It costs $35 a year to join the NRA

[ThomWV]

https://membership.nrahq.org/forms/signup.asp

It costs $35 to join the National Rifle Association (NRA) for 1 year. You can use the link above to join right now if you want to. I'm thinking I might. After all the NRA is the only major organization in the country working ever day to protect our 2nd Amendment Right to bear arms. When I consider the modest amount of money I've contributed to various Democratic candidates and supporting organizations in the last year (about 15 times the cost of an NRA membership) and the work they've been doing to protect my Constitutional guarantees the $35 to the NRA seems like a pretty good deal.

There's one for the Economists to ponder: Is it possible that the only way for the utility of an individual's marginal contribution to equal or exceed all preceding contributions is to make it to an organization with seemingly contradictory purpose?

[doctor jazz]

1. It looks good to me. I have had guns for well over 50 years and was never a member but I think now

may be the time. (I think LaPierre is pretty much of a nutjob but then so are couple of our current Cabinet members)
thanks

[Statistical]

2. Contrary to popular belief the NRA does endorse Democratic candidates

Many candidates w/ a D next to their name have A rating from NRA.

In situations where they have a good voting record NRA assists them in campaigning both against other "anti gun" D and sometmes even an anti-gun R.

NRA simply looks at candidates and decides which one is more pro-gun.

[Clear Blue Sky]

8. NRA is a single issue organization - guns.

Party affiliation is a secondary concern regarding their endorsements.

[Statistical]

17. Exactly.

However many find it hard to believe that they do edorse and support pro-RKBA candidates from both parties.

It just turns out that most of the time Democrats have a worse record on this issue.
Not always though and some Democrats are actually very strong supporters of RKBA.

[ieoeja]

63. Since when?

I dropped out partly in response to their Oklahoma City bombing idiocy. The same issue of American Rifleman featuring Wayne La Pierre's claim that the NRA never published the sort of paranoid rantings that would lead to the OKC bombing -- and which I had in fact seen published many times over the previous years -- featured a Neal Knox article about UN Black Helicopters conducting a practice raid on a Chicago suburb in the middle of the night.

But mostly because of their non-gun issues, like the horrid 3-Strike Laws. It was refreshing to see the NRA finally admit they misled Californians into supporting the 3-Strike Laws when the NRA sued the state for not enforcing the law against a first time offender. He may have been a first time offender, but he did violate 3 eligible laws during that first offense, which meant life without parole according to the NRA.


After dropping out I received several calls from the NRA asking me to rejoin. Every conversation went exactly the same way. We could have been reading from a script.

NRA: "We would like you to rejoin."

ME: "While I am staunchly pro-gun, I am also mostly liberal in oth...."

{Click}


They hung up on me every single call. Made it very clear to me that Liberals were unwelcome.

[TheWraith]

96. Which could be taken as a reason for more of our people to become members: steer policy.

There's a terrifyingly large number of people who could otherwise be swayed to our side except for the tripe their sold about Democrats wanting to take all their guns, ban hunting, etcetera, etcetera. I personally know an elected Dem who's an NRA member because she supports hunters, but is far from what you'd call a gun nut. With enough sane people on board, the NRA could be steered away from the R column.

Personally, you'd have to bribe me to associate myself with the NRA, because I consider them to be organizationally psychotic. But that goes for a LOT of organizations, including some on the left. (PETA comes to mind.) So have at it, I suppose.

[Kali]

3. I don't like to affiliate with organizations led by right wing nut jobs.

But yeah, maybe if more reasonable people joined the leadership wouldn't come off so poorly.

[ThomWV]

5. That is my major objection as well to be quite honest about it.

[villager]

12. Apparently not much of one?

Proving, of course, that for gun folks, guns trump everything else -- economy, environment, etc., etc...

Man -- I think gun proliferation folk may be more single minded than the anti-choice folk...

I'd love you to prove me wrong, ThomWV...

[baldguy]

54. 2nd Amendment Uber Alles.

