If anybody here thought the NRA represented them rather than their own selfish interests should read this exerpt from the AP article by Michael R. Blood on the Tea Party rally in Searchlight, Nevada.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2011461287_teaparty28.html?syndication=rss

In the section entitled Reid May Be Vunerable it states and I quote:

Reid was in Las Vegas for the opening of a shooting park with Wayne LaPierre of the National Rifle Association at his side.

Now what in the hell do you suppose our good buddy Wayne LaPierre was doing rubbing elbows with a skunk like Harry Reid?

Been saying for a long time that LaPierre was a Liberal money grubbing skunk and old Neal Knox was right. Well here is the proof folks. Now whatcha gonna say 'cept Holy [bleep]! Why is Wayne LaPierre appearing with and showing support for the biggest Liberal Democratic skunk in the country next to Pelosi when Sarah Palin is right across town at a Tea Party rally and was not invited to open the new fancy shooting range? Well anyone gonna answer that one fer me? Huh? C'mon NRA, tell me how good ol' Wayne is help'n to protect our gun rights now?!!!

Flower Child

You're kidding,I hope!!

Well, I don't hear nobody saying a damn thing?!!! Anyone fer changing the Leadership of the NRA now or would you rather get sold out by good ol' Wayne? Just like he did to the Machine gun owners, the Assault Weapons owners, and the Hi-Cap Magazine folks when he had the chance to stand up 'n fight? Good ol' Wayne folds faster than a house of cards or Arabs packing up their tents on camels ta move on. Wonder who he's a planning to sell out now?

Flower Child

got high a little early today, FC?


you sure manage to draw a lot of conclusions from a sentence in an AP article.....most of them wrong.

The NRA doesn't own the range, it didn't invite Reid, it had no control over the guest list, LaPierre probably wasn't even aware of who else was invited.

LaPierre was there doing PR for the shooting sports, which is his job. A range opening is not a political event, although desperate Harry probably horned his way in his attempt to convince Nevadans he's not really a liberal douchebag (little late on that one, Harry)

Isaac,
Hell no! I'm not kidding! look on the link fer youself!!!

Flower Child

the link simply says they were both in the same place.....not much Lapierre can do about that.

Steve No,
I like ya man and respect the hell outta ya, but thats bull$h!t. What part of the rubbing elbows do ya think good ol' Wayne didn't know 'bout? Huh? How come no one around here can give Neal Knox his just due and admit good ol' Wayne is a skunk?

Flower Child

I think you should have read the article.


"Reid was in Las Vegas for the opening of a shooting park with Wayne LaPierre of the National Rifle Association at his side.

Reid, a former lightweight boxer, did not back away from the showdown"

I support Steve here in his conclusions. Just because LaPierre was at the opening with Reid, it doesn't mean he and Reid are drinking buddies.

Reid was blatantly there to try to horn in on the folks' vote who are hunters and shooters, like he is some sort of friend to the shooting world.

I look at it as one of those things like Diane Feinstein, who has one of the two Concealed Weapons permits issued by the city of San Francisco. While she claims no one else needs to own a handgun, she justifies owning one, stating it is to defend herself if attacked. However when asked why shouldn't private citizens have the same rights, then her response is they can call the police to protect them. She claims she needs to carry a firearm for personal defense because she is more important than the average citizen.

It is the radical left that knows no bounds.

Also remember when Sarah Brady got caught trying to buy a firearm illegal for her son ( not her personal use no less) so he could go deer hunting.. somehow as a liberal, she skated on the illegal actions, that the rest of us would have been arrested for.

Naw, Harry Dweeb is the "villain" here, not Wayne La Pierre.

From the link you provided.


"workers served tea and doughnut holes; herbal tea, because, a spokesman said, the tea-party crowd did not seem to need more caffeine. The snacks were a nod to the gap in Medicare prescription-drug coverage known as the doughnut hole, which the health-care law would close."


Hardly what I'd call a misrepresented "side by side" statement from a questionable paper.

FC....you're reading too much into a thin article, amigo.


it's a big commercial shooting sports event...LaPierre went because it's his job, he can't control who else attends or is invited.....he's just another guest.

I didn't see any pictures of Wayne swapping spit with Harry, or even shaking his hand. And you know darn well the NRA is going to endorse whoever the GOP nominates to run against him in November. So I think you're jumping to a big conclusion from little or no evidence.

Steve,
Getting lawyerly on me? Well what part of AT HIS SIDE says he ain't support'n Reid over Palin? I mean tha guy can read the newspaper and see she and conservative folks is in town before he shows up now can't he?

Flower Child

Reagan was at a summit with Gorbachev...I hear they even shook hands.... he must have been a closet Communist.

Step away from the bong.

Hey Guys, Especially Steve No whom I consider a friend. It ain't you guys I gotta problem with!!! Y'all are great, right on folks. But I was a friend of Neal Knox and was privy to all the bull that good ol' Wayne tarred 'n feathered him with and think this is mighty suspicious. Really I do! Honest Injun!

Flower Child

Here's a question for ya. Will the NRA and Wayne LaPierre support Harry Reid in his run for the senate in November?

that would be a negative.

Agreed. Wanting FC to make a guess..

What would give you even the thought?

The absurd question was to illustrate the absurdity of the original post by Flower Child and the subsequent attempts to somehow show that LaPierre supports Reid because they were both at the opening of a huge new shooting range.

Wayne is in a politcal type posistion. In fact his whole jobs is running a political organization.

I would hope someone that is actively engaged in politics would know that if you are at the same public deals as he was with Reid that papers/websites are going to spin it every which way they can.

On a slightly related note you would hope he would check to see who is appearing on the same "bill" that he is.

But in the whole I don't see a big deal of it.

Did you hear that....aw crap the the sky falling again!
Charlie

He is just pandering to his base hunters in Nv. In Oregon, Peter DeFazio gets high marks from NRA and he is probably one of the most Socialist congressmen in the house. Smart leftist congressmen, in the west join NRA ,because they have memories of Dems. being defeated, in the past, on their anti-gun positions.........

The NRA has invited Rudolph Giulliani to their gatherings so they do have a history of inviting liberals even if this wasn't the case at this function.

Like Jan Libourel I am opposed to making the NRA a "package deal" for all "conservative" positions. The NRA is a GUN lobby. As much as I oppose abortion for instance, the NRA is NOT my anti-abortion lobby, and I don't want them to be.

The way I understand it, Reid legislatively assisted in obtaining the 61 million dollar funding for the acquisition of this 2900 acres of which the shooting sports were to be an integral theme for the land usage.

It is common for Lapierre to be present at the openings of such events,FC. It's not as though LaPierre flew into town and stayed at Reid's home trying to obtain Reid's lifetime membership fees and then buddy off to the range for a skeet shoot.

