Just curious, how many people are NRA members here?

[Doc]

So, now that you all have deserted the NRA, exactly how do you safeguard your 2nd amendment rights? ..... or do you just let others take care of that for you. I know there are some who figure that their gun rights will be ok through their lifetime so they might as well save a little cash and let others worry about it.

By the way, before we spit out that word, "lobbyist" with such disdain, bear in mind that there are dozens of well organized, and well financed anti-gun "lobbyists" that would go completely unopposed if it were not for the NRA performing that function.

[ny hunter]

Doc you are right,I did just that.I well renew this week.

[Mr VJP]

I joined the NRA 40 years ago and became a lifer 30 years ago.  I've also signed up about a dozen others over the years that would not have done it on their own.  My 3 children are lifers.  If I have to buy a gift for any non-member who is a shooter, gun collector or hunter, they get a 5 year membership in the NRA for $100.  A lot of non-members will take offense here again, but in my opinion, when it comes to the gun control fight, if you're not NRA, you're nothing.

[ELMER J. FUDD]

Way to "stick to your guns" VJ.

Doc, I bombard my elected A-holes and i vote. My membership will be renewed in the next few weeks anyway...

[Doc]

It's true that along with NRA membership, gunowners have to also supply pressure on legislators. But I have to say that almost all of my knowledge about up-and-coming anti-gun legislation comes from NRA alerts. There is no way that I would otherwise have the time and resources to stay abreast of all of the various issues and the details of those issues that they make their members aware of. And I would be very surprised if there others of us who could do a very good job of that on their own either. Also, there is a much more effective lobbying effort that occurs when done by professionals than we as individuals could ever match on our own. The fact is that the anti-gun forces are well organized and financed and they are relentless. You cannot allow a situation where the legislators have only anti side represented that thoroughly.

I know that in the past I have heard arguments on here from people who feel that we don't need organizations to effectively protect ourselves from the various anti-forces. The feeling is that individual letters alone can do the job. That just plain isn't so. That old saying, "United we stand - divided we fall" is never more appropriate than when we are talking about the NRA or any sportsman's advocacy organization.

[SteveMcD]

Well, Doc... I've spent the last 25 years active in the shooting sports programs, sportsman's education, local, regional and national organizations. And I put time and money into all of it.

So please excuse me if I don't salute to the NRA anymore. I am not one to sit on my duff and do nothing. I am more active than most. 

Spare me the condensending attitude about how wonderful the NRA is. Extremeist attitudes on both ends instead of common sense, and everyone loses. And yes, in many cases, such as Gabrielle Gifford's case, very good people wind up paying a terrible sacrafice. 

Sorry for the rant, I don't appreciate, need or deserve the lecture.

So, now that you all have deserted the NRA, exactly how do you safeguard your 2nd amendment rights? ..... or do you just let others take care of that for you. I know there are some who figure that their gun rights will be ok through their lifetime so they might as well save a little cash and let others worry about it.

By the way, before we spit out that word, "lobbyist" with such disdain, bear in mind that there are dozens of well organized, and well financed anti-gun "lobbyists" that would go completely unopposed if it were not for the NRA performing that function.

[Doc]

Well, Doc... I've spent the last 25 years active in the shooting sports programs, sportsman's education, local, regional and national organizations. And I put time and money into all of it.

So please excuse me if I don't salute to the NRA anymore. I am not one to sit on my duff and do nothing. I am more active than most. 

Spare me the condensending attitude about how wonderful the NRA is. Extremeist attitudes on both ends instead of common sense, and everyone loses. And yes, in many cases, such as Gabrielle Gifford's case, very good people wind up paying a terrible sacrafice. 

Sorry for the rant, I don't appreciate, need or deserve the lecture.

Yes you do need the lecture. I hate to tell you but no matter what you do as one lone individual, there is no way that you have any effect that any legislator would ever pay one minute of attention to, and you know it. So basically, you have given up all effective support of your gun ownership rights, and have left the only effective organization that has ever done anything to protect our 2nd amendment rights out there without your support. You can pretty that all up anyway that you want, but you are essentially leaving all defense of private gun ownership to others while you take a free ride.

As far as any organizations that you may have belonged to, I can assure you that it is not their position to impugn the NRA and it is also quite likely that most of them are affiliated with the NRA in one way or another. That's assuming that these organizations are not anti-gun organizations.

