Just curious, how many people are NRA members here?

[Mr VJP]

The problem with you sir, is you are rude, uninformed, self centered, deluded, assumptive and acusatory.  I've studied gun control since 1968, which is probably before you were born.  There are so many gun control laws on the books since then, it isn't funny.  Yet, like you say, they don't work!

So adding more gun laws will work?  That's insane.  It isn't the guns that are the problem, it is the criminals, society's protection of them, the judicial system, and the uninformed opinion of the insignificant electorate that is willing to "compromise" that is causing this problem.

I personally know more than 100 police officers, 100+ Sheriffs officers, 100's of firefighters and EMT's and not one of them believes more restrictions on private ownership of guns is going to solve the crime problem in this land.  The politically appointed Police Chiefs are a different matter.  They do what they are told by the politicians they owe their jobs to.

I'm not going to blame an illegal handgun if one of my loved ones gets shot, I'M GONNA BLAME THE SHOOTER!  Because I'm not stupid.  Am I to believe he couldn't get a gun somewhere or somehow, if more laws are passed to prevent it?  Has the war on drugs prevented criminals from selling drugs?  Have prostitution laws prevented that?  Does the threat of a life sentence prevent murder?

Just the fact that you state you know me and how I think is proof that you think you are a mind reader, have a huge ego, put yourself on a level above others and think you have the right to dictate to others what they must do.  You, my boy, are the one who is not accepting reality.

[SteveMcD]

Well.. as I stated earlier. We agree to disagree. And this disagreement has been battled in the courts for decades now. Problem is both extremes fail to compromise. And in the end it will be the sportsman

that suffer.

Well.. the NRA at least has chosen the World's Numero Uno CHICKENHAWK as their spokesperson. What a relief!!!! Doesn't get anymore hypocritical than that. Or maybe that's just appropriate.

[wztirem]

Well.. as I stated earlier. We agree to disagree. And this disagreement has been battled in the courts for decades now. Problem is both extremes fail to compromise. And in the end it will be the sportsman

that suffer.

Well.. the NRA at least has chosen the World's Numero Uno CHICKENHAWK as their spokesperson. What a relief!!!! Doesn't get anymore hypocritical than that. Or maybe that's just appropriate.

LMAO

[Mr VJP]

From the 2nd Amendment side, there is no compromise offered.  The offer from the anti's is, take some loss of your rights (for starters), or take a huge loss of your rights (the eventual goal of the anti's anyway).  Tell me what are they giving up in their "compromse", total repeal of the 2nd Amendment?  I'm sure they will let good sportsman, like those on here who are willing to "compromise", keep all of their hunting guns.

SteveMcD, pray tell which leader of the NRA are you referring to?  Wayne LaPierre?  If I had to choose between him and Obama, I don't think I would have to think about it very long.  If the sportsman lose, it will be because they chose the wrong side in the fight and sold out the rest of the gun owners.

[SteveMcD]

SteveMcD, pray tell which leader of the NRA are you referring to?  Wayne LaPierre?  If I had to choose between him and Obama, I don't think I would have to think about it very long.  If the sportsman lose, it will be because they chose the wrong side in the fight and sold out the rest of the gun owners.

I'm sorry I haven't witnessed anyone from the Obama Administration beating down my front door for my guns yet.

And I did not say "Leader" I said "Spokesperson". and most who read both sides of the issue would know who I mean. Other than Mohammed Ali... the most famous draft dodger of the 20th Century is none other than whacko, Ted Nugent. He's either got a lot of nerve or no scrupples at all, wrapping himself in the American Flag! We used to have a name for folk like him, they were called pussies! Maybe the NRA just doesn't get it, Ol' Uncle Ted isn't FOR the U.S.A., NRA or anyone else, he's only all for himself.

[DMC]

NRA, GOA and, even though I'm not Jewish, JPFO. You think the NRA gets rabid sometimes, check out the JPFO. ???

