!
-
WILLIAM BATES MUH...@prodigy.com
Ken Hashimoto
andr...@chekov.cig.mot.com says...
>
>I've heard people say that they don't belong to the NRA because they
>don't agree with EVERYTHING the NRA stands-for, or EVERYTHING the NRA
>has published, or EVERYTHING that an NRA-official or NRA-member has
>said, et cetera.
>
>My question for these people is this:
>
> Is it possible to totally agree with EVERYTHING an
> organization: stands-for, has published, who's members
> have said, et cetera ?
>
>I say it is nearly impossible.
>
>
Some time ago, I made a semi-snide comment about a turkey hunter who took
a bird with a scoped HK91/308Win. But I would only do that among hunters.
To anyone not a hunter, I would vehemently defend his position and right
to use whatever legal means of fairly taking game. The same holds true of
deer hunting. To me, personally, I think that alot of high powered rifle
shooting is more like "assasination" than "hunting", only because I
spend more time with a shotgun and concentrating on getting close. To
a devoted bowhunter, I may appear to be the "assasin". But the point is
that I support all hunters, regardless of whatever legal means they use,
and no matter what I may think as a matter of personal preference,
I think the same thing applies with the NRA. I don't like a lot of it.
But it is the best thing we all have. And as far as I am concerned, I may
gripe about it among other gun owners and hunters, but I will firmly
defend the NRA's position when dealing with non-hunters, anti-hunters,
anti-gunners, ARWackos, and the generaly uninformed.
Ken
Russell J. Campbell
First I will admit that this is a test of a new news-reading
configuration. I hope you all wont mind much.
I, too, debated about joining the NRA. I disagreed with many of the
things they had done and thought that they had set themselves up to be
the villian that the media portrays them as.
The trouble is that nobody else is even trying to do anything to protect
our rights. I know that somebody will come back and say something about
GOA or some other tiny little organization but what have they really done
besides take your money?
The NRA has a lot going for it in education, safety, and training. They
train civilians and police alike and offer insurance policies on firearms
against loss, as in fire, and theft. The NRA buys life insurance policies
for police officers who are members. The NRA's Crimestrike program has
helped keep many convicted killer in jail where they belong.
If you stop to think about the magazines that come with membership and
many other things that help us to keep informed about things that impact
our second ammendment rights the $40 a year is a real bargin. I spend a
lot more than that on lunch every month.
The last point I would like to make is one that I use on a lot of people
about voting. If you don't vote, don't bitch. I write letters and send
email to the NRA almost as often as I do to my representatives and
congressmen, which is quite often BTW. If we the members do not like
the direction that the organization is taking we do have a voice to
change it. IMO they listen. I have had several conversations with Tanya
Metaksa about issue here in Oregon and was truely amazed that she took
the time to correspond with me personnaly.
Just my idle ramblings,
Russ
I'M THE NRA!
Alex Hoover
disagree with the NRA's extreme hardline stance on
certain issues should join the NRA (ie, give them
money) in order to work to change that organization
from within.
I support the Humane Society's efforts to help domestic
pets, but I strongly disagree with their antihunting
efforts. Therefore I do not financially support them.
I support the Sierra Club's efforts to preserve
wilderness areas, but I strongly disagree with their
ridiculous antihunting rhetoric. Therefore I do not
financially support them.
I support the NRA's hunter safety and anti-crime
efforts, but their rhetoric strikes me as every bit as
kooky as the stuff you get from AR wackos. I disagree
with their refusal to consider even the tamest of gun
control measures. Therefore I do not financially
support them.
As far as the "stand up and be counted" / "make your
voice heard" thing goes, I have frequently been
contacted by mail or phone by the NRA (and the Humane
Society, etc). I always tell them that I won't give
them money because I disagree with them on key issues,
and explain the details to them. In fact, I just
filled out one of the NRA's little surveys last night,
and mailed it back to them, saying that I would love to
join but I can't because ... etc, etc.