[First-light]

Not a member of the NRA, I do enjoy the debates about the organization and maybe some day I'll join.

[SteveMcD]

Doc.. your lecture is on Deaf Ears! And I still find your attitude condescending. Not everyone agrees with the NRA. I know Jim Zumbo did not, and it nearly cost the gentlemen his long and distinguished career as an outdoor writer and personality. 

If I am in error,  I will error on the side of common sense. If deer hunters need 15 - 30 round magazines, and military style BAR's to go hunting. We are all in trouble. 

Oh, well.. we agree to disagree. That's fine.

[steve863]

Some of these fellas can lecture until they are blue in the face, but they won't change my mind.  I also don't like their extremist views.  I was a member for at least 10 -15 years.  Haven't been a member for the last 15 years now and haven't missed them one tiny bit.  They lie and brainwash people just as well as those on the left. 

[wztirem]

Some of these fellas can lecture until they are blue in the face, but they won't change my mind.  I also don't like their extremist views.  I was a member for at least 10 -15 years.  Haven't been a member for the last 15 years now and haven't missed them one tiny bit.  They lie and brainwash people just as well as those on the left.

Now you did it Steve, you probably woke up Mr.VJP with your comments. ???

[Doc]

Some of these fellas can lecture until they are blue in the face, but they won't change my mind.  I also don't like their extremist views.  I was a member for at least 10 -15 years.  Haven't been a member for the last 15 years now and haven't missed them one tiny bit.  They lie and brainwash people just as well as those on the left.

Sounds like a Sarah Brady quote ....    ..... Mind's made up! That's it! ..... Lol.

[sits in trees]

i have to agree, right now they are the only ones out there, if we as gun owners ever get the screws put to us they will be there. but i would really appreciate being spoken to by them(NRA) like an adult, ease up on the scare tactics and scary stories. and the constant hammering or donation letters and emails sent to my house make me pissed, i could heat my house with all the damn paper work they send me. their membership may be at an all time high but that has had it's dips and high points thru out history also. 

[Mr VJP]

Sounds like some think a 30 round magazine and an AR rifle are extreme examples of the 2nd Amendment.

It ain't about hunting and sporting arms boys.  It's about freedom and keeping power in the hands of the people, not the government.  Seems some of you are OK with a lot less feedom if it doesn't affect you. What you don't get is, it will affect you eventually.

We are talking about allowing the government to chip away at our rights, in all areas of the constitution, not just the 2nd Amendment.  The NRA is in the forefront of preventing the erosion of our rights.  If that makes them an extremeist group in your opinion, you better start educating yourself on the government's constant attacks on your rights these days.  I cite numerous examples of these attacks constantly.  I'm amazed how apathetic some of the people on this forum are when they just blow off the info with no understanding or research into the subject matter. 

An uninformed electorate is the best thing the government can produce.  If your not NRA, you are not informed.  If you think they are lying to you, you are a fool.  If you don't agree with their agenda thinking it is extreme, wait till you see how extreme the restraints on gun ownership, and freedom in general, will be in the future.

[Doc]

Doc.. your lecture is on Deaf Ears! And I still find your attitude condescending. Not everyone agrees with the NRA. I know Jim Zumbo did not, and it nearly cost the gentlemen his long and distinguished career as an outdoor writer and personality. 

If I am in error,  I will error on the side of common sense. If deer hunters need 15 - 30 round magazines, and military style BAR's to go hunting. We are all in trouble. 

Oh, well.. we agree to disagree. That's fine.

Steve-

I think the point that is being missed is that the 2nd amendment really has absolutely nothing to do with hunting. In fact, hunting is not mentioned there at all. Also, hunting is simply one of the legitimate uses of firearms. In fact it would not surprise me if I were to find out that the majority of firearms owners do not hunt, or that hunting was a secondary activity for them. Even as dedicated as I am to hunting, I would say that the first mission of my guns is to provide personal and family protection. For me there is no way to be too extreme about that. If you have heard the saying, "when seconds count the police are only minutes away". Well, when you live out in rural America, that saying takes on particular significance.

I also am involved in target shooting. There too, extremism is in the eye of the beholder. Others are very serious about collecting firearms and I recognize their right to do that. I'm sure their tastes can drift toward the unusual when it comes to firearms selection and that should be their right.