I don't necessarily need 30 round mags, but I have four SKS rifles equipped with them, along with spare mags. If I never need them fine, if I do, I have them. If you want to talk "need", then a hunter doesn't need anything more powerfrl than a .22LR. Toss in a .410 as a sop for birdhunters and outlaw everything else.

DC

[Mr VJP]

SteveMcD, Nugent is just a board member of the NRA.  He was never appointed a spokesman for the organization by the NRA.  His celebrity and fame simply cause his views to gain attention and the leftist media likes to make him out to be the typical NRA member. 

I find it curious they don't seek out the views of the many active and retired military, Congressional Medal of Honor winners, past US Presidents, Vice Presidents, past and present Senators, Congressmen, Governors and patriotic elite of all types that are members of the NRA with something to say.

Do you thing maybe their agenda is to paint the NRA as a radical right wing lunatic organization as opposed to the true equal 2nd Amendment rights for all races, creeds, religions and sexes organization that it actually is?

I don't expect you to agree, but if you're honest with yourself, you will.

[Doc]

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 .

And here is another crock: Those that think that if an organization has one or two issues that you don't agree with that the whole organization is a bad thing. That is what has allowed the anti-gun forces to make the large advances that they have. Gun owners seem to think that the NRA or any advocacy group has to have attitudes that don't deviate one bit from our own. Well, I'll tell you one thing, as soon as you make that a litmus test for anything you want to belong to, you might as well say that you aren't going to belong to anything. And that is the prime reason that sportsmen cannot be organized. Frankly, I could care less one way or another about 30 round clips. But even if I did, I would never see that disagreement with that position as offsetting all the good that the NRA does (and has done) for our gun ownership rights.

As long as we hold our advocacy groups to that kind of ridiculous and impossible standard, we will never be adequately organized. It's too bad that the antis don't seem to have those kinds of impossible standards because they certainly are highy organized and extremely well financed and all too often kicking our butt.

[Doc]

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.

Ah, the old emotional approach. That is a powerful way to steer an argument, eh?.....lol.

But seriously, the fact is that gun control laws DO NOT work just as you said. So just how many more laws should we pass before gun violence is stamped out? When do we finally admit that these kinds of crimes are not impacted by gun laws no matter how stringent or numerous. How does that definition of insanity go? ..... something like, insanity is continuing to do the same things over and over and expecting different result??? That sure seems to be our approach to crimes involving guns, isn't it? Don't know what to do? ...... Pass more laws. Those laws trample on the rights of law abiding people? ...... so what? - who cares? I think the answer that some are looking for is the ultimate. Just simply outlaw firearms completely. But then any thinking person really knows that that wouldn't work either. So what makes anyone think that any laws short of a total firearms ban will work? I hate to say it but we seem to be trying to solve a social, cultural, and attitudenal problem with hardware solutions. Could be that we are trying to cure the symptom rather than the sickness. That sort of thing really causes a whole lot of wasted flailing around toward no practical end, doesn't it?

[SteveMcD]

Mr. VJP.. I cannot argue with you on the letter of the law when it comes to the second amendment. But times have changed. In 1789, every man was equal with a single shot musket. Today, even many police departments are out gunned. The fact that, that whacko ibn Arizona could be a concealed fireman and multiple 13 round magazines and the process of law was followed, just demonstrated how tragically flawed it is.

Other point.. When I joined the NRA in the late 60's it WAS a retired Army General who was President. Now the NRA has Draft Dodgers and stuffed shirts in 600 dollar Washington suits running the show. I rest my case.

[Doc]

Mr. VJP.. I cannot argue with you on the letter of the law when it comes to the second amendment. But times have changed. In 1789, every man was equal with a single shot musket. Today, even many police departments are out gunned. The fact that, that whacko ibn Arizona could be a concealed fireman and multiple 13 round magazines and the process of law was followed, just demonstrated how tragically flawed it is.

Other point.. When I joined the NRA in the late 60's it WAS a retired Army General who was President. Now the NRA has Draft Dodgers and stuffed shirts in 600 dollar Washington suits running the show. I rest my case.