[villager]

86. And only the NRA's interpretation of that amendment, to boot!

The other amendments can go take a flying leap!

[hendo]

103. so, you are pissed because they defend the one amendment

that they were created to defend?

[rl6214]

87. Nice Contribution to the discussion

[Caliman73]

99. seriously

Pro-firearms liberals are stating their objections to the NRA's conservative leadership and talking points and anti-firearms people respond with the same rhetoric and exact same words that they often use to attack. Pot meet kettle?

[county worker]

4. I wouldn't say they are protecting the 2nd Amendment Right to bear arms.

I think they use that meme to get members and dollars. I don't think there is a government body that is out to take away any 2nd Amendment rights. I don't see how you can amend the Constitution to take a right away by passing laws and that's what the NRA says the Democrats are about.

Latest:


The Supreme Court (District of Columbia Et al. v. Heller) holds in part:

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

[Statistical]

13. And prior to Heller?

Do govt body is trying to take away the 2nd amendment.

Did you forget the 25 year DC handgun ban?
The fact that chicago still has a ban?
The fact that CA has a "scary looking" rifle ban?

Ted Kenedy proposed outlawing ammunition that can pierce a bullet proof vest. Problem being that ANY rifle ammunition will pierce soft body armor (like that used by LEO).

Sure nobody on the Federal level is saying:
This bill will make all guns in all forms and in all places illegal. We will go door to door and remove all of them. We will melt them down and no civilian will every have the ability to own one.

However the situation is not that black & white. It is possible to infringe without completely taking a right away.

If you needed to get fingerprinted, apply for a license, and allow govt to maintain copies of all electronic traffic that can be used against you before you were allowed to post on DU would you consider THAT infringement? Why? You still have a right to free speach just with a few restrictions.

Mostly the NRA is trying to preserve the status-quo. They have made no major movies since Clinton gun ban to force government to expand or loosen gun ownership.

[county worker]

26. In my opinion the gun laws were passed in an effort to protect citizens from people

who may use a gun in a crime. They would never want to protect citizens from DUers though at times I must admit it is a good idea.

I believe if gun laws are passed that are unconstitutional they will be struck down by the Supreme Court.

[Statistical]

32. How will they be struck down?

It took Heller 6 YEARS and hundreds of thousands of dollars in lawyer fees (luckily Alan Gura was willing to work for free and instead sued DC under Civil Rights violation for recourse).

The idea that without organizations an individual can overturn a corrupt law is a joke.
The DC gun ban held for 25 YEARS before Heller.

Chicago still has their gun ban in place. It likely will only be overturned by another trip to SCOTUS because the NRA sued and even that may take 2-3 more years.

[county worker]

37. It does take a while for sure.

[scheming daemons]

6. The NRA's propaganda are what leads to things like the Pittsburgh police shooting

They fill the minds of their members with paranoia about Obama "coming to get their guns".


and as a result, some of the crazier ones actually take action.


...and three of Pittsburgh's finest are dead today because of it.



If you pay to join the NRA, then you are paying for the paranoid propaganda they put out. And you are financing the creation of the next Timothy McVeigh.

[AlinPA]

78. There is a picture on the front page of our paper here near Pittsburgh; those two

little girls age 3 and 6 had their father killed by a follower of the right wing media and the NRA. The NRA is partly responsible for the killing of those police. I don't want to hear any bullshit about "oh, he was mentally ill", the first thing out of the mouth of the apologists- he knew prcisely what he was doing and was educated by the NRA , Alex Jones, Limbaugh and the bunch.

[rl6214]

90. Saw on the news he was not right wing

He was a skin head nazi follower.

[druidity33]

92. you're joking, right?

Because um, a "skin head nazi follower" IS right wing.

:eyes:

[TheWraith]

97. Perhaps he means not "ordinary" right wing?

Reluctant as I am to admit it, there actually is a difference between Glen Beck and Hitler.

(Amongst other things, Hitler was more mentally stable. :) )

[hendo]

107. how dare you say that here, you must be one of them!!

