Post by: The Annoyed Man on May 14, 2008, 07:09:00 AM
The first sentence says:
"Our Second Amendment rights are in grave danger because some NRA supporters like you have not renewed your memberships".
And then continues for two pages with all the dire consequences to come because they didn't get my $35.
WTF do they think they are? Screw 'em.
Post by: wmenorr67 on May 14, 2008, 07:13:07 AM
Post by: mtnbkr on May 14, 2008, 07:13:30 AM
Chris
Post by: The Annoyed Man on May 14, 2008, 07:25:44 AM
Post by: Jamisjockey on May 14, 2008, 07:30:58 AM
How much time and effort has the NRA put into rolling back/overturnng Roberti-Roos? What resources did they expend in opposition to the .50 cal ban or the microstamping b.s.? Seems to me, all they've given is lip service. Instead, they like to use CA as a bad example to beat the rest of you over the head with.
WTF? Seriously, WTF?
Nobody defended the NRA. Chris said that they're not the only asses who use the final notice type advertising. You, sir, didn't need a vacation. You need a damn valium.
Post by: K Frame on May 14, 2008, 07:33:27 AM
I can't even begin to count how many Californians think it's perfectly fine for them to sit on their lazy asses and expect NRA to do all the work in saving their rights for them.
When something is lost in California?
THOSE LAZY NRA BASTARDS SCREWED US AGAIN!
Well, exactly what did YOU do to help preserve your rights?
"Well, I sat on my lazy ass and drank Napa Valley Chardonay! NRA was supposed to save my rights for me!"
I know more than one NRA lobbyist who is so disgusted with the general attitude show by far too many lazy bastar... er... GUNOWNERS... in California that they would love to see NRA simply cut the state loose.
Trying to help people who have no interest in helping themselves, but invest a LOT of energy in whining like little pussies when they don't get their perceived entitlement, is a waste of time and money.
Unfortunately, or I should say fortuately for the rest of us who live in a realistic mindframe, California's "gunowners" serve as a stark and frightening example of what happens when lipservice becomes the new activism.
Post by: freakazoid on May 14, 2008, 07:42:55 AM
Post by: Gewehr98 on May 14, 2008, 07:51:50 AM
Post by: The Annoyed Man on May 14, 2008, 07:54:26 AM
Quote
I know more than one NRA lobbyist who is so disgusted with the general attitude show by far too many lazy bastar... er... GUNOWNERS... in California that they would love to see NRA simply cut the state loose.
And there's that elitist mentality again. But they sure like our contribution dollars, don't they? Might I remind you the NRA is the one with the lobbyists, attorneys, and resources to challenge this antigun crap. But instead, they contemptuously point the finger of blame at their members?
That, sir, is an organization with which I want no affiliation. I'll contribute to others, like the GOA or GOC, thank you very much
Post by: The Annoyed Man on May 14, 2008, 07:57:25 AM
Here I thought he'd mellow out after Vegas....
It energized me. Unfortunately, I have to go outside and get busy cutting weeds now. Please continue the shouting match without me.
Post by: Scout26 on May 14, 2008, 08:00:48 AM
Quote
Might I remind you the NRA is the one with the lobbyists, attorneys, and resources
Hmmm, and how do you think they get the money to pay for those lobbyists, attorneys and resources ??
Post by: mtnbkr on May 14, 2008, 08:02:02 AM
I'll contribute to others, like the GOA or GOC, thank you very much
Is this the same GOA who couldn't get my membership package to me 6 months after my check was cashed and didn't seem to know what they were there for when I called them to ask about it? Yeah, that's an efficient operation.
Quote from: Paddy
Might I remind you the NRA is the one with the lobbyists, attorneys, and resources to challenge this antigun crap.
Maybe I view membership in an advocacy group differently, but they're not there to do the job for you, but to help and provide organization, communications, etc. What? You thought your $35/year was going to absolve you from all effort? Chris
Post by: Manedwolf on May 14, 2008, 08:05:11 AM
Yes. Larry Pratt's deranged rantings about the NICS overhaul, calling it "veteran disarmament" and misquoting CA law as if it were part of the bill, that was really classy, real helpful.
Post by: K Frame on May 14, 2008, 08:16:44 AM
That's hysterically funny coming from you, Reily, especially given your propensity for dropping offensive racial slurs.
I also suppose that you think NRA should conduct all of its activities gratis out of the good of its own heart.
So, tell us.
What have YOU, personally, done to help ensure your firearms rights in California?
Personally lobby your elected officials and governor?
Work for campaigns of firearms friendly legislators?
Work to convert your friends who are either uninterested in the subject, or hostile to it?
Or do you just kick back and wait for someone else to do your work for you?
"You thought your $35/year was going to absolve you from all effort?"
Silly you, Chris! That's the California way!
Entitlement attitude -- the official mindset of California.