I maintain that given the events of the day, even if they had had the same weaponry that we have today, the wording of the 2nd amendment would not have changed. While the times may have changed, the sentiments behind that amendment haven't.

Your example of a flawed gun law makes me wonder just how you would write a law to take care of that situation. Would you outlaw all firearms that are not single shot? I am not trying to be a jerk or anything, I am genuinely curious as to how far some of you people would go before you were satisfied that gun laws were adequate to end gun crimes. I realize that you are just one person on that side of the debate, but I think it would be instructional to at least get your opinion on how far is enough.

As far as who is at the head of the NRA, I guess that just like my relationship to the US ...... the leadership doesn't always come up to my liking, but that doesn't have me deserting the country....lol.

[steve863]

I am not trying to be a jerk or anything, I am genuinely curious as to how far some of you people would go before you were satisfied that gun laws were adequate to end gun crimes.

Nobody is saying that crime would cease if you had the strictest set of gun laws.  What is needed is uniformity in laws around the nation.  What good are any gun laws if someone can go to a gun show in a neighboring state and buy a trunk load of weapons with NO questions asked.  Some have suggested a national gun card where all transactions private or thru dealer can be made by only those possessing this card.  Very simple system in todays computer age and I have no doubt that it would tighten up the availability of firearms to the criminal element who currently can LEGALLY get them without any questions asked in many places around this country.  Absolutely NO infringement on any law abiding citizens rights with such a system and it would also prove to the rabid anti-gun side that we as law abiding gun owners do have concerns about guns falling into the wrong hands and want to implement safeguards to help keep them away from these people.  Of course to the hardheads of the world a suggestion like this is considered treason.  Too bad, YOU guys are then the ones who have put the stigma on all of us gun owners by not accepting reality and sticking to your worn out ideas.

[Mr VJP]

Actually, the resistence to the National ID card comes from the anti-gun side of the fence.  Gun owners and the NRA were the ones who proposed that idea, provided the ID holders would not be limited in what they could own by more laws.  If a person can get the National ID, they should be able to buy any handgun, long rifle or magazine they want, short of any Class III full automatic or A.O.W., which would require a Class III license and permit.  And no registration of any firearms would be allowed either!

The anti's fought that idea passionately, showing their true desires and intention of banning guns from society altogether, not making society safer.  They proved they simply do not trust anyone with the responsibility of gun ownership, no matter what your background check reveals.

Once gun owners saw their true agenda, it was not possible to deal with any of the "compromises" they offered after that.  I think all gun owners should get behind the idea again and offer it up as the best solution to the gun issue today.  We would just need to prevent the anti's from putting all kinds of rules in place to prevent a person from getting an ID card, like too many unpaid parking tickets!

[steve863]

Actually, the resistence to the National ID card comes from the anti-gun side of the fence. 

You are typically the cut and paste master here, why don't you post something proving this? This is all I could find on it, and it sure looks like the NRA once again used it's old worn out line After the speech, NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre said, "What's it going to solve? The criminals could care less. They're not going to stand in line; they won't comply with it."[/size]

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=411

[SteveMcD]

DOC ... your arrogance isn't even worthy of a response. I won't continue this senseless debate.

Mr. VJP.. I cannot argue with you on the letter of the law when it comes to the second amendment. But times have changed. In 1789, every man was equal with a single shot musket. Today, even many police departments are out gunned. The fact that, that whacko ibn Arizona could be a concealed fireman and multiple 13 round magazines and the process of law was followed, just demonstrated how tragically flawed it is.

Other point.. When I joined the NRA in the late 60's it WAS a retired Army General who was President. Now the NRA has Draft Dodgers and stuffed shirts in 600 dollar Washington suits running the show. I rest my case.

I maintain that given the events of the day, even if they had had the same weaponry that we have today, the wording of the 2nd amendment would not have changed. While the times may have changed, the sentiments behind that amendment haven't.