:sarcasm:

I swear, I worry about some of the posters here who call everyone on the right a nazi, and assume that nazi is synonymous with republican.

[druidity33]

110. i gave him the eyeroll and everything...

he still doesn't get it...

go figure.


:)

[rl6214]

106. No seriously

I was at the doctor and they had a tv on in the waiting room, don't know which channel but that's what I heard.

[imdjh]

109. Whose propaganda leads to the shooting of the Oakland police officers? n/t

[bluestateguy]

7. I'd love to join, but I can't

That money would go straight to some wingnutjob running for office, and I can't subsidize that.

I cannot be a single issue voter, and I'll just have to voice my minority pro-gun position within the Democratic Party.

[aikoaiko]

20. Not if the Democratic candidate supported the 2nd Amendment unequivocally.

That's what I've observed in the last few years.

[gorfle]

101. Not necessarily...

Both of my Democratic candidates (other than president, of course) running for office in the last election were endorsed by the NRA.

[sharp_stick]

9. I quit the NRA (warning profanity follows)

in 2000 and I don't care if it's free, it's being run by fucking nutjobs now. Maybe its always been run by fucking nutjobs but I don't remember them being this fucking crazy.

I posted in another thread how I thought I'd finally escaped the inevitable "Please rejoin the NRA" bullshit infesting my mailbox and voicemail until Obama was elected. Now I get one insane mailing after another begging me to join up to hold off the inevitable seizure of all of our guns because the evil democrat party is in charge. Damn you can smell the stank of fear all over those envelopes.

Wayne LaPierre and the rest of the shitheads that front that organization could not have been happier when Obama won the election. They are now able to tell the people that maintain good relations with the NRA that the gubmint is gonna come and get them so everyone heads over to the fucking Walmart to buy all the ammo in stock. Wayne LaPierre and assholes make a mint off of gun and ammo sales so the more the sheep pack guns and ammunition into their non-secured closets and basements the better.

Ahhh what the hell, The NRA can go fuck themselves, I've sent the last three mailers back empty and I'll probably do the same with all the rest unless I can think of a way to jam some thin weights or gooey dogshit in the envelope.

I'll keep my guns and reloading equipment securely stored and not ever join that fucking group of assholes again. I've quit gunclubs because they force memberships to those pricks and I'd do it again if I have to.

[villager]

19. Hey, Sharp Stick, we may disagree on gun policy, but my hat's off to you on calling the NRA

...for what it is!

A nutjob industry lobbying group!

[maxsolomon]

10. what website am i at?

what just happend in the last week in this country? FIVE MASS SHOOTINGS!

i recognize that the 2nd amendment isn't going anywhere, but the NRA's absolutist position on the 2nd amendment does not help reduce this plague of mayhem one bit.

i don't see what compelled you to post an ad for them. they have plenty of money.

[villager]

15. If somebody told you that a DU response to *five mass shootings* would be "hey, let's join the NRA!"

..would you've thought that'd be real, or a strange Twilight Zone episode you'd stepped into?

[sharp_stick]

25. No shit, this is bizarre in no small way.

I really don't understand the draw of that organization to people these days. Do people really think they care about the right to bear arms?

I'm convinced it's a simple money making exercise but I think the same of the fundie christians too.

[aikoaiko]

28. What other organizations fights as hard (albeit over top often) for the 2nd Amendment.

:shrug:

[villager]

85. I am sure -- since you're a member -- they have you convinced that their mission is to fight....

...for the 2nd Amendment, rather than offering, and pushing, a highly narrow interpretation of that Amendment which serves their function as product pushers for gun manufacturers much more easily...

[sandnsea]

11. Hey, join Right To Life while you're at it!!

And then you can join Save The Death Penalty, and don't forget the Build More Jails club while you vote NO NO NO on Schools That Waste Your Money!

Woohoo!!

[Hawkeye-X]

27. There's one club that does it all.

It's called the Republican Party.