I'll bet LaPierre has even been in the presence of Schumer, Pelosi and even..dare I say it..Bam-Bam himself.

Well said Cole!

The NRA is a single issue organization. Total gun based focus extending of course to all legal gun based activities. If you have ever read LaPierre or heard him speak this is not a surprise. Every national election there are some Demokrats on the NRA sample ballot. They're not there because of their fiscal beliefs or opinion on abortion. They're there because of firearms related voting record. That being said I'm willing to bet Wayne would have kissed a frog rather than stand alongside that poor excuse for an American.

Good back ground information. I am always amazed at some that find some convoluted event or position to use to attack the NRA. Disregard the 1000's of successes that the NRA accomplishes most of them unknown that are never mentioned. I work at a lot of outdoor show events mainly for SCI, but many times gun issues are discussed. I marvel at a few that damn the NRA because they can't own a fully auto machine gun or that the NRA doesn't oppose every requirement of gun ownership including selling to criminals or mentally ill. This group will state they have the right to own a machine gun if they choose. Now with all the kooks & possible terrorist I don't want someone with an unlicensed machine gun running around the country. The lobbyist & Wayne Lapierre know when to pick a fight & when to compromise. Its the basis of our political system. Even sportsman from another country I have met would love to have our NRA to support their gun ownership rights.

So you support the NRA's support for the Bush 1989 semi-auto ban enforcement?

The NRA is pro gun. That is their only concern. The NRA endorses some real douchebags but the douchebags they endorse are pro gun regardless of their other faults.

How many full autos have been involved in the commission of crimes? I mean, legal ones? The NRA sold out the legal full auto people in '86 with the passage of McClure-Volkmer. Even though many of us have enjoyed the benefits of being able to buy long guns across state lines, some of us felt that the NRA leadership allowed us to be divided and conquered. The only reason full autos are not legal right now is that they are a hot-button issue. Some of us feel that the NRA has compromised many of our rights away. The old adage that the 2nd ain't about duck hunting couldn't be more true than today. I personally despise gun owners who won't support the rights of all gun owners and want to exclude anybody who isn't into their clay pigeon guns or collectibles and could care less about the rights of EBR owners or handgunners. In fact, I like them less than dyed-in-the-wool antis, because they are dickweasels who betray their fellows.

Oulufinn,
That is a fair enough question that I was not expecting but will gladly try to answer because I find this situation very alarming.
Frankly, I am not sure if I believe the NRA would support Reid over the Republican candidate. In the past, I have seen them get in bed with a lot of people I would not personally support, simply because their regional folks thought that the conservative candidate did not stand as great a chance of winning an election. In point of fact, they ended up ignoring their own political ratings of the candidates in question at that time and supporting folks that had a lower NRA rating and who were extremely detestable people, just because with the NRA's help they were electable. In that way, without ever sticking their neck out for the more conservative, 2nd amendment supporting but relatively unknown underdog, they won elections but when the time came to vote on crucial gun issues, they ended up getting stabbed in the back by the very same people that they had supported on the grounds that they felt they would have a better chance of winning in the previous election.
So, the fair answer to your question is, I don't think so but I would not rule out the possibility of the NRA supporting Reid at some point in the future, nor would I stop believing that this situation bears very close scrutiny by the rest of us to be sure we aren't screwed again in the name of political expediency by good ol' Wayne.
Hopefully, I have fully answered your question fairly and intelligently. Guys, it ain't the rank and file NRA that is the problem. It's good ol' Wayne and his chronyism wielding too much power in an organization that is supposedly backed by the grassroots voters and that good ol' Wayne is not all that trustworthy when it comes to protecting his own job vs doing the right thing. Do I make myself clear? I hope I'm wrong this time but he has done this several times in the past.

Flower Child

The NRA and the machine gun ban wasn't about keeping machine guns out of the hands of terrorist or even crimminals. It was about trading the righ to own a machine gun in the hopes that the opposistion would stop there. I think we can say with full certainty that it didn't work.

So Wayne the NRA know when to comprimise and when to fight eh? How has any comprimise ever worked out no matter who/where it originated for any gun owner?

I swear sometimes gun owners are worse than anti's. I'm sure Bill Ruger thought it was the greatest idea (AKA compromise) in the world when he wrote an open letter to congress that said...

I have enough common sense to not want the crazies running around with machine guns. I also don't want criminals & the mentally insane purchasing guns. Unfortunately, many of them succeed just like the tragedy at Virginia Tech. If I have to take a couple of minutes to fill out a form & have the gun dealer check with the police so be it. While this doesn't stop criminals & crazies from buying guns it does help. This is an example when compromise is the lesser of the evils. Oppose every control & loose the support of non gun owners. Support from non gun owners is vital in preventing more restrictive gun laws from being passed. The NRA is very involved in gun safety. Accidents involving guns in the hands of children are way down. One of the major reasons is the Eddie Eagle program developed by the NRA & taught by instructors like myself. Even the anti gun owners applaud the Eddie Eagle program & my state of Virginia legislature even urges every school system to take part in the program. I have never read where anyone on this forum applauded the NRA for developing such a great program. Most don't even know it exist & some don't care they just want to go out & buy a machine gun.

Hmmm, so how did Mark Begich get an A- rating from the NRA after signing on with Bloomberg's Mayors while Anchorage mayor? They very likely were single-handedly responsible for givng us the POS for Senator... He certainly made hay with the rating on virtually every ad he ran.

As my signature line says, I am concerned about NRA right now. This Reid thing is no part of my concern however...
art

Oulufinn,
In this current post of yours, you said that the previous question you asked, you regarded as absurd. Frankly, I don't consider your absurd question to be all that absurd, given good ol' Wayne's track record and I did attempt to answer your question fairly and to deal with you in a fair, non contentious manner, but with an opposing viewpoint. Should I be crying foul, as I do wish to discuss this matter further, but only if we can take this matter seriously if you please. Did you lead me on? If so, why? and is it fair to say you did it deliberately? I hope not and that you are a more stand up guy than that. Are you?

Flower Child

I'm glad you have the intelligence to decide who can own guns and those that can own guns what guns they can purhcase. Whew that really takes a caseload off the constitution. If you think filling out the 4473 form keeps ANY crimminal in the smallest way possible from getting a firearm...well I can't even respond to that.

No one is arguing that the NRA doesn't help a tremendous amount, nor that they are actively involved in safety programs.

But everytime the NRA or any other group/individiuals throws up compromise as a long term approach to gun control it always winds up in the face of gun owners and beleivers in the 2nd amendment.

I will say I have NEVER looked at an NRA rating for any politician running for office. Seeing how they voted and the rhetoric they push is normally pretty effective without having to resort to someone elses scorecard or opinion.