Your example of a flawed gun law makes me wonder just how you would write a law to take care of that situation. Would you outlaw all firearms that are not single shot? I am not trying to be a jerk or anything, I am genuinely curious as to how far some of you people would go before you were satisfied that gun laws were adequate to end gun crimes. I realize that you are just one person on that side of the debate, but I think it would be instructional to at least get your opinion on how far is enough.

As far as who is at the head of the NRA, I guess that just like my relationship to the US ...... the leadership doesn't always come up to my liking, but that doesn't have me deserting the country....lol.

[Doc]

DOC ... your arrogance isn't even worthy of a response. I won't continue this senseless debate.

So what brought on this sudden outburst? Would you care to explain a bit of that ridiculous statement?

[Mr VJP]

Clinton proposed a national gun "License".  That means government consent to exercise a "right".  That was the reason the NRA and other gun groups said no.  If the other side was willing to accept what I stated above,  an ID issued after a simple background check, that allows a gun owner to buy whatever they want, in any state they want, they would have gotten a positive reply.  Instead, this is what they wanted.

"President Bill Clinton shocked gun owners throughout the nation last night when he proposed that all citizens be licensed by the government before they can purchase a handgun.      "Every state in this country already requires hunters and automobile drivers to have a license. I think they ought to do the same thing for handgun purchases," Clinton said. "I hope you'll help me pass that in this Congress."      The proposal, part of the president's State of the Union agenda, would add to the required Brady background check now in force the requirement that adults wishing to purchase a firearm first take a special training course, and then be issued a gun license before they could purchase a firearm."

Read more: Clinton pushes national gun ID card http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=411#ixzz1Sav8yhq2    Big Difference For Freedom There!!  A background check proves you are not a threat, a license grants permission, but can be revoked, and regulations and fines can be imposed! 

[Elmo]

With the help of SteveNY, I became a NRA life member. While I don't agree with everything they do, they are fighting for my right to bear arms. Rather than be a free loader, I figure I do my part and support someone and there's no bigger influence than the NRA.

[Nomad]

Sorry I missed this first time around... Life member here. Funny thread really. A $600 suit is a rather cheap one......

But what really gets me is the " no sporting use,hunting use" stuff. Well OK the 2nd Amen. is not about those , so whats your point ?

Yes i don't agree 100 % with them, but I have yet to find anyone or thing I agree 100% with including my wife, but she and the NRA are the best Ive found .

[Doc]

With the help of SteveNY, I became a NRA life member. While I don't agree with everything they do, they are fighting for my right to bear arms. Rather than be a free loader, I figure I do my part and support someone and there's no bigger influence than the NRA.

Excellent decision! It's about time that people started understanding that you don't have to (and probably never will) agree with every statement and position that your gun and hunting advocacy groups make. In fact it's downright silly to make that a condition of membership in any organization. We are very fortunate that we (a truly tiny minority of the total population) have such an incredibly strong and effective organization fighting for our 2nd amendment rights. I suspect that over the years, our gun ownership rights would have long ago gone the way of European countries if it were not for the NRA. It's good that there are enough concerned gun owners that have been putting their petty concerns aside and have done the right thing in supporting this vital organization. As you say, you can be a responsible supporter, or simply a freeloader that selfishly takes advantage of rights and priviledges that other pay and work for. I prefer your choice.

[Uncle Nicky]

I'm a member, as others have said, I'm not buying everything they're selling. But I do think the $35/year is money well spent, it's insurance that you get to keep your guns, and the magazine you get isn't half bad.

[Grizz1219]

Life member

[wooffer]

Seems we have gotten off topic a bit, I just re-newed my NRA membership through Brownells.com. They offer a discounted rate of $25.00 instead of the full $35.00

Makes renewing a bit more affordable. Here's the link.

http://www.brownells.com/.aspx/bapid=79/ClientPage/NRA

[WNYBuckHunter]

I need to renew now that I think of it. Thanks for the reminder fellas...

[Grouse]

LIFE MEMBER AND PROUD OF IT.

If you're not NRA and think they are wrong on the 2nd Amendment, you are helping the other side, even if you don't think you are.