[WeDidIt]

14. If I didn't consider it a fascist organization, I'd consider joining

I can't join the NRA, though.

I simply cannot be a part of an organization that comes off as such a bunch aof whackadoos.

[Mojorabbit]

50. I feel that way too

ON the other hand if enough liberals joined it might be possible to balance out the organization. Better yet would be a liberal second amendment organization.

[Iktomiwicasa]

93. Time to start up

the PRA (Progressive Rifle Association), or LRA (Liberal Rifle Association)and work towards securing our 2nd Amendment rights.

[aikoaiko]

16. I joined this year. In four more years I'll have voting priviliges.

After I was satisfied that the NRA does endorse or grade well Democrats who are correct on the 2nd Amendment, I realized that they were merely shills for the Republican party. Of course, there are many Republicans in the NRA because they have traditionally done less damage to the 2nd than Democrats. We gave it up the Republicans and they have been using the 2nd to beat us.

I don't like the NRA's hyperbole, but there are kernels of truth in many of their over-the-top claims. I will do what I can as a member to keep their claims accurate.

[Occam Bandage]

18. I support 2nd-amendment rights, but I don't like the NRA's hyperbolic fearmongering.

[aikoaiko]

31. I agree, I can't stand the over the top distortions of some politicians anti-gun, anti-rkba stances

but who else do we really have?

The only other group I plan on supported is the American Hunters And Shooters Association (http://www.huntersandshooters.com/) who supported Obama and urge him not to pursue the AWB. This is a recent change for that organization and they have a lot of potential.

I'm just waiting for this summer when I have a little more cash to sign up to support them.

[Statistical]

35. Are you kidding?

Leaders of AHSA:

Ray Schoenke....
donated millions to Handgun Control, Inc, America coming Together to outlaw firearms.

Bob Riker....
one time executive director of HCI and later worked w/ Brady Campaign

John rosenthal....
founder of Stop Handgun violence.

Joseph Vince Jr....
filed brief in support of DC in Heller vs DC.

ASHA is simply a bunch of anti trying to open another avenue in bringing down RKBA.

[aikoaiko]

42. I believe some of those characters have no association with AHSA anymore.

In particular, Schoenke and Rosenthal. At least that is what I heard. I am cautious about their past.

[Statistical]

43. Even IF (big IF) they are no longer associated....

they founded the organization and spent substantial sums of their own money to get it off the ground.

Why?

[aikoaiko]

47. I agree that it may have started off as an anti-rkba fudd supporitng group

but I it shows signs of changing and if it has, I want to support a pro-rkba group that supports democrats.

Again, I am taking my time endorsing them because some anti-rkba groups are clever.

[AlinPA]

81. They are partly responsible for the cop kiling in Pittsburgh, driving that killer

to "defend his 2nd amendment rights" by dressing up in his bulletproof vest and ambushing the police. Remember Lapiere said recently "who controls the guns wins". The shooter in Pittsburgh tried it.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

21. Why not the ACLU?

They're not a bunch of white supremacists.

[aikoaiko]

24. The ACLU has abandoned the 2nd amendment .

If the ACLU fought for the 2nd as an individual rights as hard every other civil right, I'd be happy to send them my money for this issue.

But alas, they have their heads stuck up their arses.

eta: For other civil rights, the ACLU thinks the people mean the people, but for the 2nd, the SCLU thinks the people mean the state.
:shrug:

The Right To Bear Arms http://www.aclu.org/scotus/2007term/35797prs20080626.html

The Second Amendment has not been the subject of much Supreme Court discussion through the years. To the extent it has been discussed, the Court has described the Second Amendment as designed to protect the ability of the states to preserve their own sovereignty against a new and potentially overreaching national government. Based on that understanding, the Court has historically construed the Second Amendment as a collective right connected to the concept of a "well-regulated militia" rather than an individual right to possess guns for private purposes.

In Heller, the Court reinterpreted the Second Amendment as a source of individual rights. Washington D.C.'s gun control law, which bans the private possession of handguns and was widely considered the most restrictive such law in the country, became a victim of that reinterpretation.

