Shooters Forum banner

1 - 20 of 38 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,862 Posts
Discussion Starter #1

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,925 Posts
I never knew that! I had no idea. I thought the NRA was founded to maintain the shooting skills of the veterans of the Civil War, many of whom were just kids. Who knew, in 1783, if we'd ever again need shooting skills in our young men? I guess the War of 1812 brought that idea home pretty hard. So why not keep the skills of the young boys who fought the Civil war sharp? "Hey, let's form an association just for that." Now I know differently. Makes me even more proud to be an NRA member since November 1993. It was a report on ABC's 20/20 TV show about the Brady Bill that got me to sign-up.

Here's an idea: Forward the youtube link to everyone you know. Let the whole world know the NRA is not composed of hicks, rednecks, hayseeds and hillbillies. The Marxocrat Partry and the NAALCP can in no way claim to be protective of Black Americans' Rights and Freedoms to the extent that the NRA is. Those organizations just talk. The NRA backs their commitment to Freedom and equality with firepower...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
690 Posts
Great idea. As it shows in my profile, I have been a life member since 1971 . I upgraded to endowment two years ago.
There are many pro gun organizations but the NRA is by far the most effective in fighting for the second amendment. Every shooter and hunter should be a member.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,143 Posts
As recently as the 1970's promoting concealed carry was a civil rights issues, as it was recognized that the restrictive permit and high fees charged by some states disproportionately impacted blacks and limited their ability to exercise their second amendment in the same manner as whites. In addition, inner city gun control was seen for what it was - an effort to limit access of blacks to firearms.

Do you think the average member still has that focus?
No.

The NRA has swung so far to the right over the last 30 years that it's mostly a rightwing extremist mouthpiece, and it's been continually losing influence and credibility as the membership becomes increasingly polarized. My dad was a Democrat and as a skilled tradesman he supported unions (although he opposed unions that watered down journeyman requirements and he felt union scale wages needed to be be justified with highly skilled union workers). He was also fiscally conservative and a strong 2A supporter as well as an avid hunter, shooter and sportsman. Unfortunately, by the time he passed he'd long since felt disenfranchised by the NRA.

My dad was in no way uncommon, particularly in a rural state with a strong gun culture - areas of the country where the use of guns transcends and is separate from politics. But that's something the NRA and the conservatives seem to have forgotten.

That's one of the major reasons I am not a fan of promoting the second amendment as a "conservative only" issue. There are a lot of moderates and more than a few liberals who shoot, hunt or just own firearms and when we try to polarize guns and gun issues as right wing issues, we run the risk of alienating a lot of potential supporters.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
279 Posts
As far as I can ascertain, the NRA was founded long after the Civil War and had nothing to do with arming former slaves.
Exactly. The NRA was formed to promote rifle practice and to make future soldiers better marksmen. General Ambrose Burnside of Civil War and rifle that bears his name fame was the first president of the NRA.

Col. Church stated that the main goal and purpose behind the creation of the organization was to "promote and encourage rifle shooting on a scientific basis.'' Their members would acquire skills in shooting and marksmanship that would result in making them better soldiers.
National Rifle Association History - Gun | Laws.com

i've been an NRA member for well over 50 years. The NRA is now telling me to buy the entire ball of wax that is the "conservative" agenda. i ain't doing that. Unless the NRA leadership cleans up its act my NRA contributions will be going to another gun rights organization.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,862 Posts
Discussion Starter #8 (Edited)
I agree, but it's kind of like arguing that this man or that man wasn't the one who actually made this or that famous historical quote. It doesn't really matter. Arguing about who actually said it leaves us missing the point.... the quote.

If black people (or anyone) believe in the NRA for whatever reason, then I'm happy, whether I believe in their reasoning or not. Arguing about whether they are right or wrong regarding the founding of the NRA leaves us missing the point.... they support the NRA

Also, it shouldn't matter whether the NRA is calling for "conservative" belief or "liberal" belief (cough). Whatever your reasons for joining the NRA, well, that fundamental reason hasn't changed. I like their fierce advocacy for 2nd Amendment rights. THat doesn't change even if they wanted me, for example, to buy into liberalism (cough).
 
  • Like
Reactions: roseman

·
Registered
Joined
·
279 Posts
Been fighting this gun rights battle since 1968. Have contributed tens of thousands of dollars to the NRA. Formerly the NRA was apolitical: It would support pro-gun politicians regardless of their party affiliation. Then all that changed.

i could care less that the pro-gun candidate for political office is a Protestant preacher in the mold of John Brown or a liberal lesbian Wiccan. The pro-gunner will get my vote every time.

"Conservatives" ran the white house and both houses of congress for years. During that time they did nothing for our gun rights. They could have rolled back some of the GCA 1968 but chose to do nothing.

It's about control.
 