Post by: SomeKid on May 14, 2008, 09:23:11 AM
I hate saying it, but I see a similar attitude here in TN. A good sized portion of gun owners won't join the TFA because it hasn't won the war yet, but they will sure bitch if things aren't done their way.
At this stage I ask them a few questions, then finger them.
Are you a paying TFA member? Well, no, why should I be?
Do you even call your state Rep and Senator? No, thats the TFA's job!
Did you bother voting in the last election? Wasn't worth my time.
*Middle finger salute* And then I inform them their opinion doesn't mean squat to me. Tends to piss them off, but I just can't muster the concern when Fudds get pissed.
Post by: Standing Wolf on May 14, 2008, 09:37:30 AM
If we're not happy with the NRA, we need to take it over, not run away and hide and whine.
Post by: Manedwolf on May 14, 2008, 09:40:13 AM
And it's the former that will still actually get more done. A slow-turning ship can be a battleship with big guns it can bring to bear...and that's a lot more effective than a ranting guy in a rowboat.
Post by: K Frame on May 14, 2008, 09:49:40 AM
"The NRA has become a ponderous, slow-turning ship that's top-heavy with lawyers"
I agree, get rid of all the lawyers on NRA staff and replace them with TRUE gunowners...
After all, no one relates to a professional politician in the Senate Hart Office Building better than a wild-eyed, overall clad, redneck waving a loaded rifle and splattering things with terbakky juice...
Hum... Now maybe I understand why NRA laid me off in 1994...
Post by: Manedwolf on May 14, 2008, 09:53:07 AM
There's definitely some effective lawyers in there, but there's also the kind every large org has, the kind who are in it for the meetings and reviewing TPS reports, not the fight itself.
Need more of the sort who are passionate about their cause, that's all. It's still the more effective organization, of course. But it should be going after everything back to and including 1986, 1968, etc... They have to do that, national. Myself and others take care of local, we fight back any idiotic legislation the dems vomit up. I've called my state representatives on a number of things like that, to make sure they knew of it. They did, thankfully, and told me their position.
They did good with New Orleans and the seizures. They could just use a few more firebrands at the lead positions instead of sleepy old men, that's all.
Post by: The Annoyed Man on May 14, 2008, 09:54:10 AM
Quote
What have YOU, personally, done to help ensure your firearms rights in California?
Personally lobby your elected officials and governor?
Personally lobby your elected officials and governor?
Yes, although increasingly less in recent years
Quote
Work for campaigns of firearms friendly legislators?
Same as above
Quote
Work to convert your friends who are either uninterested in the subject, or hostile to it?
What makes you think I have 'friends'?
Quote
That's hysterically funny coming from you, Reily, especially given your propensity for dropping offensive racial slurs.
Really, Mike. I expect this from fistful, but it's getting old. Can't you come up with some other sin of mine to repeat over and over and over again ad nauseum?
Post by: WeedWhacker on May 14, 2008, 10:06:08 AM
Is it really that bad?
As I recall, the NRA endorsed the '68 GCA (MG import ban), the '86 bans, the Bush Sr. bans in '89, the Brady crap, and they tried to undermine the Heller case.
"From their cold, dead hands", indeed.
Post by: K Frame on May 14, 2008, 10:10:20 AM
Let's see... just last week you dropped another slur into the middle of a conversation -- your second one. That's a CLEAR indication of the depth of your elitist attitudes towards others.
And yet you want immediate absolution?
What is this, another California attitude?
"Dude, I'm from California! Don't try to hold me responsible for what I say or do!"
You issued the accusation of elitism.
You deal with the evidence and actions that proves that you're a practitioner of the sin that you would condemn.
Just so we're clear on something...
You'd best never try to take a third bite of that particular apple. I'm sure that your metaphorical California nature will have absolute no problem understanding what I mean by that.
Post by: K Frame on May 14, 2008, 10:18:00 AM
In 1986, for example, NRA worked tirelessly for months to craft FOPA.
At the very last minute, literally as the bill was coming to the floor for a vote, Congressional Democrats threw in their attempt at a poison pill rider -- the machine gun ban.
At the point that that rider entered the picture, NRA activities were largely complete.
The sponsors of the bill had two choices -- allow the bill to be voted, or pull it with the liklihood that it would never fail and all of the most onerous provisions of GCA 1968 would remain in place.
Volker-McClure chose to allow the bill to go forward.
As for GCA 1968, NRA didn't have nearly the lobbying experience or experties that it now has. A significant faction of the NRA board at that time was adamantly opposed to taking any position whatsoever on legislative issues. NRA employees worked very hard with friendly legislators to craft a bill that was significantly different, and much less draconian, than what was originally proposed by Senator Dodd.
Your other "learned observations" are equally flawed.