The Court was careful to note that the right to bear arms is not absolute and can be subject to reasonable regulation. Yet, by concluding that D.C.'s gun control law was unreasonable and thus invalid, the Court placed a constitutional limit on gun control legislation that had not existed prior to its decision in Heller. It is too early to know how much of a constitutional straitjacket the new rule will create.

[Statistical]

29. Sadly the ACLU

Is the "American Civil Liberties (except the one about guns) Union".

ACLUA has taken a shit on the 2nd amendment.

Some state chapters have broken w/ the national organization and expressed outrage that the ACLU only protects liberties it believes in so maybe someday it will be changed from the inside.

[depakid]

34. Not sadly at all

if you grasp how constitutional law works- which almost NONE of the cowards and obsessives that hide behind 2nd Amendment absolutism do.

[baldguy]

55. The ACLU supports the 2nd Amendment as it is written

and as it was understood by the courts before the fascists took control of them.

[aikoaiko]

60. So when the 2nd says people we should understand that as state?

Why isn't that true of other amendments? or parts of the constitution.

[Statistical]

75. You are aware that ALL 9 judges believe the 2nd confers an individual right?

Even the liberal ones.

You are aware than in the Miller case it was never ruled that an individual right doesn't exist.

Miller had a sawed off shotgun. The courts ruled that it is a weapon w/ no legitimate military purpose.

If Miller was held after Heller they likely would have reached the same conclusion except it would have been no defensive purpose; defense of self, defense of home, or defense of state.

The idea of some "collective right" in the Bill of Rights in which EVERY SINGLE OTHER AMENDMENT protects and individual right is laughable. No legal scholars even take it seriously.

It would be laughable if it wasn't so sad that you can't see the danger in equating "the people" with the state. If so some future court could rule that all rights protected in constitution are "collective rights" and inappropriate religion, free speech, assembly, or warrant protection undermines the power and authority of THE STATE and should be strictly regulated.

[ThomWV]

61. What makes you think I'm not a member of the ACLU

or for that matter what makes you think I haven't been a member continously for considerably longer than many posters here have been alive?

Just sayin' ...

[NJmaverick]

22. Why not cut out the middle man and donate directly to the RNC?

The NRA is a big time financial supporters of the Republican party.

[Statistical]

30. The NRA is a big time financial supporter of those who support RKBA.

If more Dems supported RKBA then they would support Dems more often.

[NJmaverick]

33. I no longer donate to the Salvation Army because of their anti-gay stance

I would never allow any of my $$$$ to go to the Republican party. If I did, I would have to live with the guilt that I helped ruin the Country.

[Dawgs]

39. "If more Dems supported RKBA then they would support Dems more often."

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

That's like asking if more hippies supported the military there would be less wars.

1) It ain't ever going to happen, so anyone that does IS GIVING their money directly to the RNC.
2) And, you're a fool if you think the organization is going to stop supporting the party they think is better.

[Statistical]

45. Once again they don't support parties they support candidates

there are many Rep candidates with an F from NRA.
there are many Dem candidates with an A from NRA.

[guitar man]

23. hehe

Grenade isn't actually a Warrior, per se, but it's an ordnance so widely employed that no Flame Warriors guide would be complete without mentioning it. When lobbed into a discussion forum Grenade instantly blasts civil discourse into smoking rubble....

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/grenade.htm

[safeinOhio]

36. They will support Sara Palin for President

nuff said for me.

[hendo]

112. only because of our own candidate's stance on fire arms.

To attack them for doing thier jobs is short-sighted.

If the democrats were to put up a candidate for president in 2016 that was strongly supportive of the 2nd ammendment right to keep and bear arms, then the NRA would likely support them.

[MineralMan]

38. No, thanks very much.

I own firearms...have for over 40 years. I would not join the NRA under any circumstances. Their support for RNC candidates simply prohibits my joining them.