If you have serious disagreements with the NRA, the
Humane Society, or any other organization, then don't
give them money.
On another note: Does anybody know what the NRA's
position is on the "well-regulated" militia wording in
the 2nd Amendment? To me, well-regulated could easily
include bans on assault weapons, etc. I heard somebody
ask Wayne LaPierre about the "well-regulated" wording
once, and Wayne was utterly unable to answer the guy.
Wayne kept spouting out his same rehearsed phrases over
and over, totally avoiding the question.
Scott Smay
Bruce Snyder <sny...@rose.rsoc.rockwell.com> writes:
> 3. The NRA is a single issue organization, period. Without the Second
> Amendment, none of the other rights that you value so highly will mean
> jack shit. The Second is the cornerstone of the entire Bill of Rights.
>
> Put your money where your mouth is. Stand up and be counted.
> Otherwise, you've got no call to bitch.
Seems to me like the first is the cornerstone, and the second defends
it and others. It's easy to belong to a single issue organization when
you care most strongly about that single issue. I don't feel that the
2nd amendment is as threatened as public land, and I need to reconcile
NRA membership with that.
I completely disagree that I've "no call to bitch" unless I join the
NRA. Any citizen who honors the constitution has a "call to bitch" when
it's threatened, regardless of what special interest groups he/she
gives money to. Will the members of the NRA have a "call to bitch" when
the entire West is either laid waste or sold to private companies and
posted "NO HUNTING".
cheers,
scott smay
Barry Smith
>>Scott Smay <sm...@hpbs2500.boi.hp.com> wrote:
>>I have strongly considered joining the NRA, but haven't yet for the
>>following reasons:
[Scott's reasons for not joining deleted]
>
[Bruce's rebuttal to Scott's points mostly deleted]
>Put your money where your mouth is. Stand up and be counted.
>Otherwise, you've got no call to bitch.
Seems to me Scott did stand up and be counted by publicly stating
why he was not joining. My guess is that your confrontational approach
will not force him into joining your organization. His right to free
speech includes the right to explain why he disagrees with your group
strongly enough to not join, since joining, to most people, implies
agreement with that group's policies. Sometimes you can make a strong
case for your views by not jumping on the band wagon.
Barry Smith
Tim Calvin
>On another note: Does anybody know what the NRA's
>position is on the "well-regulated" militia wording in
>the 2nd Amendment? To me, well-regulated could easily
>include bans on assault weapons, etc.
To me, "well-regulated" means law-abiding. In other words, in support of
the rule of law--not anti-government or rebellious.
Assault weapons have been banned since 1934. NRA supports the legal
ownership of firearms. It also opposes more laws against law-abiding
firearm owners, since the NRA knows that these additional restrictions do
not reduce criminal activity, but do bring closer the day that private
firearms ownership will be banned. NRA supports "swift and sure" punishment
for those who use firearms in crimes (those who refuse to be
"well-regulated").
Our government serves at the pleasure of an armed citizenry. The people
know that the police or the military cannot "take over" the government.
This form of government exists as long as it is the will of the people and
its citizens are "well-regulated".
Tim Calvin <timh...@quiknet.com>
author of CD-ROM "Tim Calvin's Hunting the West"
check it out at http://www.quiknet.com/hunting.html
Jared Nedzel
<timh...@quiknet.com> writes:
>Alex Hoover <al...@jupiter.ks.symbios.com> wrote:
>
>>On another note: Does anybody know what the NRA's
>>position is on the "well-regulated" militia wording in
>>the 2nd Amendment? To me, well-regulated could easily
>>include bans on assault weapons, etc.
[SOAPBOX_MODE=TRUE]
Folks, I think we need to be a bit more careful in our reading of the
2nd ammendment. Here it is in its entirety:
"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."
Note that it DOES NOT say "the right of the MILITIA to keep and bear...",
it says "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear..."