Cole,
I, like you, am much more interested in my gun rights than the other issues. However, that does not mean we should completely ignore them either when the issue of who do we trust is at stake.
I think RLG makes a really good point in his post on this subject earlier and although I do not entirely agree with him, I will concede that he probably has a better handle on the local scumbags than I do. With that said, I believe I have a better handle on dear ol' Wayne than he does or a lot of the rest of y'all do and ask in all seriousness if we can't agree to keep an eye on ol' Wayne cuz I don't find him all that trustworthy. Can we do that? Huh?

Flower Child

Hurrah Cole,
Exactly said! + 10,000 ! Now what you said there is my whole point and no matter how good ol' Wayne 'n friends try to spin it, IT IS FACT!Thank you for being so forthright about it!

Flower Child

So you want some guy who swaps out the US made pistol grip on their DSA STG-58 to go to federal prison for a 922R violation? That was the question I asked.

I have said before the NRA's firearm safety programs work quite well, if only their 2nd Amendment programs worked as well there wouldn't be any issues with their organization.

The question of if the NRA would support Harry Reid, based on Wayne LaPierre being at the opening of a huge new shooting center is absurd to me and I asked it, knowing full well they would not. So, no, I am not more stand up than that. It was asked to cut through your initial smokescreen and clarify what you really believed. Your answer seems to be, "Maybe", after looking at your answer.

I AM serious about calling out those who smear the NRA in absurd ways & will continue to do so, every chance I get. There is voting going on right now for the NRA Board Of Directors. Taking part in that is one hell of a lot more productive than attempting to smear Wayne LaPierre and the NRA in a dishonest manner. The NRA is not perfect, far from it, however, if more people became voting members, it would be closer than not.

That is a good point. When the NRA gives someone a rating how does a person find out what list of actions that rating was developed from? When GOA does it they have a list attached to the candidate that they based their rating on and their rating is almost always lower than the NRA gives.

Look up Russ Howard who did more than vote for the BOD, he got elected to it and got fed up with the NRA backing anti-gun candidates and supporting anti-gun actions.

Uh, no. Look up Russ Howard for the problems with those candidates the NRA endorses.

Sitka,
No problem with you either or your opinion. However, I feel compelled to point out that [bleep] rolls downhill, not up, and that dear ol' Wayne sits atop of the pyramid. Do ya think we might have just located the commonality of both of our problems? Huh?

Flower Child

Are you opposed to police officers having machine guns?

Only one that I am aware of. More on this in a bit I hope.

I just Googled and found a link to Russ Howard's resignation letter. http://www.alphadogweb.com/firearms/nra_board_director_russ_howard.htm

I read it and he seems to be a straight shooter, though it would have been better to keep him on & eject H. Joaquin Jackson, who is up for re-election right now. That would make a plus 2 for the good guys. If there were more voting members, there would be less ability to stack the decks. The NRA does a great amount of good, though we could improve it, if more were willing to become involved.

Sounded to me like Howard's type wasn't wanted at the NRA.

After having dealings with a Friend's of the NRA event organizer I will have to say his experience was not a unique one since that guy got pissed off over my asking why the NRA was supporting a "report an illegal gun" call in number with the numerous problems that could cause some innocent person with an ignorant &/or [bleep] neighbor.

As much as I despise Harry, he was instrumental in getting the range. He was also at the ground breaking when they started it.
Helluva facility by the way.

Oulufinn,
I am neither dishonest nor putting up a smokescreen and I do resent your implications a lot. It would appear that maybe you need to become more well versed in NRA management history before you make such ignorant statements.
Furthermore, my MAYBE is a serious MAYBE, based on MY past experiences with the NRA management, dear ol' Wayne, and the atrocities of good judgement that they perpetrated against law abiding machine gun and assault weapons owners for the sake of their jobs and political expediency. Now what is so dishonest about objecting to being screwed like that by NRA management, can you answer me that?
I suspect you are one (NRA management goons)of them or a step 'n fetchit for one of them. C'mon Oulufinn, be honest and tell us all how ya really feel! Let's see if ya got the Gonads for it son?

Flower Child

LOL. Not an NRA goon or fetchin', son. You're at least being more honest now. Your problem is really not so much with this Nevada deal. It's with some older, absolutely relevant issues that many of us are/were against. The smoke screen was silly and pretty easy to see through. Voting for BOD is a far better way to proceed, than sending smoke signals with a bic lighter, IMO, son.

There are other issues I vote on and abortion is one of them. I just don't want the NRA telling me how to vote on issues not even tertiary to firearms. One of the biggest reasons the NEA is one of the most hated unions extant is their penchant for meddling in issues that have nothing to do with teachers or even the schools. Once and organization sticks its nose where it doesn't belong is when the membership should be watching their backs. I don't even want the NRA being a wing of the Rep party, even though I'm a Republican myself. Two separate things, even if they many times, overlap.

All that said, I am 100% behind gun ownership. I think full autos should very probably be legal. One of the main things that pissses me off about the Republican leadership is that in the past they have refused to go on the offensive where gun control is concerned. We need to be rolling this tyranny back instead of constantly defending ourselves. A lot is our own fault for listening to dickweasels who would sell their own mama for a vote, when they keep telling us to keep a low profile and stay quiet. Then they don't do jack other than maybe vote against some stuff. We needed to get the right back to buy handguns anywhere in the US we want and not just in the state we live. The whole regulation was obsoleted with the advent of the Instant Check System anyway, yet nobody ever even mentions it. We need to trumpet the evidence that no legal machine guns are being used in the commission of crimes. The current assclownishness down on the border is being caused my our own government either giving the guns away or not adequately keeping track on them. I would even go so far as to say a convicted felon should definitely be able to own guns again, once he has done his time. If he is a threat, he shouldn't be loose. Whether such things as paroles should be used is a separate issue.

We are doing ourselves in by listening to erstwhile leaders trumpet the need for more laws and regulation. We need less laws and less regulation and more simplification. More guns = Less Crime. That simple. I personally cannot stand gun owners that want to sell segments of their own people out!

It seems you are reading statements I didn't make. All I posted was that filling out a form(s) didn't infringe on what I perceived as my right to own guns. Many like to make statements about something posted to their point of view. I fully support gun ownership & do a lot to support that right. If you were in any way involved with people on capital hill(I am slightly) it would be apparent that we can't always have 100% of what we want. Its called compromise & is the basic for our democracy. Gun issues are decided for the most part by non gun owners. Without their support gun owners will lose at the ballot box. Most non gun owners can't understand why someone should own a machine gun without any regulation & why gun purchasers would object to filling out a form. I & I believe most at the NRA understand that issues are decided by the public many of which are non gun owners. Sure we could never compromise on any thing & lose the public's support & have more gun control issues passed. Thankfully, the NRA & others involved in pro gun issues understand that its better to compromise just a little & win rather than never compromise & lose everything. Someone posted that a crime has never been committed with a registered machine gun. Obviously, that is a good thing & certainly shows that most gun owners are very responsible. Unrestricted ownership of machine guns would certainly lead to some kook or terrorist blowing hundreds of people away. I wonder how many that criticize the NRA has ever done anything to support gun ownership? How many have written their congressman or congresswoman, visited your legislators on capital hill, lobbied their state representatives, donated money to any pro gun group, taught gun safety, trained new shooters, taken kids shooting, or done anything other than criticise. Because of living outside of DC I have done all these. Certainly the NRA isn't perfect, but I don't know any organization or individual that is. I work with many at the NRA almost weekly & sometimes daily & they are a hard working group trying to preserve our rights to gun ownership.