The point is that when you define the right to bear arms only in the context of hunting, your arguments get to be very limited, and a lot of other perfectly legitimate uses of firearms of all kinds begin to get left out of the discussion. That is one of the things that he NRA does. They complete the discussion by not leaving out any of the legitimate reasons for the protection of private ownership of weapons.

[Mr VJP]

What aggravates me is gun owners who side with the anti's against other law abiding gun owners because they believe they possess more "common sense", when they actually have very little sense of the threat gun control advocates present.  To allow the anti's to restrict all gun rights up to the point it affects you personally, is the height of hypocrisy and self centered ideology.

[SteveMcD]

Do not get me wrong Doc. I do understand your point. However, as an Army Sharpshooter and Benchrest shooter, we all know the types that go to gun ranges with Military style firearms, has little to do with marksmanship, and a lot to do with just getting their jollies off. As past president and current director of a local gun club, I can tell you, when these guys come in with their military style guns and rapid fire for 30 to 60 minutes, the local neighbors get very alarmed. And I don't blame them. I fail to see any sporting value in these things. If the value is psychological, than that is part of the problem. Arizona shooting case in point.

[Mr VJP]

That's stereotyping, prejudicial and judgemental.  If you think all military style firearms owners are like that, you're wrong.  Any other types of people you would like to be able to decide can't own certain guns?  Talk about a holier than thou attitude.  This is exactly the type of attitude that will allow major infringements on our 2nd Amendment rights.

Do you have any idea how many nationally sanctioned target shooting events involve the AR-15 rifle?  Why doesn't your club have a rule prohibiting rapid fire on the range then?  Control your own area, but you have no right to try and control the whole population of the country.

[SteveMcD]

If I sound elitist. That's okay I can live with that. I see just as much arrogance coming from your side too. As for the Rapid Fire capable firearms.. that is exactly what we did.. we banned them from use on the range. 

Sure we had a choice.. we could have thumbed our noses at our neighbors and then wind up in litigation and lawsuit, for which my club like many others would just put us into bankrupcy and shut down the club forever.

For the record, we asked the NYSRPA for opinion and guidance on range use and the constitutionality of Local ordiances against existing "grandfathered" gun clubs, we asked several times and got no reply. Hence, we no longer support them either.

That's stereotyping, prejudicial and judgemental.  If you think all military style firearms owners are like that, you're wrong.  Any other types of people you would like to be able to decide can't own certain guns?  Talk about a holier than thou attitude.  This is exactly the type of attitude that will allow major infringements on our 2nd Amendment rights.

Do you have any idea how many nationally sanctioned target shooting events involve the AR-15 rifle?  Why doesn't your club have a rule prohibiting rapid fire on the range then?  Control your own area, but you have no right to try and control the whole population of the country.

[Mr VJP]

If there is arrogance on this side, it is in support and defense of freedom, not in opposition to it.

You say you banned the military rifles from the range?  Then you are just as bad as the anti's who want them banned.  You should have just banned rapid fire on the range.  What's to prevent a bunch of guys with Marlin 1894's full of 15 rounds of 38 special loads from making the same noise on your range?  Or is the rapid fire not your real issue?  Your true prejudice is obvious. You don't like the rifles and you think no one should own one.  I fail to see how you are different that the anti's with the same opinion.

And because the NRA would also say you are wrong, you criticize them and call them extreme?  I'm thankful the NRA doesn't see things the way you do.

[sits in trees]

Doc.. your lecture is on Deaf Ears! And I still find your attitude condescending. Not everyone agrees with the NRA. I know Jim Zumbo did not, and it nearly cost the gentlemen his long and distinguished career as an outdoor writer and personality. 

If I am in error,  I will error on the side of common sense. If deer hunters need 15 - 30 round magazines, and military style BAR's to go hunting. We are all in trouble. 

Oh, well.. we agree to disagree. That's fine.

Steve-

I think the point that is being missed is that the 2nd amendment really has absolutely nothing to do with hunting. In fact, hunting is not mentioned there at all. Also, hunting is simply one of the legitimate uses of firearms. In fact it would not surprise me if I were to find out that the majority of firearms owners do not hunt, or that hunting was a secondary activity for them. Even as dedicated as I am to hunting, I would say that the first mission of my guns is to provide personal and family protection. For me there is no way to be too extreme about that. If you have heard the saying, "when seconds count the police are only minutes away". Well, when you live out in rural America, that saying takes on particular significance.