So, no matter how you define a well-regulated militia (the founding
fathers defined it as every able-bodied adult), what matters is
that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed." That is the active phrase. The first two phrases,
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a
free State," simply explain why the right is needed.
Note that bill of rights speaks about the rights of the people
in other places -- for example, the first ammendment. In all of the
other places we expect that "the people" means all of us. IMNSHO,
"the people" in the 2nd ammendment means just the same as "the people"
means in the rest of the bill of rights -- that is, all of us law
abiding citizens. If the founding fathers had wanted "the people"
in the 2nd ammendment to mean "the militia", they would have written
"the right of the Militia to keep and bear...". They didn't.
[SOAPBOX_MODE=FALSE]
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jared Nedzel jne...@netcom.com
MRC Partners
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean there isn't someone out to get me
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ken Ogawa
<snip>
>I support the NRA's hunter safety and anti-crime
>efforts, but their rhetoric strikes me as every bit as
>kooky as the stuff you get from AR wackos. I disagree
>with their refusal to consider even the tamest of gun
>control measures. Therefore I do not financially
>support them.
>I always tell them that I won't give
>them money because I disagree with them on key issues,
>and explain the details to them. In fact, I just
>filled out one of the NRA's little surveys last night,
>and mailed it back to them, saying that I would love to
>join but I can't because ... etc, etc.
To join or not join the NRA is a personal decision that should be made by
every hunter/shooter. The statements by the NRA leadership this past
year was quite shocking (re federal law enforcement) to me. However I
joined the NRA back in the late '70's and have been a Life member since
the mid 80's. I did so because the NRA supported competition on all
levels, and as the poster stated has an outstanding record promoting
firearms safety and responsible firearms ownership. The other reason for
me was that the NRA is to me a resource of firearms history and
technology. their publications on bullet casting and reloading are
excellent as well as the articles in "American Rilfeman".
If I were considering membership today however, considering the public
statements made by NRA leadership this past year, I would probably have
to think twice about it.
--
Bob Evans
: In article <1996012220...@spinoza.rsoc.rockwell.com>
: Bruce Snyder <sny...@rose.rsoc.rockwell.com> writes:
: > 3. The NRA is a single issue organization, period. Without the Second
: > Amendment, none of the other rights that you value so highly will mean
: > jack shit. The Second is the cornerstone of the entire Bill of Rights.
: >
: > Put your money where your mouth is. Stand up and be counted.
: > Otherwise, you've got no call to bitch.
: Seems to me like the first is the cornerstone, and the second defends
: it and others. It's easy to belong to a single issue organization when
: you care most strongly about that single issue. I don't feel that the
: 2nd amendment is as threatened as public land, and I need to reconcile
: NRA membership with that.
: I completely disagree that I've "no call to bitch" unless I join the
: NRA. Any citizen who honors the constitution has a "call to bitch" when
: it's threatened, regardless of what special interest groups he/she
: gives money to. Will the members of the NRA have a "call to bitch" when
: the entire West is either laid waste or sold to private companies and
: posted "NO HUNTING".
Then what steps have you taken to preserve both your
RTKBA and hunting? Are there any other organisations
that you support? Why or why not?
: cheers,
: scott smay
Gale McMillan
have no choice. You can't depend on the Democratic Party or anyone else
to look out for you in these matters. If it had not been for the N.R.A.
you wouldn't be in this quandary as the things I mentioned you would
have already lost.
Gale McMillan Life member N.R.A.
onet...@chrysalis.org
> position is on the "well-regulated" militia wording in
> the 2nd Amendment? To me, well-regulated could easily
> ask Wayne LaPierre about the "well-regulated" wording
> once, and Wayne was utterly unable to answer the guy.
> Wayne kept spouting out his same rehearsed phrases over
> and over, totally avoiding the question.
publications over the past several years. The Well regulated... part is a
dependant clause. The right to keep and bear... is an independant clause. The
framers of the Constitution and the BOR all have published letters and
material supporting the definition of militia as "all able bodied men" (read
citizens in the 90's and not just a standing army. Others can elaborate if
they desire.