My hunting firearms could also serve for personal protection. I have no need for any other sort of firearm. I cannot see any benefit whatsoever in NRA membership.

The NRA is not a progressive organization. Indeed it is the opposite. I do not financially support those who support people for whom I have nothing but contempt.

Finally, why is this in General Discussion? It's a gun thread.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Dawgs]

41. Great post.

:hi:

[Critters2]

44. !!

:applause:

[aikoaiko]

46. Do you wish to unarm police too?

:shrug:

eta: Do you think the police that apprehended that crazy in Pittsburgh were weilding their penises out of inadequacy?

[doctor jazz]

58. You should apply for a diplomatic post. You could discuss penis extensions with

the leaders of foreign countries.

[derby378]

80. I respect your position, but there's no need for sexism

My choice is to defend my own life, if possible, so I can be there for my family, friends, and loved ones.

It takes more courage to fight for your life and for the lives of those you care about than it does to give up without a fight.

I'm not advocating violence - I actually admire the ideals of pacifism. But peace is only possible within the framework of freedom and dignity.

[Political Tiger]

48. Dick Cheney thanks you.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

49. Oh, that fine organization that keeps saying Obama will grab all guns?

:eyes:

[aikoaiko]

51. As an NRA member I have not seen or heard any claims that he will grab ALL guns.

But I am willing to learn if you can provide me with citations or links?

[doctor jazz]

56. I just looked at their website and couldn't find anyplace where they say that.

Could you help me out with a link?

[G_j]

64. try this

this is all I could find,

http://www.nraila.org/OBAMA/

edit: OK more:
outlines a number of false and misleading claims by the NRA

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/nra_targets_obama.html

NRA Targets Obama
September 22, 2008
Updated: September 29, 2008

It falsely claims in mailers and TV ads that Obama plans to ban handguns, hunting ammo and use of a gun for home defense.

[doctor jazz]

65. I see a number of claims there supported by citations but nothing that says he wants to

take away everyone's guns. Do you consider some of those points to be untrue?

[G_j]

69. I have no idea if they are true or not, but

according to the second link I just added, (Factcheck) they have made many false claims re: Obama

[aikoaiko]

79. Read fact check carefully, they were really biased on this one.

As biased at the NRA in my opinion.

Take for example the claim that Obama wants to "Ban use of Firearms for Home Self-Defense". Most IL senators were willing to let people who legitimately defended themselves with a gun not be penalized if that gun was banned from ownership. But not Obama. Was his position consistent with the ban, sure, but it means Obama wasn't going to allow an exception to the handgun ban rule even if it was used legitimately in self-defense. So by my way of thinking, this was an example of banning the use of a type of firearm for home defense.

Did the NRA exaggerate? Yes. Did Factcheck exaggerate? Yes.

[G_j]

83. sure but,

exaggeration aside, I read enough to see that the NRA is not truthful.

[aikoaiko]

105. Sadly, few political organizations that address gun laws can claim that high road.

As a gun owner, I am disgusted by the NRA's exagerations, but not as disgusted by the anti-gun groups's distortions.

When I get my voting rights inthe NRA, I'll be voting for directors who propose fighting for guns rights with honest information.

[hendo]

115. yes, how dare they

point to a voting record. How dare they do that.

edit: look at thier list of citations. It looks pretty neutral, and cites direct quotes where appropriate. Heck, they aren't even out of context.

[hendo]

117. Duplicate

[Political Tiger]

73. NRA Ad: Shoot Obama Before He Steals Your Guns

This ridiculous gun-owning man whose voice sounds like Keith Olbermann's crappy Bill O'Reilly impression, is concerned that Obama will tax his guns and ammo, which has something to do with gas prices. Obama voted to ban deer-hunting ammunition! "Where is this guy from?" gun guy asks, in what is the single least subtle attempt to paint Obama as a Muslim foreigner ever. (Where is he from? Canada? Saudi Arabia?? San Francisco??) This is a real-life NRA ad that will run in Colorado and New Mexico. Our favorite part is the Dick Cheney-looking guy loading up a rifle as a fat kid stares at him. Enjoy your precious freedoms, assholes!