Yet again,

1) do you want a person who swaps out the US made pistol grip on a DSA STG-58 (the ones made mostly of imported parts) with an original Austrian Steyr STG-58 pistol grip to go to federal prison?

2) do you think police officers should be able to own machine guns?

And Jason pulls out the only music he knows about some twenty year old obscure statute nobody but him even remembers.

No, someone asked a question. The answer is not zero either.







And why do you think that? You are aware your claims are made against every other type of firearm as well correct?

IMO that first sentence may indicate the problem. The second sentence aligns you with JeffObama and a few other on here that evidently didn't take Civics or Basic Government classes. Emphasis mine.

Anyone that is in to FAL/AK/Daewoo/similar rifles is affected by it whether they know it or not so it isn't obscure in any way.

The point is that Randy Weaver had two members of his family killed due to the ATF/FBI being allowed to run wild simply because he supposedly at worst was guilty of cutting a shotgun barrel back 1/8" or so too much. It was never proven that he even did that. I know it will be said that it was all due to his failure to appear and take care of it. IMO, the whole hysteria over the charge and the way the government routinely does business was the reason. All these obscure statutes and regulations are the basis of it. We need simplification, not more laws or regs that dumassses can misinterpret either from their inherent idiocy or some nefarious intent.

You seem to be an expert at creating statements that don't exist.

Go crawl under a rock. What does this have to do with the discussion? You sound like just another troll. Go argue with someone that cares about nonsense.

It has a lot to do with this discussion because the NRA that you support also supports throwing anyone that violates the US vs. import parts count rule in to federal prison. Do you also support that? And do you support police officers owning the very same machine guns you are so terrified of?

What statement are you speaking of? I quoted you automatically with the "Quote" feature here and then put emphasis on the word I was talking about. I then credited myself with the emphasis. Where did I create a statement?

I don't know about the Nevada event, but.......the NRA want's Max Baucus in the Senate, not because he's pro gun (he's not), but because they have access to him and he's a high ranking committee member.

Max is a POS. If the NRA thinks he's a good guy, they have an entirely different rating system than I do.

IIRC the legal machine gun used in a crime was by an off-duty police officer with an issued weapon.

Yeah, like that damn-fool Kerry when he was tryin' to show how 'pro-gun' he was when runnin' against GW.. They just try to show up for photo ops they can use for a campaign..

Only if we can. I think someone had a idea at one time called equal protection under the law. It was meant to protect us peons.

Because it places restrictions on our rights, and gives a roadmap of who owns what and where they may be located.



If a terrorist wanted a full auto, I'm very sure that he would either be able to find one from his handler here, or bring his own. If the cartels can bring over tons of coke, it is ludicrous to believe that the Tangoes can't bring in explosives and full auto weapons. As an example I give you Mumbai. The Indians have some of the most restrictive gun control in the world, but it didn't prevent what you describe from happening. I will give you Israel and Switzerland as examples where everyone has full auto weapons, and their citizens seem to be trusted enough by their governments to do so. Why not us? Are we less trustworthy, or are we potential "kooks"?

If you substitute "assault weapon" for "machine gun" in your statement, it sounds remarkably like the arguments used by the people who succeeded in banning assault weapons for 10 years.



I have done all of the above, and both my wife and I are Life Members of the NRA, but I have to say that they have compromised too much in the past, and seem to be willing to do so in the future in order to make a deal. A harder line would go a long ways to restoring credibility with some of us, rather than a line in the sand which seems to shift depending upon the political calculus of the week.



Then get the message to them that quite a few of us are fed up with compromise, and believe that they should work harder at eliminating such things as the inability to purchase a firearm wherever we find one, without restriction as to type, and the ability to bear arms nationwide without fear of prosecution. After all, that is pretty much what the Second Amendment is all about.

Flower Child, why are you so hung up on the "At his Side" part of the article? Are you that naive to think the AP of all people wouldn't make that statement. It makes Reid look like one of us and Lapeire look like he supports Reid. You would think people would be more aware of how the MSM works, but apparently not. Mountain out of a mole hill. Your beef with the NRA doesn't hold water in this particular instance. Think man.



Clyde

Like all organizations the NRA is not perfect and to expect the NRA to be perfect is to deny the possible in hopes of achieving the perfect. Be thankful we have the NRA, without them we would be discussing the relative merits of the various brands of slingshots.

As a Benefactor member I vote in all elections and support the NRA by buying a table and donating merchandise at the annual dinners.

Congratulations on being a Life Member of NRA. Israel & Switzerland are excellent examples where keeping fully auto weapons in the home works & is readily available for defense of their country. I believe if statistics are checked that unfortunately Americans commit more crimes than most developed nations. Drugs, organized crime, & those with mental issues are a big part of those statistics. Few countries have the approach that our country does in releasing mental patients & being politically correct in requiring individuals to seek professional help or be incarcerated. One has to only look at the Virginia Tech. tragedy to see an example of this. Suppose this nut had had a fully auto gun. If one looks at the vast number of mass murders in the US in past years I can only shutter at what could have happened if fully auto guns were used. Certainly criminals could import illegally machine guns, but most would agree that allowing unregulated sale of machine guns could & would result in many be used in street crimes & ever more mass murders. I would suggest that those that feel no compromise is the way to go on gun issues find a venue that supports that opinion. Write your representatives & state that there is to be no restriction of any form on any gun manufactured including machine guns & why not include grenades as well. Grenades should work well on PD's so why not legalize. Also state that you don't care what non gun owners believe & if they decide to vote even more regulations you damn well didn't compromise even one little bit. Some seem to feel that their opinion is the only opinion & if you disagree FU or some such insult. At any rate everyone is entitled to their opinion & I respect that. Support pro gun regulations any way you choose.

I realize that everyone has their own opinion as to what my rights are, but I'm tired of being the one having to abridge those rights to satisfy someone else's opinion on what they entail.

My point is that the same arguments that you use sound eerily like the ones the anti gun crowd used to restrict assault weapons, or are using to restrict carry laws.

The argument that we all must give up full auto weapons because a mental case may cause mayhem with one is specious on its face, as just as much mayhem can be caused by any semi auto. It is a matter of willingness to engage in the activity.