Charlie Sorsby
Alex Hoover <al...@jupiter.ks.symbios.com> wrote:
= Several people have suggested that gun owners who
= disagree with the NRA's extreme hardline stance on
What "extreme hardline stance" is that? That we should stop
"compromising" away our rights item by item?
I, too, once believed in compromise--until I woke up and realized
that "compromise," to the gun grabbers, means "Give up X now and we
won't ask you to give up Y (yet)." Once X has been given up, the
next compromise is "Give up Y now and we won't ask you to give up
Z (yet)." How many such "compromises" do you think it will take
before there's nothing left to give up?
= certain issues should join the NRA (ie, give them
= money) in order to work to change that organization
= from within.
[...]
= On another note: Does anybody know what the NRA's
= position is on the "well-regulated" militia wording in
= the 2nd Amendment? To me, well-regulated could easily
= include bans on assault weapons, etc. I heard somebody
= ask Wayne LaPierre about the "well-regulated" wording
= once, and Wayne was utterly unable to answer the guy.
= Wayne kept spouting out his same rehearsed phrases over
= and over, totally avoiding the question.
First, I suggest that you read Stephen Halbrook's excellent history
of the Second Amendment, _That Every Man Be Armed_. (Incidentally,
the title is taken from a quotation from Patrick Henry: "The great
object is, that every man be armed. ... Everyone who is able may
have a gun."
Second, the "militia" clause of the Second Amendment is secondary.
The primary clause is "the right of the *people* to keep and bear
arms shall not be infringed." [Emphasis added.]
To understand the phrase "a well-regulated militia" one must
consider it in terms of the parlance of the mid-eighteenth century,
not in terms of what any of those words have come to mean at this
time.
From Halbrook (p61): "In summary, for [George] Mason a "well
regulated militia" consisted in the body of the people organizing
themselves into independent companies, each member furnishing and
keeping his own firearms, always ready to resist the standing army
of a despotic state."
I have read--I'm sorry to say that I no longer recall the
source--that "well regulated" in this context means "well trained"
and "well disciplined" as opposed to inept and disorderly.
Here's an example of usage in context from Federalist No. 29, where
Hamilton claims that it would be *wrong* for the gov't to require
"the great body of yeomanry and of the other classes of citizens to
be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises
and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the
degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a
*well regulated militia*. ..." [Emphasis added.] It seems clear to
me that, from this quotation, the term "well regulated" means "well
trained."
Clayton Cramer (well known in rec.guns) also mentions Federalist
No. 29 in his _For the Defense of Themselves and the State_ and
concludes that Hamilton means "properly trained." He also points
out one of the definitions of "regulated" from the Oxford English
Dictionary as meaning "adjusted" as in a clock... Cramer also
points out Webster's second definition which includes "To put in
good order; as to *regulate* the disordered state of a nation or
its finances" and that the term "regulated" is still used to this
day in the context of "regulating the barrels of a double-barreled
shotgun" which means to adjust them so that the both shoot to the
same point of impact in order to produce a shotgun that can be
properly used. (Pp 16,17.)
Nevertheless, as I mentioned earlier and as Cramer and others point
out, the Second Amendment guarantees the right of the *people* to
keep and bear arms and, clearly, the Framers were not silly enough
to intend a different definition of "people" in the Second
Amendment than they did in the First, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth.
Well, this is already far too long. To understand the meaning of
the Second Amendment or the rest of the Bill of Rights, one must
study the usage of the time at which it was written. Both Halbrook
and Cramer have examined the writings of the time as well as the
readings of the Framers and of others who debated the issues with
them. I urge all who care about Liberty and the meaning of the
Second Amendment to read Halbrook at least and Cramer and others if
time permits.
--
Best,
Charlie "Older than dirt" Sorsby "I'm the NRA!"
c...@hamlet.lanl.gov