I also am involved in target shooting. There too, extremism is in the eye of the beholder. Others are very serious about collecting firearms and I recognize their right to do that. I'm sure their tastes can drift toward the unusual when it comes to firearms selection and that should be their right.

The point is that when you define the right to bear arms only in the context of hunting, your arguments get to be very limited, and a lot of other perfectly legitimate uses of firearms of all kinds begin to get left out of the discussion. That is one of the things that he NRA does. They complete the discussion by not leaving out any of the legitimate reasons for the protection of private ownership of weapons.

yea Doc when the hoards start comin down your road you will probably be the first to shoot yourself in the foot ;D

[fasteddie]

If there is arrogance on this side, it is in support and defense of freedom, not in opposition to it.

You say you banned the military rifles from the range?  Then you are just as bad as the anti's who want them banned.  You should have just banned rapid fire on the range.  What's to prevent a bunch of guys with Marlin 1894's full of 15 rounds of 38 special loads from making the same noise on your range?  Or is the rapid fire not your real issue?  Your true prejudice is obvious. You don't like the rifles and you think no one should own one.  I fail to see how you are different that the anti's with the same opinion.

And because the NRA would also say you are wrong, you criticize them and call them extreme?  I'm thankful the NRA doesn't see things the way you do.

What a crock !

If you don't support everything the NRA spews out , you're an Anti .

If you don't support 30 round clips , you're an Anti .

If you think there should be any gun restrictions , you're an Anti .

We had our range shut down for almost a year because a couple of a-holes were doing some John Wayne rapid fire and shot a hole in a guy's pool on Putnam Road in Ontario when emptying a few 30 round magazines . I see no reason for gun owners to need these .

[WNYBuckHunter]

We had our range shut down for almost a year because a couple of a-holes were doing some John Wayne rapid fire and shot a hole in a guy's pool on Putnam Road in Ontario when emptying a few 30 round magazines . I see no reason for gun owners to need these .

If there was a rule not allowing rapid fire of ANY weapon on the range, then you would just ban those guys from the range and make sure they were held responsible for breaking the rule. Saying that a 30 round magazine is the problem instead of the idiot misusing it is the same thing as the anti-gun lobby saying that guns are the cause of murder, not the criminal that carried out the crime. You may not like 30 round mags, but why should you have the right to say that I cant own one just because its not your cup of tea? Thats like me saying you shouldnt own a Corvette because it can go faster than any reasonable person should drive, so its dangerous and I dont like it.

[Mr VJP]

Just because you see no reason to need a large cap mag, doesn't mean you can see clearly or see into the future.  Remember Katrina?  If you were a business owner in New Orleans when lawlessness ruled, you needed one.  Remember the LA riots?  Sure as heck needed one there too.  But you weren't there so you didn't see it, or the need for one.

It doesn't matter.  The 2nd Amendment isn't about who needs something, because that means someone else gets to decide.  I'd rather have the right.  Laws are there to prosecute those who misuse their rights, and that is how it should be.  But limiting rights, or making any inanimate object illegal, and prosecuting some otherwise law abiding citizen for mere possession, is a strong example of a police state.  That's one step away from tyranny fellas, whether you choose to believe it or not.

[wztirem]

Just because you see no reason to need a large cap mag, doesn't mean you can see clearly or see into the future.  Remember Katrina?  If you were a business owner in New Orleans when lawlessness ruled, you needed one.  Remember the LA riots?  Sure as heck needed one there too.  But you weren't there so you didn't see it, or the need for one.

It doesn't matter.  The 2nd Amendment isn't about who needs something, because that means someone else gets to decide.  I'd rather have the right.  Laws are there to prosecute those who misuse their rights, and that is how it should be.  But limiting rights, or making any inanimate object illegal, and prosecuting some otherwise law abiding citizen for mere possession, is a strong example of a police state.  That's one step away from tyranny fellas, whether you choose to believe it or not.

The problem with you is that you are such a right wing extremist, who's head is so far up your butt that you do not realize that the system as you know it is broken.

I will say this, your point of view regarding gun control would change if you had someone close to you slain by an individual who commited such an act with an illegally obtained hand gun.

There is always room for compromise when it comes to gun control.

Face the facts,wake up,the reality is that the present gun control laws DO NOT WORK. Ask anybody who has lost a loved one or for that matter ask anyone in law enforcement who put their lives on the line every day.