·
The Hog Whisperer (Administrator)
Joined
·
36,122 Posts
I'm not really seeing the NRA as only pushing candidates from one party exclusively, just because of party affiliation. I can recall a few pro-gun democrats in the last few years getting a good rating and endorsement from the NRA. In fact we had a lively discussion about why the NRA was endorsing Harry Reid in his last Nevada senate race.

So... for those would would claim that the NRA will not endorse candidates from the "other" party, I believe that is false. The problem is not that the NRA is only endorsing candidates from one party, the problem is that the democratic party has taken a hard turn toward gun control at the national level. There just are darn few pro-gun democrats left at the national level. At the state level, you will find some. But probably not in every state. Our state association praises those who have helped get gun-friendly bills through the legislature and equally notes those who are constantly coming up with more gun control schemes, regardless of party affiliation.

The NRA, in conjunction with the Texas State Rifle Association, ranks our candidates for office at the state and local level and we have (by good fortune) a fair number of pro-gun democrats in the legislature and sometimes we have the good fortune of sending one on to Washington (usually from south Texas). Our state association takes no position on any other issues in front of the legislature, and I am struggling to remember ever reading anything in the NRA publications except about guns, gun rights, hunting, etc.

But in some states, yes, there aren't any endorsements on the democrat side, because there are no democrats in favor of gun rights. I know which democrats are "A" rated and which ones are "F" rated in the state of Texas. But you won't have any "A" rated democrats in your state if they don't exist.

If you want the NRA to endorse some pro-gun democrats, find some and then vote for them in the primary / caucus. Encourage your friends to do the same. When is the last time a pro-gun democrat ran for president? When is the last time a (national) democrat politician spoke at the NRA convention?

Think about it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
690 Posts
The NRA is a one issue advocacy organization; gun rights. They do not care about party affiliation which is evident when their list of endorsements is published showing some democrats with good ratings.

The problem is as Mike said, very few democrats on the national level are for gun rights. Most are for gun control but really just for control.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,925 Posts
The Marxocrat Party has become a Party of ultra-left locksteppers (if that's a word). Its members take their marching orders from on high. Those who disobey are targeted for personal and political destruction in the next election. Today's Tyranny-crat Party demands the same fervor for their "cause" and an equal degree of loyalty from its members as did the Nazi Party of 1938 Germany. When asked what is the difference between a socialist and the Dishonesty-crat Party, DNC Chairman Debbie Blabbermouth Schultz could not answer the question. Instead she tried to chop, flake and form the question about Republicans and what they seek to do about the atrocities taking place at Planned Butcherhood. It is hard to believe that a national Party supports the ghastly destruction of the most innocent and most defenseless form of life on the planet. JFK couldn't get into today's Deception-crat Party. I have to wonder if RFK could. Hubert Humphrey? Maybe not...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,393 Posts
I received my firearm proficiency certificate from an NRA instructor back in 1951.
That qualified me to apply for a hunting license.
At that time, the NRA was an apolitical organization.
Their purpose was to educate young (and old) people in the proper use of firearms.
Times have changed.
Jim
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,717 Posts
MikeG said it real good. The NRA is a single issue organization. It is the politicians from all parties that "stick their fingers to the wind" for votes.

Speaking the same thoughts as you folks here. I'm glad to be among you.

Cheezywan
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
547 Posts
[QUOTE=MikeG;834818]I'm not really seeing the NRA as only pushing candidates from one party exclusively, just because of party affiliation. I can recall a few pro-gun democrats in the last few years getting a good rating and endorsement from the NRA. In fact we had a lively discussion about why the NRA was endorsing Harry Reid in his last Nevada senate race.

So... for those would would claim that the NRA will not endorse candidates from the "other" party, I believe that is false. The problem is not that the NRA is only endorsing candidates from one party, the problem is that the democratic party has taken a hard turn toward gun control at the national level. There just are darn few pro-gun democrats left at the national level. At the state level, you will find some. But probably not in every state. Our state association praises those who have helped get gun-friendly bills through the legislature and equally notes those who are constantly coming up with more gun control schemes, regardless of party affiliation.

The NRA, in conjunction with the Texas State Rifle Association, ranks our candidates for office at the state and local level and we have (by good fortune) a fair number of pro-gun democrats in the legislature and sometimes we have the good fortune of sending one on to Washington (usually from south Texas). Our state association takes no position on any other issues in front of the legislature, and I am struggling to remember ever reading anything in the NRA publications except about guns, gun rights, hunting, etc.

But in some states, yes, there aren't any endorsements on the democrat side, because there are no democrats in favor of gun rights. I know which democrats are "A" rated and which ones are "F" rated in the state of Texas. But you won't have any "A" rated democrats in your state if they don't exist.

If you want the NRA to endorse some pro-gun democrats, find some and then vote for them in the primary / caucus. Encourage your friends to do the same. When is the last time a pro-gun democrat ran for president? When is the last time a (national) democrat politician spoke at the NRA convention?