http://gawker.com/5053171/nra-ad-shoot-obama-before-he-steals-your-guns

[Political Tiger]

74. NRA Targets Obama-Biden in Ongoing Ad Buy

The National Rifle Association is likely to spend "in the eight figure range" on radio and television advertisements in the next 42 days as part of its efforts to deter undecided voters from voting for Barack Obama, according to an NRA spokesman. The group will air a series of ads starring group members that openly question Obama's commitment to protecting gun rights. Ads will air on radio stations and during local cable television ad breaks in Colorado and New Mexico through Oct. 5 and in Pennsylvania through Sept. 28, with plans to expand to other battleground states in the coming weeks.

One ad stars former Marine and Iraq war veteran Kurt Rusch. "Like all the guys I fought with in Iraq, I was honored to defend my country and our freedom. But when I got back stateside, I learned that Barack Obama opposes my right to own a handgun for self-defense. It's ridiculous," Rusch says in the spot, adding later in it: "There's no way I'm voting for a president" who would take away "the freedoms that I fought for, that my friends died to defend."

<...>

Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign, an anti-gun violence group, says this ad "takes ludicrous liberties with the truth" and the Washington Post's Fact Checker gave the spot three out of four Pinocchios for its claims that Obama would take away guns and ammunition used by hunters.

The Obama campaign notes the senator has no plan to raise taxes on guns or ammunition and did not vote to regulate the sale of hunting ammunition but instead on "armor piercing" or "cop killing" bullets. It also cites several votes Obama has cast in favor of legislation the NRA supported.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2008/09/23/nra_to_target_obama-biden_in_e.html

[Political Tiger]

77. NRA fear-mongering propaganda:

"Anti-Gunners Back Obama Agenda: Time For Gun Owners To Unite"

http://www.nrapvf.org/News/Article.aspx?ID=343

[Political Tiger]

82. The NRA uses deceptive claims to attack Barack Obama

During Barack’s career in the Illinois and United States senates, he proudly stood to defend the rights of hunters and sportsmen while doing everything he could to protect children — including his own two daughters — from illegal gun violence.

But the NRA-ILA is distributing a dishonest and cowardly flyer that makes confrontational accusations and runs away from verifying them, pushing deceptive claims without the facts to back them up. Readers have to look on a web page to find the supposed facts behind these disgraceful attacks, but the “proof” falls very short.

The non-partisan Factcheck.org has even demonstrated how shameful the NRA’s deception is:

The NRA, however, simply dismisses Obama’s stated position as “rhetoric” and substitutes its own interpretation of his record as a secret “plan.” Said an NRA spokesman: “We believe our facts.“… he NRA has cherry-picked, twisted and misrepresented Obama’s record to come up with a bogus “plan.”

Barack has clearly spelled out his position on guns to Field & Stream:

“I am very mindful of the fact that sportsmen in America may have gone hunting with their fathers, their grandfathers, their mothers, their grandmothers, and that this is part of a tradition and a way of life that has to be preserved. And there’s nothing that I will do as president of the United States that will in any way encroach on the ability of sportsmen to continue that tradition.”

http://fightthesmears.com/articles/17/NRAflyer

[Political Tiger]

84. NRA plans a wider ad assault on Barack Obama in battleground states

The National Rifle Assn. is about to turn up the volume on its campaign against Barack Obama, airing more ads taking him to task over his gun record.

Starting as early as Sunday, the NRA will be airing a new batch of spots in more battleground states, such as Ohio, Virginia and Florida. As colleague Noam Levey reported back in June, some say the NRA is losing sway. But Democrats, who generally favor restrictions on guns, still shy away from the issue, particularly in must-win swing states.

<...>

The NRA has set up a website attacking Obama, and so far has disclosed spending $2.2 million on its independent expenditure campaign against the Democratic nominee, Federal Election Commission records show.

