General Categories > Newsworthy
So what do you think he said?
FarmerRick:
--- Quote from: armed and humorous on December 31, 2011, 03:23:39 PM ---00Buck:
Why do you need a range membership? If you're so far to the right of the NRA, you should believe that you can carry and fire a gun anywhere and any time you want to?
I don't agree with the NRA on everything, but to purchase a membership while feeling so critical of them seems quite hypocritical to me.
I don't mean this as a personal attack, but more as a prod for you to think about what you're saying. If I recall correctly, the NRA supported our efforts in passing the Shooting Range Protection Act here in Nebraska a while back. Without them, you might not have been forced to join, because you may not have had a shooting range available.
--- End quote ---
The NRA also supported Ashfords quest to implement an "Assault Weapons Ban" here in Nebraska. :o
I am a Life Member in the NRA, but their track record has quite a few instances of doing harm to the RKBA. I will continue to support the NRA, but damn... they do some stupid stuff to appease the FUDDs sometimes.
armed and humorous:
Unfortunately, my ears are both plugged up ever since I flew to Virginia earlier this month. Given that, and the fact that the audio I got from the clip was pretty crappy (at least it sounded crappy to me), I have no idea what was said. From what I've heard and read, Bruning is pro 2A, and regardless of what he actually said, I doubt he intended to criticize the NRA so much as to emphasize his beliefs in 2A rights.
I didn't know anything about the NRA supporting Ashford's assault weapons ban, so I can't really comment on that except to say that I'm surprised the NRA would support something like that. I'm guessing there is more involved here than I know. I will say, that for many gun owners (or anyone who believes in the right to keep and bear arms), it's not a question of demanding complete freedom regarding the issue, but more in securing what is considered possible in the face of anti-gun opposition.
Yes, I'm well aware that many here, are the "cold dead finger" types who adamantly deny that government has any right to infringe upon their own rights. They refuse to compromise their principles, and I don't fault them for that. In reality though, most of them "capitulate" (no negative inferrence intended) and go along with whatever the law allows. They submit, if you will, because the options are pretty bleak: to become a survivalist and hide out in the boondocks somewhere, or become an anarchist and fight to the death with our own police or military (sorry, you're going to lose).
I think we need a balance of both schools of thought: those who demand totally uninfringed gun rights, and those who are willing to compromise in order the get the best they can hope to achieve. Having the former puts enough fear into the anti-gunners that it gives them an incentive to compromise their just-as-adamant beliefs that we should have no guns at all. Having the latter gives us the numbers we need to get politicians to listen.
So, many pro-gunners resolve themselves to fighting for the best laws we can hope to get passed rather than wasting time arguing for something that is highly unlikely to ever become reality.
00BUCK:
--- Quote from: armed and humorous on December 31, 2011, 03:23:39 PM ---I don't mean this as a personal attack, but more as a prod for you to think about what you're saying.
--- End quote ---
Not taken as an attack. However, I've given this plenty of thought over the years and I still see the NRA as worthless organization. They did NOTHING in the state for concealed carry. That was 100% home grown (and a huge part of why NFOA was formed). I really don't like that I am forced to join them to fire my weapons at a very nice place to do so. I can certainly go elsewhere but it is a very nice range.
Did you know that the NRA will not endorse the NFOA because we are not FORCED to belong to the NRA as a prerequisite to join here? I am glad the the NFOA BOD has not taken that dirty disgusting road. There are several other organizations that I belong to of my own free will that are more in line with my vision of 2A. If my range dropped the NRA requirement (which I will continually fight for) I would drop the NRA in a heartbeat.
But that's just my opinion. Yours may vary,
armed and humorous:
You certainly have a right to your opinion. As I said, I don't agree with everything the NRA does. In fact, I somewhat resent the tactics they use to acquire new memberships and to sell merchandise in order to raise more money. They've become somewhat of a pain in the ass lately with all the emails and surveys and requests for donatations. To call them worthless, however, is a bit extreme in my opinion. Without the presence of the NRA, I fear our 2A rights might well have been lost, or severely infringed much more than they are currently. Yes, there are other groups that do a lot in the way of promoting good legislation and electing gun-friendly candidates, and I'm glad they exist. On a national level, though, I think it is hard to argue that the NRA is not the most influential group in regards to defending our second amendment. They also promote gun ownership and training and shooting sports of all kinds, which is worthwhile in and of itself.
Again, I respect your opinion, and I can understand your desire to have access to a good shooting range. Good luck on getting your club rules changed to eliminate the NRA membership requirement. Why do you suppose they do that? Is there some financial or other advantage to the club from it?
Dan W:
I am pretty sure that NRA range insurance requires that all members join NRA for the lowest premiums. That is how many clubs insure their facilities because it saves them money.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version