Think about it.[/QUOTE]

^This. All of this.^

The Dem party leadership has gone bat guano insane. I have not met a Democrat in at least seven years thats for whats being sent down the pike by their leadership. Mike hit the nail on the head; When was there a pro-gun Democrat even considered for the presidency?

The wrong crowd hijacked the Dem bus and most are along for the ride now. Good luck guys.

On the edit: found the link and its from NJ! Talk about a brain fart. :D Shocking Hot-Mic Gun Comments From New Jersey Senate: ‘Confiscate, Confiscate, Confiscate’ | TheBlaze.com
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,641 Posts
The Marxocrat Party has become a Party of ultra-left locksteppers (if that's a word). Its members take their marching orders from on high. Those who disobey are targeted for personal and political destruction in the next election. Today's Tyranny-crat Party demands the same fervor for their "cause" and an equal degree of loyalty from its members as did the Nazi Party of 1938 Germany. When asked what is the difference between a socialist and the Dishonesty-crat Party, DNC Chairman Debbie Blabbermouth Schultz could not answer the question. Instead she tried to chop, flake and form the question about Republicans and what they seek to do about the atrocities taking place at Planned Butcherhood. It is hard to believe that a national Party supports the ghastly destruction of the most innocent and most defenseless form of life on the planet. JFK couldn't get into today's Deception-crat Party. I have to wonder if RFK could. Hubert Humphrey? Maybe not...
More and more, that seems to be the case with both major parties. Watch the Republicans as they choose a Presidential candidate. The extreme radical religious right wing wants control. In my opinion a governing body should consist of good, honest, intelligent people with differing experiences and viewpoints - as long as they defend the 2nd Amendment. :D
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,925 Posts
I received my firearm proficiency certificate from an NRA instructor back in 1951. ... At that time, the NRA was an apolitical organization. ... Times have changed.
Yes, they have. In 1951, we didn't have "activists" who forever seek to destroy our Second Amendment Freedoms because they do not like the cosmetics of a particular rifle you may own. Sure, it may look like a "weapon of war." I am sure we've all heard the simultaneously shrill and weepy "They have no place on the streets!!" clarion call, but the function of the AR-15 or the M1A-1 is no different in function than a Remington Model 7400 or a Ruger 10/22. What the liberals detest about the AR-15, for example, is that the assemblage of parts "looks military." Liberals detest the very notion that a nation should have a military (I'd like to teach the world to sing, in perfect harmony..."); they detest what a military does (kills the enemies of Freedom) and they detest the men and women in the military. To hear a liberal tell it, the US military is entirely composed of rapists, murderers, torturers and baby-killers.

The NRA founded the Institute for Legislative Action in 1975 as a response to the State of Taxachusetts trying, by vote of the People, to erase the Right of that State's residents to responsibly own and safely use handguns. And Thank God the NRA did form the ILA and beat down the gun-grabbers over these last forty years. The times of 1975 required action. The NRA rose to defend Freedom. Had they not and had they not been successful in that first fight, I doubt the entire nation would still today retain the Right to own and use firearms responsibly.

The more the times change, the more they stay the same...
 

·
The Hog Whisperer (Administrator)
Joined
·
36,122 Posts
Guys, keep it strictly on gun / gun control topics. No general political rants.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,143 Posts
"Conservatives" ran the white house and both houses of congress for years. During that time they did nothing for our gun rights. They could have rolled back some of the GCA 1968 but chose to do nothing.

It's about control.
I agree, but they have good spin doctors, so people remember it wrong.

That's why it's very important that people vote from a position of knowledge rather than relying on any of the major news outlets or basing decisions based on media sound bites.

In the end, we can complain about our politicians all we want, but the truth is that we are the people who elect them - often in ignorance of the facts.



Reagan is a great example of some one who is remembered incorrectly. For reasons I've never quite understood, a lot of shooters regard Reagan as some sort of paragon of conservative virtue and assume that by default he was also very pro-gun.

He most definitely was not. He was very pro law enforcement and signed several pieces of gun control legislation under the guise of protecting LEOs.

As governor of CA:

- He signed the Mulford act into law banning the public carry of loaded weapons,

- He signed the 15 day waiting period in CA into law.

As president:

- He backed the 1986 FOPA, which included provisions to banned further production and registration of machine guns for civilian owners.

- He signed the 1986 Law Enforcement Officer Protection Act - the legislation that was in response to "cop killer" bullets and resulted in the ATF definition of armor piercing bullets. (This recently resurfaced again with an ATF move to ban M855 bullets, which would have been a foot in the door move toward banning all .223 projectiles. Obama rightfully took heat for this, but pretty much everyone forgot is was a piece of Reagan era, and Reagan supported legislation in the first place.)

After his presidency:

- He supported and lobbied for the Brady Bill in 1993.

- He supported and lobbied in favor of the AWB of 1994.


All in all, that's not what you can call a pro-gun record, and it demonstrates that guns and party politics do not always go hand in hand.

So do your homework well in advance of election day, and remember to vote early and often! ;)
 
1 - 20 of 38 Posts
Top