That you use this argument when it is the same one used to decry carry legislation is also of concern. How many times have we heard from the anti gun cadre that having unrestricted concealed carry will cause "wild west" type shootouts? Yet, amazingly, it hasn't happened. That you don't see that, or choose not to is why I have concerns over how the NRA does business.

Grenades? Where did that come in? But, as home made grenades in the form of pipe bombs are available to those who wish to make them, the same argument could be made against their restriction. Those who desire to use those types of weapons, will, regardless of the laws restricting them.

Bottom line is that restrictions to the Second Amendment based on what crimes MIGHT happen are the stock in trade of the anti gun lobby, and totally ignore the fact that anyone who chooses to cause mayhem and destruction will do so regardless of how many laws that there are restricting access to weapons that would make that easier. All those restrictions do is limit the citizens access to those same weapons that could be used as a counterforce against misuse.

Restricting the rights of the citizenry for a perception of future danger is wrong, and an organization that purports to support those rights but at the same time promotes restricting those rights as part of a politically expedient compromise needs to rethink its mandate. YMMV.

Never - NEVER - NEVER interpret any news article litrely. Writers use words to INFLUENCE peoples emotions. In this case it worked, drawing FC in hook line and sinker, landing him on 2 pound test as we used to say.

Gun Owners of America, and that's all I have to say about THAT.

Very well said

Oulufinn,
No smokescreen. I do have a problem with the two of them being together anywhere at anytime for any "reason". Heaven only knows what was said and we can only HOPE that they failed to hatch out some mutually beneficial nefarious plot.
Also, I AM TIRED OF VOTING IN THE SAME OL' ELECTIONS supervised by NRA management. Why would anybody put foxes to guard the hen house and then trust them to divide up the shares of the eggs produced by the chickens? Give me a break fella. Do I look to you like I just fell off of the turnip truck?
Finally, if my attempts at sending up some smoke signals to the rest of the board are so feeble, then why are you trying so hard to put out my fire? Huh? If you think the BOD is in the bag, just hold my beer and watch this! It ain't never over when a skunk like LaPierre is selling us all out.

Flower Child

The NRA should meet with these people and explain to them how their philosophy is incorrect and try to convert them.

The citizens of the US need all political parties in favor of the second amendment. For that to happen opposers need to be consulted,they were brought up to oppose and need converted.

All need to look past party affiliation. Our objective as gun owners is not to make Republicans beat Democrats, but to have pro-gun polititions beat anti-gun polititions.

It would be great to not have the second amendment as an issue.

I think that the meeting was a positive happening. It may not have went well and maybe Reid got fu'ed, but I like to see this type of effort.

Well. I'll be on the lookout for the "mutually beneficial nefarious plot". I'll note your tiredness of "VOTING IN THE SAME OL' ELECTIONS" & do it for you. You will need to hold your own beer, though watching you is proving to be decent entertainment.

A few million more voting members (Still a fraction of overall gun owners) would likely accomplish more things (AND fix some of the legitimate problems many have with the NRA), quicker, for now we'll have to do it with less.

Next time you have any service performed for you, be it vehicle/home repair, having a meal fixed at a restaurant or what ever, be sure to inform them that you do not expect perfection and see what happens.

What exactly do you think a person can do with a full auto that cannot be done with a semi-auto? And your ducking the question about the 1989 semi-auto ban has me wondering about your agenda, especially considering your anti-machine gun arguments sound exactly like anti-semi-auto arguments.

Tell you what, you fix the problems first, maintain those fixes with no new additional problems for 10 years, and then I'll give your organization money.

Christ, himself, ate with publicans and sinners...

That one always cracks me up considering the number of homes that have a little white tank sitting on the porch and the ready availability of gasoline and what it has the potential to do.

Was He giving them the support they needed to continue to be publicans and sinners?

It's pretty clear nothing will ever meet your standards. This is unfortunate, but as usual others will carry your share. This current mess we all find ourselves in may help sway some who are not as jaded. This may help fix some of the things that need fixin'.

No, my standards can be met, but not by acting in a sub-standard fashion. In all honesty, do you continue to use other services that fail to do what they claim and encourage others to use them?

I'll ask you the same question. Do you want someone that removes the US made pistol grip from their rifle and replaces it with a foreign made original pistol grip making it section 922R non-compliant to go to federal prison?

Still seeking some credibilty,huh?

Man, you are one frikken gnat like dolt!!

Funny from the person that can't do anything other than fling insults.

I am a NRA life member,
They are doing lots of good work.
They could be doing a lot more than they are too.
I am not all that happy with em lately, here is just a taste why.

http://www.nrawol.net/NRA_Ratings.html

Insults are all you deserve you Napoleonic,dipschit.

Change your broken record,chica. Your incessant one song HS is infecting every thread you touch with the dumbass,dumbass.

Pick something else you're perpetually stupid about and blather for months about that. There's gotta be more to your range of stupidity!

Nope. I hate probably as many of the [bleep] up gun laws as you do. I have an FAL, too. I want the NRA to do more, like you do. However, I will not abandon the organization that has very likely allowed us to even OWN a gun. I like to help fix things, not tell everybody to throw anything imperfect away, like you do.

Right now it is your dillapidated pile of junk. Fix it up and you will have a better chance of selling it.

Damn...one post where you actually managed a change in subject. Good job, senorita!!

That is a very good site.

I do all the time. You simply twist back and forth between topics you think will help build a stronger (R) government and insulting anyone who wants limited government.

Thanks for the link 700LH, it confirms what I've been experiencing and have been concerned about in the last few years.

Oh, and you are aware that the NRA wants anyone making that part swap to go to federal prison, aren't you?

I haven't actually seen where they pushed for that specific law, but it was likely mixed in another bill that was rammed through back when assault weapon bans, etc., were popular. There were way too many compromises. I am well aware of that. If a guy like Joaquin Jackson loses his seat, that will be a step in the right direction. You have chosen to abandon the NRA, fine. I don't.

Not sure if they stumped for it or not, but I have seen where they have repeatedly called for it's application against US citizens.

Considering the NRA's founders I tend to doubt they were ever on the side of the 2nd Amendment, but assuming they were they have most certainly abandoned me first. I don't tend to buy broken junk. Fix the problems and I will reconsider after that.

Am I to believe that the consensus of the majority of those participating in this discussion are of the opinion that there should be no restrictions on the private ownership of machine guns?

Just asking.

I don't. Nor do I believe there should be any restrictions on the private ownership of semi-autos, bolt actions, lever actions, falling blocks, revolvers, percussion cap muzzle loaders, flint locks, match locks, and so on. Shoot (or shoot at)someone not trying to injure you with anyone of them and that is the only time their owner should ever get so much as a glance from government.