Post by: wideym on May 14, 2008, 10:22:29 AM
Even many members do not renew yearly memberships or are loathed to do so because they cannot see the results of lobbying and hear about shady deals going on behind the closed doors of the executive commitee. Personally I love the local chapter the NRA here. I tend to concentrate on that and put the national organization on the back burner.
Post by: mtnbkr on May 14, 2008, 10:27:20 AM
Even many members do not renew yearly memberships or are loathed to do so because they cannot see the results of lobbying and hear about shady deals going on behind the closed doors of the executive commitee.
Personally, I am energized every time a politician or public figure whines about "teh evil NRA" because that means the NRA IS having an effect. The NRA is the 800lb gorilla even if they don't adopt your pet cause du jour.
Chris
Post by: The Annoyed Man on May 14, 2008, 10:29:36 AM
Quote
The NRA is the 800lb gorilla even if they don't adopt your pet cause du jour.
'Pet cause du jour'? Like anti gun legislation? Oh, wait, they need a certain amount of that to keep the fear going.
Post by: K Frame on May 14, 2008, 10:44:17 AM
http://www.nramemberscouncils.com/
You're right.
NRA does nothing in California.
Post by: wideym on May 14, 2008, 10:45:20 AM
Post by: The Annoyed Man on May 14, 2008, 10:51:36 AM
Post by: WeedWhacker on May 14, 2008, 11:57:27 AM
The sponsors of the bill had two choices -- allow the bill to be voted, or pull it with the liklihood that it would never fail and all of the most onerous provisions of GCA 1968 would remain in place.
I suppose that boils down to a difference of opinion. Yes, the GCA sucked, and I'm glad I don't get thrown in prison/killed for trying to mail-order ammo from out of state. Ancient, tightly controlled AK-47s at $10,000 a pop don't impress me, though.
Post by: mtnbkr on May 14, 2008, 11:59:45 AM
Chris
Post by: SomeKid on May 14, 2008, 12:39:05 PM
Problem is, there wasn't much of a choice. It was one or the other. Full auto benefits fewer people, then and now.
Chris
Chris
Still, it is a bad precedent. Overturn one small annoyance from past anti legislation, but throw a segment of gun owners under a bus. When will use black rifle owners be thrown under the bus? Or perhaps handgun owners are next maybe?
Post by: WeedWhacker on May 14, 2008, 12:47:25 PM
Problem is, there wasn't much of a choice. It was one or the other. Full auto benefits fewer people, then and now.
Chris
Chris
Still, it is a bad precedent. Overturn one small annoyance from past anti legislation, but throw a segment of gun owners under a bus. When will use black rifle owners be thrown under the bus? Or perhaps handgun owners are next maybe?
I agree, but my examples were poor ones, in this context, except for Heller. I couldn't quickly find the quote from Wayne LaPierre regarding disarming everyone in schools, 'cause we all know how well gun free zones work and how crazy peaceable citizens get the moment they get their sweaty paws on a g-g-g-gun!
Also, criminals bent on mass murder often reconsider their actions when they find out that guns are banned at their chosen crime scene.
Post by: MechAg94 on May 14, 2008, 12:51:10 PM
I haven't actually read one in years. I just pick a return slip out going to the NRA or NRA-ILA every couple months and send a little money. I don't actually read that stuff.
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 14, 2008, 01:00:00 PM
"Can't you come up with some other sin of mine to repeat over and over and over again ad nauseum?"
Let's see... just last week you dropped another slur into the middle of a conversation -- your second one. That's a CLEAR indication of the depth of your elitist attitudes towards others.
Let's see... just last week you dropped another slur into the middle of a conversation -- your second one. That's a CLEAR indication of the depth of your elitist attitudes towards others.
You forgot a couple of things. At least.
Post by: Jamisjockey on May 14, 2008, 02:45:35 PM
Post by: Brad Johnson on May 14, 2008, 03:08:17 PM
Quote
I'll contribute to others, like the GOA or GOC, thank you very much
Hmm... You're willing to contribute to a group more concerned with NRA-bashing and chest-thumpin' political absolutism (which absolutely won't work) than they are with actually being effective. Yet you scream at the NRA, the single most politically recognized and feared gun-rights group in the nation, because you don't like the format and tone of one of their fund-raising efforts?
Good friggin' grief.
Brad
Post by: Nitrogen on May 14, 2008, 03:14:47 PM
Post by: Boomhauer on May 14, 2008, 03:37:16 PM
if the NRA was half as evil as people think it is, we'd have nationwide concealed carry, no brady background check laws, and machineguns would be legal would be available at Walmart, next to the M203s.
There. Fixed it for ya.
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 14, 2008, 06:11:38 PM
if the NRA was half as evil as people think it is, we'd have nationwide concealed Vermont carry, no brady background check laws, and machineguns and AT4s would be legal.
Fixed it for you betterer.
