You guys will love these guys, play nice. They're armed. http://www.2asisters.org/ These are still working too. Not as much BS as NRA http://gunowners.org/
Thanks for pointing out those two organizations. I might also point out the Texas Rifle Assoc as another gun rights group. All of them together, along with the 800 pound gorilla (NRA) do a good job of defending the Second Amendment. More power to them.
Interesting article... http://www.businessweek.com/news/20...as-gun-lobby-toasters-burn-logo-on-bread.html
Kiggy, it appears that instead of going down the path of "getting both sides" you appear to be actively trying to seed doubt in other people's minds about the NRA. By posting up this article with "interest", it looks to me like you've donned some blinders and took a dose of stupid. Didn't you notice how the author leads you on with a bite of information, without actually accusing anyone of stealing anything. He lets you jump off the cliff on your own. And why does he do this? He's trying to create the doubt, the same doubt that you claim sparked this thread. His goal and the goal of his boss is to get some of the weaker brains to quit the NRA. The article has a lot of fluff and innuendo. Here are just a few things that are clearly evident. "New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg is the majority owner of Bloomberg LP, the parent company of Bloomberg News. He is co- chairman of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, a 600-member coalition that advocates tightening required background checks of gun buyers." "Bloomberg has not had a role in the day-to-day operation of Bloomberg LP for more than a decade, La Vorgna said." Seriously. Do you think that a fellow who has spent so much effort on trying to curtail this civil right would allow one of his employees to publish anything but a negatively slanted piece on the NRA. Did you know that many of those gun purchases that his agents performed in other states was illegal? Why didn't the author mention that? Why didn't anyone go to jail? "its lobbying arm, the Institute for Legislative Affairs" The author should have researched a tiny bit more. It stands for INSTITUTE FOR LEGISLATIVE ACTION. No big deal, however, given something so simple, I wonder what else he missed. "Miller, the tax lawyer with Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft, said he’d 'never heard of anything remotely related to' a charity telling its grant recipients 'that you have to purchase from a specific place.'” Alternatively, this was done to prevent the type of second guessing that comes in articles like this. You see, a grant usually comes in the form of a check. How does the grantee spend it? In some cases, for some reasons not known to me, the NRA wanted to make sure that some funds were indeed used for the purposes that the money was given. Yet, the author spins this action designed to ensure accountability as an effort by the NRA to line a buddy's pocket. Why do some get checks and others have to spend it in a store? If it is indeed a racket, why are all recipients not required to spend it in a store? My guess is that it depends on the organization getting the grant and the perceived risk. "Youth Programs The NRA told the IRS it gave $20,347 to Morganton, North Carolina, city officials to support youth programs. The city says it received $8,412, a difference of $11,935." This is the grand Poobah of slanted journalism. Notice in each of the "missing money" examples, the author doesn't try to describe where the other funds went. He lets you jump off of that bridge on your own. He even does the math for you in this instance. All told, the City of Morganton received about $24,000. What? No missing money? If the author had done any research, he'd have found that the City received about $5,000 one year, about $11,000 in another year, and $8412 or so in another year. There is no missing money nor is there any lying on tax returns. With as many opponents as the NRA has, how stupid would they have to be to overstate how much they donated to a city's youth shooting program. The author's logic is laughable. While dining on mahi-mahi and crab salad, attendees at the Friends dinner in Hawaii bid on firearms and hunting equipment. I guess this was thrown in to the article to illustrate a picture of a bunch of fat cats sitting around in paradise, dining on M/M and blowing money on $650 toasters. Actually, FONRA dinners are set up by local NRA reps. Volunteers do the prep work, people pay to attend the dinner, people volunteer to bid on the auction items, and the winners take home the auction items that have ALL been donated by individuals and businesses for the cause. What's the cause? FONRA money can only be used for grants for youth shooting sports. Maybe digging up this article makes you feel better about you doubt of the NRAs allegiances. It will take a little deeper digging than Bloomberg for you to get to the truth.
We own several guns in our family, not one NRA member. They seem a little over the top with the "fear" based BS and come across as a cult, If you're not with us you're against us mentality.
If that's all you look at then that's all you'll see. How does the NRA compare to the AMA (American Motorcycle Assoc.) or any other single purpose Association? I suppose you could call all of them cults if you wanted to.
LOL, I don't either. I do however, still hold membership in the NRA and have been for many decades. Those people earn their money. :up:
Wife and donate 14k every year to various charities plus we volunteer with a few others ( about 30 per year) We start with the pediatric brain tumor foundation the the Shriners, and then a Sturge-Webber fund. We agree not to donate to politicians, churches or foriegn countries. But back to the NRA. I don't.think my handguns or.shotguns are in jeopardy of being.confiscated by the gubernet. My Stag 2 is on the maybe list.