There is at least one person that does want lots of restrictions on select fire weapons and apparently (based on their anger over being asked the question) also wants anyone replacing this:

http://www.dsarms.com/SA58-FAL-Metric-Pistol-Grip-Black----US087/productinfo/US087/


with this:

http://www.dsarms.com/Austrian-STG58-Metric-Pistol-Grip-New---087/productinfo/087/

to go to federal prison and essentially have their life destroyed.

Oulufinn,
If you really want the unity that you keep preaching then see if you can look at 700LHs link and see what others think needs fixin and address it with the people running the joint at the NRA. Neal Knox tried to do this but was unable to get past good ol' Wayne LaPierre. In fact, it seems like a lot of people have a problem with that guy. Aren't you even a little bit curious as to WHY? Could it be that you and the others pedantic support of good ol' Wayne and repetitions of the our way or the highway are symptoms of a problem that could have been fixed 30 years ago or more, but was neglected until good ol' Wayne was allowed to achieve God like status? Lets see now, how many folks has good ol' Wayne alienated from the second amendment struggle? Neal Knox...Russ Howard...and about 1/3 of the old rank 'n file NRA who didn't want good ol' Wayne having more power than the president of the NRA.
Most of the women I know can't stand him or Ms. Metaska because of his we know what's good fer ya l'il lady approach ta recruiting female members and his constant hounding them fer money instead of votes. His insistance on writing form letters to congress and treating them like they haven't a brain in their head enough to write their own letter and mean it, and the like. Do ya think he could be a stick'n point to our success? Well do ya?
If'n y'all get rid of good ol' Wayne, it is my bet that you will gain a hell of a lot more members than ya lose and you will increase the effectiveness of the second amendment message. Why don't y'all try it? A million or so former members are wait'n fer a sign of life down at NRA headquarters instead of a bunch of political smoozing, back slapping, and glad handing. Think about it...

Flower Child

I very highly doubt it, but I don't want to lose what we have now because I'm pissed off about it.

Don't mistake support of the NRA as a whole for blind support of Wayne LaPierre. Chipping away at the elitists on the BOD is about the only way to make a difference as a voting member. Choosing to not participate seems pretty ineffective, but have at it.

If the guys you mention had stuck around, who knows what the situation would be today. The amazing popularity of ARs, etc. The pounding a prick like Zumbo took. The fallout from Joaquin Jackson's idiotic TV interview. These have opened some eyes at the NRA.

Many of your absolutely legitimate beefs are pretty old. That million former members you mention surely could make a hellva difference and do some serious shaping of policy. Maybe even get rid of Wayne. I doubt we'll ever know, as sometimes just being mad gets to be enough for some.

Why are you blaming the tool for the actions of the user?

What's available at your common home improvement store is far more deadly than a machinegun.

That's correct.

I assume from the tenor of your response that you believe there should be no restiction on the possession of machineguns.

Not at all am I blaming the machine for the use the operator puts it to. I am not sure about the store anology is correct. what at your local home improvement store can kill at 1,000 yards, or 100 yards?

Now, next question; should you or I be allowed to mount a .50BMG in a turret atop my suburban home fully armed with 10,000 rounds?

Just asking. This is not a trick question A simple yes or no will suffice.

Back to Harry Reid who I very much dislike. I have been told that although he is a left wing freak his voting record has supported gun owners and gun rights. This seems strange to me because of how we stands on everything else. I still hope he is voted out of office!!!!!!!!!

Yes





And another question. Why the hell not?

OK, but I hesitate to think that many, if any, would agree with you.

On to the next question: Should I be allowed to have a fully armed M70 Tank in my driveway aimed at your house across the street?

Just asking.

I agree with him.

Why do people such as yourself, who evidently think that the general public cannot be trusted with full auto firearms, always move up the scale in lethality to tanks, artillery, and nukes to try and build the straw man and then tear it down? Why don't you be honest and admit that you don't trust your fellow citizens, and that you agree with the left that we should all be restricted as to how we exercise our rights. It sure would make for more honest debate.

What is an M70 tank anyway? There has never been such an AFV in US inventory outside the experimental stage. Even if there were, I would have no problem with someone having one, as many US citizens now own WW II vintage AFV's with none having been used in a crime.

The bottom-line here is that legal full auto weapons in the hands of the citizenry without onerous taxes or fees for their very possession, is a good thing. The antis were hysterical in their opposition when Florida passed the first comprehensive CCW law but the stats have proven them wrong over and over again. Now we are actually seeing a push to fully recognize the 2nd and remove unconstitutional restrictions such as permits and fees for simply carrying a gun concealed or not. Hopefully by the time my kids are grown, the country will not only continue to exist but will be experiencing these types of freedom. While I'm on my wish list, hopefully those that don't want it to will move off to China, North Korea or some other commie paradise.

I have seen things indicating he gets a good grade, but a good voting record to go along with it may or may not be the case. GOA lists what they base their ratings on, but from everything I have seen NRA does not. Last year during the Holder approving vote someone at NRA let it out that the Holder vote wouldn't be figured in to the candidate ratings so (if true) that goes a long way towards explaining how an NRA "A" can be a consistent anti-gun voter.

1000 yards would be well within the maximum range of just about any non-shot cartridge I can think of. You are playing your anti-gun hand a bit early aren't you. A lying tongue can kill from thousands of miles away, perhaps those would be better to outlaw.

If you were even in the military you would know. The many members of the Fire that have served know what machine guns are capable of. Take just one kook(they are out there gentlemen) have them set up a machine gun in the park near the Washington Monument & the field of fire would be the White House, Commerce Building, Treasury Building, Executive Office Building, & the Ellipse. In less than five minutes three or four hundred people could be killed & wounded leaving work & visiting the area. The only building that offers a field of return fire is the roof of the FBI Building(J.F. Hoover). Under the best of circumstances it would take SWAT about five-eight minutes to respond. Don't think that this scenario hasn't been considered & is of concern to law enforcement. How about the kook that used a SKS to shoot people at the CIA entrance years ago. What if he had a fully auto rifle? What about the shooting at the Pentagon several weeks ago. I had just left from this entrance & was on the subway platform prior to the incident. This is just an example of many that could create the biggest killing field in U.S. history. The difference between semi-auto & a machine gun is rate of fire. As devastating as a semi auto may be its nothing to compare to a machine gun. Imagine if the kids at Columbine HS or the Texas Clock Tower had machine guns. I was simply implying with my mention of grenades how ridiculous this entire topic is. Incidental, grenades are pretty cool until you see body parts scattered over about half an acre. I am involved with the fight for hunters & shooters rights & will support the NRA,SCI, & other outdoor groups in every way possible. For the record other than machine guns & filling out a simple form(which does help prevent "some" illegal purchases) I don't believe in any other gun restrictions. Just one tragedy with a machine gun involved hundreds killed would result in more gun legislation than any of us ever dreamed possible. Those that believe otherwise are welcome to their opinions.