Now, how do we make NRA evil-er?
Post by: Matthew Carberry on May 14, 2008, 06:52:34 PM
Quote
Now, how do we make NRA evil-er?
A goatee for starters.
On a serious note. It's the National Rifle Association. The stuff they get involved with on a state and local level should have a direct relationship to national trends and such. Local and state level efforts should primarily be the responsibility of those citizens.
Kinda like how the republic was designed.
Post by: wmenorr67 on May 14, 2008, 08:31:59 PM
Such as training for women, law enforcement, military, the Eddie Eagle Campain.
The Friends of the NRA side giving grants to Boy Scout troups, gun clubs, 4-H clubs and other organizations for gun related activities.
Post by: MicroBalrog on May 14, 2008, 08:43:24 PM
if the NRA was half as evil as people think it is, we'd have nationwide concealed carry, no brady background check laws, and machineguns would be legal.
And this is a problem?
Post by: Perd Hapley on May 14, 2008, 09:14:26 PM
Post by: MicroBalrog on May 14, 2008, 09:17:24 PM
The problem is that they are not evil enough.
What fistful said.
Post by: wmenorr67 on May 14, 2008, 09:21:06 PM
Post by: The Annoyed Man on May 15, 2008, 05:45:00 AM
Quote
I'll contribute to others, like the GOA or GOC, thank you very much
Hmm... You're willing to contribute to a group more concerned with NRA-bashing and chest-thumpin' political absolutism (which absolutely won't work) than they are with actually being effective. Yet you scream at the NRA, the single most politically recognized and feared gun-rights group in the nation, because you don't like the format and tone of one of their fund-raising efforts?
Good friggin' grief.
Brad
If somebody wants money from you, they should give compelling reasons why they should get it. Maybe a recital of what they've done, or will do, on your behalf. Dontcha think? You're in the sales business. I doubt you use threatening and demeaning language with your prospects. "If you've got any brains, you'll list your house with me. People who didn't lost thousands" or somesuch.
As far as NRA effectiveness in CA, it isn't there. Efforts on a 'Virtual Lobby', or local ordnances are not what we need, when statewide bans on .50 cal, lead ammo, so-called 'AWB's' and microstamping schemes are becoming law.
Name one prospective antigun law they've stopped with effective legal action in CA.
Post by: Nitrogen on May 15, 2008, 06:07:02 AM
The problem is that they are not evil enough.
Agreed 1000%.
And yeah, I slipped with the machinegun bit. Thanks for fixin' that.
Post by: JohnBT on May 15, 2008, 06:34:04 AM
John
Post by: Manedwolf on May 15, 2008, 06:36:25 AM
As far as NRA effectiveness in CA, it isn't there. Efforts on a 'Virtual Lobby', or local ordnances are not what we need, when statewide bans on .50 cal, lead ammo, so-called 'AWB's' and microstamping schemes are becoming law.
Because your fellow Californians sat on their ass or voted FOR the people passing those laws!
Activism starts at the grass roots, and you want this group to do it fooooooor you. They won't. They shouldn't.
Californians have demonstrated time and again that they either want gun laws, or, by and large, are too lazy and entitled to fight them at the local level.
It's as if the founding fathers had had a bunch of meetings in coffeehouses, and asked the French to come down and fight the British for them. That's California.
Post by: MechAg94 on May 15, 2008, 06:43:37 AM
Here in Texas, we have the Texas State Rifle Association that is very effective and takes care of most of the state issues. The NRA sticks its head in sometimes, but the TSRA takes care of things at the state level here. If some bad legislation got passed, it wouldn't be the NRA I would be bashing. I'll grant you that the legislators and governor are more friendly here, but the state guys are the ones who need to be spearheading the efforts, not the national guys.
Post by: K Frame on May 15, 2008, 07:13:07 AM
That's the same thing I've been asking, and haven't been getting an answer.
All that's been coming forth is a pussy-assed whining noise about how "NRA isn't doing it all for me! Why won't they do it all for me? I'm too lazy and apathetic to do anything but bitch and moan! I don't care about anyplace else in the nation, why isn't NRA spending all of its money defening MY rights and MY rights alone! I was a member once, I gave my $35! That ENTITLES ME!"
I've never seen anything so reprehensibly disgusting and pathetic in my life.
As I said, it's the California entitlement attitude.
It's people like this who are the exact reason why anti-gun lesiglation continues to advance in this country.
You're not part of the solution, you're not even part of the problem.
YOU'RE THE WHOLE PROBLEM.
But, it's pretty obvious that the originator of this thread is simply not capable of understanding that the whole world doesn't revolve around him and that he has to take a vested interest in maintaining and preserving his rights or he's going to lose them.
Since the point is never going to sink it, this thread, and its original premise, is totally worthless and nothing more than a childish tantrum and should be treated as such.