I am in the same boat as you, but I did join. It is just like when I worked with a team racing in the AMA - we all had to be members to get in so I had to join a group I despised (the AMA, not the NRA). What is preventing you from doing a Google search on that info to learn more? There are a few other organizations out there, like GOAL for example but by far the NRA is largest. My question is where has the ACLU been in all of this? Want to take a shit on a bible in the middle of Times Square and call it art? The ACLU is right by your side, fighting for your Constitutional right to do so. Want to run an organization that not only advocates raping little boys but gives you advice on how to do it? The ACLU is your best friend. Want to own a gun in Chicago but the government will not allow it? Sorry, we are too busy working on our Xmas card list for NAMBLA members. Fuck the ACLU and their couch.
Don't count on that not happening if you don't keep up with it. Here's a suggestion. Bookmark the NRA site and go to it every week or so and click on the Legislative Action link. You'll be surprised at how many legal actions are taken by the NRA against some Government yahoo that's trying to attach some anti-gun "common sense" law to another bill. A large number of them aren't in the news since they quietly attach it. http://home.nra.org/#
I have spent plenty of time in Mexico the past 6 months for work, it's a prime example of what happens when you take away the right to own a fire arm, long rifle or handgun are illegal and guess what...all the criminals have guns! I like the sign they have in El Paso going to Juarez, "Any firearm or ammunition is illegal in Mexico, if you have them in your possession you will go to jail" what it doesn't state is all the criminals carry them...... People kill people, not guns.
Its OK to be an NRA Member, I am a Life Member. You should understand their function though. They are there to go after issues that affect gun owners on a national level. Most gun owners aren't aware that there's a State affiliated association they should also belong to that takes on state issues related to gun ownership. If you're against the NRA, consider joining or keeping your membership to your State associations. They do good work, most of which you're not aware of. There's also the Gun Owners of America which got started because of disagreements with NRA politics.
I did go a google search, and what I've found are some interesting opposing points of view. And I've posted those as well even though doing so gets me accused of trying "seed doubt", as if such a thing was possible. If reading the opinion of some random a-hole on the internet (me) seeds doubt in your own mind then you got bigger issues. As it is with most things, the truth likely lies somewhere in the middle. Great point regarding the ACLU though. You never hear of the ACLU picking up issues for protecting gun rights. Might need to google that one.
And here you go.... http://www.aclu.org/racial-justice_...law-reform_immigrants-rights/second-amendment Given the reference to "a well regulated Militia" and "the security of a free State," the ACLU has long taken the position that the Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right. Not sure what the hell this means. "We" are allowed to own guns but "I" am not? How does that work exactly.
That is because the ACLU is a bullshit organization. From the link - Second Amendment Gun Control Updated: 7/8/2008 The Second Amendment provides: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." ACLU POSITION Given the reference to "a well regulated Militia" and "the security of a free State," the ACLU has long taken the position that the Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right. For seven decades, the Supreme Court's 1939 decision in United States v. Miller was widely understood to have endorsed that view. This is a bunch of liberal bullshit. Think of the time when the Constitution was drafted - the great majority of people hunted to put on their table and they just led a successful uprising against a tyrannical king. This right is the second item in the bill of rights. Does anyone with half a brain think it was the founding father's intent to restrict gun ownership? The Supreme Court has now ruled otherwise. In striking down Washington D.C.'s handgun ban by a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court's 2008 decision in D.C. v. Heller held for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, whether or not associated with a state militia. The ACLU disagrees with the Supreme Court's conclusion about the nature of the right protected by the Second Amendment. We do not, however, take a position on gun control itself. In our view, neither the possession of guns nor the regulation of guns raises a civil liberties issue. More liberal BS. If you disagree with the ruling stating that gun ownership is protected at the individual then how can you say "We do not, however, take a postion on gun control itself."? Also, since gun ownership is part of the Bill of Rights how can someone say it is not a civil liberties issue? ANALYSIS Although ACLU policy cites the Supreme Court's decision in U.S. v. Miller as support for our position on the Second Amendment, our policy was never dependent on Miller. Rather, like all ACLU policies, it reflects the ACLU's own understanding of the Constitution and civil liberties. Heller takes a different approach than the ACLU has advocated. At the same time, it leaves many unresolved questions, including what firearms are protected by the Second Amendment, what regulations (short of an outright ban) may be upheld, and how that determination will be made. Those questions will, presumably, be answered over time. But not with the help of the ACLU. They are too busy worrying about the rights of people in this country illegally, the rights of child molesters, and the Democratic Party's right to commit voter fraud at elections.