What you say is BS. I've fired M-16's in the Reserves and on full auto you would be less likely to cause mass casualties than on semi unless you had a fully packed crowd. 300-400 people in five minutes is ridiculous. Have you ever carried one in combat? Any mass casualties in Israel have been caused by terrorism and not the regular citizenry. Your implication is that we should give up our rights and responsibilities due to terrorism or the possibility thereof. A few folks walking around the capitol with M-16's or AR's would make quick work of a terrorist, not to mention just those with CCW's taking him or them out. In a free country you can't control every detail. My gosh you sound like Hilary or Obama himself. I seriously am not trying to give offense here, but think about what you're saying. The citizenry being armed is a good thing.

The response of the media and the government to any sort of incident is a separate but related issue. You never hear of hand-wringing and angst about law-abiding citizens carrying guns in Israel when there is an incident. One must wonder why this is? Could it be they know their enemy and know that it is not their own citizens?

Ditto.

Some of my buds should have one of those micro-chips planted in their asses!!

Between their eyes may be more appropriate.

Most of the attraction of a machine gun of what ever type is in the novelty of the damn thing. I have fired MG34s and 42 all the browning family, M60 and the RPs. The care and feeding of those things is horrendous no matter how much fun they are. We won't talk about sub guns.

When the novelty wore off in most cases folks who had them would want to get rid of them because besides just burning rounds there ain't much you can actually do with them.

As to the other deal if somebody ain't demonstrably crazy why should I care what he possesses. I am not all that happy with the doctrine of prior restraint imposed on normal people.

Speak of mass destruction. A stolen LPG truck can be made into a rolling bomb quickly, easily and cheaply. You see LPG trucks rolling down the highway every day. Somebody MIGHT rig one so we better outlaw them, right?

BCR

If they were at the Washington Monument I suspect the Secret Service sniper on the roof of the White House would make short work of them in a few seconds. Just saying.

The GOA lies more in a month than the NRA has lied in the past 100 years. Yes, the NRA defines it's grading system.

The Holder vote was a confirmation hearing, the NRA grading system is based upon LEGISLATION. This is typical GOA bullshyt. If these ass#$%@& spent as much time actually defending the 2nd Amendment as they do attacking the NRA, trying to justify their existence, then I might listen to what they say. As it is, when I see GOA, I file it mentally with the Brady Bunch in the realm of believability.

If they were legal, I'd probably have a couple of full auto M-4's instead of the semi's I now own. I wouldn't fire them on fa much though. As you say, just too expensive. Heck, I seldom shoot our AR's much as it is. They are mainly SHTF weapons and not fun guns to me-though they are very fun to shoot. I got my first AR in probably 1982 and have had one or more almost constantly since then. I like shooting old west guns more.

If they came under machine gun fire I doubt it. Lets all hope that nothing like this ever happens. There were only concrete barriers to stand behind. Prior to 9-11 snipers were only on the roof when the president left & entered the White House. Now its 24/7. They may have added more weather protection recently since I haven't been on the roof in a few years. No building in downtown D.C. is allowed taller than the FBI building. The kook that was shot at the Pentagon could have created major deaths & injuries if he had arrived earlier. A group of school kids were on a tour(I saw them on the public ring several times) & left shortly before the shooting. This area is easy to access from either the parking lot or Metro(subway).

What's that all about? Because I believe that citizens should have the same basic weapons that the police and military have? If I'm not mistaken, that's exactly what the Founder's had in mind when they drafted the Second Amendment, not the protection of hunting and target shooting.

I see that the individuals making most of the arguments for restricting access to FA weapons and making some of us seem unreasonable in our interpretation of the Second Amendment are from the DC area and the left coast. Maybe you guys need to rethink your worldview, or at least be honest in your assessment of what our rights entail. The thinking that "reasonable" or "common sense" gun safety laws are needed is the same arguments that I hear from HCI and other anti gun groups. If you agree with their view of things, just say so.

I have shot several different full autos and don't see your fantasies having much basis in fact. Have you ever fired one?


You are aware you are supporting an organization which has called for throwing someone who switches out the pistol grips on an FAL/AK/G3 variant from a US to a foreign version to be thrown in prison, right?

Son, you obviously haven't a clue who you're talking to.

OK, let's see 10 NRA candidate ratings and each piece of legislation that the NRA based those ratings on.

So you don't consider voting for Holder an anti-gun act? BTW the "Holder not being held against them" story was not from GOA.

Should I? One anti-gunner looks the same as another to me.

=============

Isn't that the truth. The GOA hates being the wanna be little brother!

=======

You're not a gunner, son. Were you under some mistaken impression you were a gunner?

I can't imagine anyone desiring your assistance with anything having to do with the 2A. Guys like you are fatal to the cause and the reason why groups such as the NRA, are most content knowing you fellate the GOA instead. That's if and when you pay your dues , hypocrite,

Fine, but tbear has shown himself to be an anti-gunner as you have. After all, you are the guys who belong to a group calling for people who switch out furniture on rifles to be thrown in federal prison.

Apparently they aren't too content considering the constant begging for money. Based on your emotional responses to every topic under the sun I would suspect you would be more apt to be fellating than most anyone here. Never have seen straight males over the age of about 10 behave in the manner you and others like you behave.

I have done more for hunters rights & pro gun issues in one month than you will in a life time . Yes, I have fired, qualified & used in combat machine guns(30 & 50MM), 105MM tank cannons, mortars, M1, M14, &.45. At any rate, we agree to disagree. Good shooting.

Answer the question with an answer not with another question. Maybe if I simplify, are there any weapons that the ordinary untrained citizen should not be permitted to own? This is not a trick question.

There was an M70 Tank, it Replaced the M48 in the mid sixties. It was armed with a 105mm gun, two 30cal machine guns and one 50cal BMG. How do I know? I drove and fired them. In fact I still have my 70 ton drivers license, somewhere with my discharge papers.

It is people like you who do more damage to reasonable gun owners than all the antis. You provide the ammo for them to throw at us.

Arguing over NRA is not gonna go anywhere.
Are they perfect?
NO, but they are the best we have fighting for our right to keep and bear arms, bar none.

I thought the M60 replaced the M48.

And you agree with them and diminish our rights.

Are there weapons that shouldn't be allowed for private ownership? Sure, but that list doesn't include FA weapons, or any weapons that individual LE and military have available. Why should our public servants be better armed that the citizens they serve? That is how citizens become serfs.

I suggest that you do some more research on just exactly what the Founder's had in mind when they drafted the Second Amendment. Reasonable restrictions weren't their intent; keeping tyranny at bay was.

As to the M70, it was my understanding that it was an experimental AFV developed with Germany that was abandoned due to cost, and never reached operational status. Sorry if I was mistaken, but my point about plenty of US citizens owning AFV's without them being used in criminal activity still stands. Your lack of comfort with their ownership should have no bearing on it.

And sounds like you support a group that wants people thrown in to prison for swapping out rifle stocks so what ever you do in a month gets negated by that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MBT-70

You sure you don't mean a T-70?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-70

Those were in commmon use and it would explain many of your positions.

Correct, no restrictions on machineguns.

50BMG atop your home, sure. Until you actually do something illegal with it. Restrictions for what you might do are invalid.

Should you have your sex organs removed because you might rape someone? Your hands removed because you might strangle someone?

What's available at the home improvement store has the potential to kill many thousands of people without the terrorist being anywhere near the scene, even miles away.

Fear of machineguns is misguided at best.

It is rhetoric such as this that turns the average Joe and Jane Sixpack who know nothing about guns and have no desire to ever own one into rabid anti gun crusaders. And, believe me, there are many more of them than us.

I believe it is important that all who enjoy any shooting sport to support the NRA and reasonable gun laws.

And there is the fatal flaw in your argument. It isn't about SPORT, it's about liberty and defense of God given rights. Reasonable is an expedient term for a diminution of liberty, something that our Founder's understood, but that some of their progeny have obviously forgotten.

+1

Foxbat, Isaac, tbear, and others,
I have noticed that all of you "hardcore" NRA people are extremely critical of "other"2nd amendment organizations and their views. You and the NRA seem to feel that you are the only people who have a right to an opinion and that any other opinions which aren't in perfect agreement with yours represent the enemy.
In fact, it is the NRAs and your own very intolerance for organizational change and your refusal to include other gun owners positions and organizations in your acceptance that drives women and new members away. Your growth will always be limited to the number of people who share your same narrow views of who is a gunowner and therefore has a legitimate position / cause.
The NRAs refusal to legitimize any other 2nd amendment organizations is an abomination and affront to both our constitution, which they are always touting, and the people who support those organizations. The fairness factor you and the NRA exhibit in dealing with other 2nd amendment organizations and views is exactly the same as the resentment factor you espouse for the Brady and other anti-gun organizations.
Face up to it fellas, y'all is a bunch of hypocrits. Your only motivations are the membership power and money which y'all are unwilling to have to share with other 2nd amendment organizations. Y'all are also so conceited as to believe that anyone other than you has nothing to contribute to the 2nd amendment cause and that the NRA and only the NRA should decide which types of guns / weapons the citizenry of this country should legally be able to possess.
It's no wonder that more and more 2nd amendment people don't join the NRA and that you guys have to rely on sleazy mass mailings and scare tactics for money and are still losing your clout in the political arena. Until y'all get rid of your selfish, intolerant, bureaucratic, profiteering organizational people like Wayne LaPierre, who run the NRA like it is their own personal hunting and shooting country club with an elite "members only" policy, THEN Y'ALL CAN BITE ME!!!
I am sure, based on the comments here, that there are others that feel the same way and as long as you guys exhibit this brand of selfishness and intransigence, the NRA membership will suffer. Fortunately for the rest of us, you guys ain't gonna work / live forever and will be eventually replaced. The rest of us can only hope that this day will come soon as we are getting sick and tired of all your bull$h!t.

Flower Child

Flower Child, I am a Life Memeber of the NRA, a yearly Member of GOA and 2AF, do I agree with everything all 3 do, no, I support all 3, as they each have different issues that are important, it sickens me, that there is so much infighting among the groups, if they would all come together and attack at the same time, Politicians would truly fear them. But it ain't gonna happen, cause we have folks that don't like other rifles due to some features that they don't agree with. Yes, I do believe FA weapons should be registered, there are a few numbskulls out there that I DAMNED sure wouldn't trust with them, let alone anything more than an NEF single shot. Do I believe we should have the right to carry concealed......Damned skippy I do, and we should not have to register to get a CCW, but I went thru the process to do it right, tis what it means to be a Law Abiding Citizen. Silencer's, i do not understand all the hoopla about cans, as they just quieten the weapon, hell in some countries in Europe you have to have a silencer to hunt with, but almost all weapons are registered in Europe too. Quit bitchin about the Organizations you don't like, write them, tell them where they are astray, and fight to get them back on track........

Let's be honest, "non profit" organizations are nothing of the sort. And when you get to organizations that are "fighting for your rights" the reality is if they were to actually go full guns to the supreme court to assure your rights, they couldn't keep raking in the $'s from their members that are scared.

So long as people are scared that their guns will be taken away, the NRA is a profitable enterprise. It is against their self interest to truly fight for your rights.

No different then civil rights groups, animal rights or environmental groups. It comes down to money, when folks are scared they make much better contributors.

The NRA isn't about fighting for your rights, it's about taking your $.

BTW, I'm a lifetime member.

Les,
I don't really think you and I have anything substansive to argue about except the NFA weapons thing, which in my view could only make our country stronger. For goodness sake look at Israel. Those guys are definitely not limiting their citizenry very severely NFA wise and I don't think anyone here would be foolish enough to argue about their strength as citizens or as a country.
Thirty years ago we did like you suggested (to quit bitchin) and attempt to get them back on track only to be screwed in their elections and ignored and ridiculed. Neal Knox led that fight. Russ Howard continues that fight. And....guys like you sit on the sidelines wondering what the hell is going on. I don't know how these issues could be any clearer to you. We ain't bitchin about organizations (plural). We are bitchin about ONE ORGANIZATION (singular) that has appointed themselves SUPREME FEARLESS LEADER and is continually screwing the rest of us in the butt.

Flower Child

NRA's leadership needs to be voted out then, that is what the board of directors is for, anyone can be nominated that is a member. Thats the thing, if folks want change in the organization, vote for it. As I said, the NRA does something well, as does GOA and 2AF, but the NrA has the funding that the other two do not, and the only way to change it is to spread the word on whats broke. I will not argue that at all.

Well, at least one person figured it out.

And, yes, I'm a member

Got to thinking about this and what is it exactly that the anti's give up in a compromise? They initially came to the table with nothing to give in return, just a list of demands which means they are nothing more than thieves.

What you are talking about is the equivalent of them trying to kick in your door to steal your TV and in the exchange of words that follows while you try to keep the door shut, you learn that they are also interested in stealing a 4 wheeler which would be even more entertaining to them than your TV. Thinking fast and in your best interest you direct them to go next door to your neighbor's house who has just the 4 wheeler they want parked in their garage. Heck, you might even let them borrow your floor jack to augment their prybar to aid them in getting the neighbor's garage open.

On a related note, the MSM lies constantly as many here have noted. Why would anyone believe them when they make up a friends list for people who are liberty minded?

yep, right up until you put them behind the gun and let them pull the trigger.