That's just a fraction of what the final total will be. NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam said the organization will end up spending well into the “eight figures” -- some have estimated as much as $40 million -- by Nov. 4. The group spent $20 million on ads against Sen. John Kerry four years ago.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/10/nra-plans-a-new.html

[pipoman]

111. Now there is a text book case of 'the pot calling the kettle black'

Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign, an anti-gun violence group, says this ad "takes ludicrous liberties with the truth"

Every ad that Brady runs "takes ludicrous liberties with the truth".

[aikoaiko]

104. No where does that ad suggest that anyone shoot Obama.

Not even subtly.

[hendo]

118. Shoot Obama Before He Steals Your Guns?

Talk about a misleading post. Where in that ad did the guy even begin to suggest that people should shoot obama?

[PA Democrat]

52. Well, it's your money, but I much prefer donating to individual candidates

who represent my views on more than just one issue.

[baldguy]

53. Why would you want to support a RW front org?

[Cid_B]

57. Free 1-year membership...

for active duty. Sweet.

[Jack_DeLeon]

59. NRA endorsed the Democratic representative for my district...

His son is also my state Representative, and he is doing a good job there too.

[G_j]

62. who is telling people Obama is going to disarm everybody?

that is an honest question.

edit: just found this link:
http://www.nraila.org/OBAMA/

[aikoaiko]

66. And no where on that site does it say "Obama is going to disarm everybody" does it?

Perhaps I missed it.

[G_j]

67. I didn't say it did

did a quick google to find NRA statements about Obama,
there you have it

[aikoaiko]

70. sorry, I thought you were posting the link as an answer to your question.

I can't find the NRA saying what you asked about either.

[G_j]

72. see post #64

googled about NRA emails and Obama

[hendo]

119. I think that was G_j's point. NT

[proud2BlibKansan]

89. Glenn Beck

[xchrom]

68. this thread is the perfect example of how gun folks have lost it.

the nra? -- really?

[doctor jazz]

71. Not lost it...yet, but some would like for it to happen. The Bill of Rights doesn't mean much to

irrational busybodies.

[Chulanowa]

76. Well, if you want to join a racist organization that cheers vigilantism

and advises its members to arm itself against Democrats, but excuse everything Republicans do, you go right ahead.

[G_j]

88. thank you

I have zero interest in guns or the NRA, but your thread led me to understand that the NRA are a bunch of liars, and should bear some responsibility for the recent cop ambush.
I now know a lot more now than I did.
IMHO, you would be a fool to join up with those RW liars.

[JayMusgrove]

91. What if a couple million ANTI gun folks join?

And take control of the NRA, making sure no automatic weapons are sold to anyone other than police and FBI and CIA and military?

Do you think that would help make the cost of NRA membership skyrocket to maybe $3500 a year.(giving only the RICH gun owners a voice)?

I have thought about schemes to infiltrate the NRA, and make sure that the NRA will no longer support our right to automatic weapons.

Who, other than a criminal, needs to mortally wound more than one person in 3 seconds? Any serious hunter or skeet shooter NEVER uses an automatic weapon.

Protect your home from lawless invaders and criminals, if you must, MY way of doing it is to post a sign on all my doors and windows saying.... "I am a member of the NRA, and I shoot first and ask questions later, if you enter my home". That works about as well as owning any weapon, (and I own no weapons), so you people who have to have guns, ask yourself WHY a 20 cent sign can't do the job of keeping the animals out of your home and WHY you need to own a several hundred dollar automatic weapon.

[DonP]

100. OK, you know that's wrong, right?

Full auto weapons are very tightly controlled and have been since the 1934 NFA.

Since 1934 there's only one instance of a legal full auto weapon being used in a crime and that was a cop that killed an informant.

For a civilian to buy one first you have to live in a state that allows them. I think about 28 states allow them..

The you have to find one for sale that you can afford. The current pricing on full auto weapons ranges from a crappy MAC10 for $6,000 to over $80,000 for an M-60. An old Thompson, if you can even find one for sale, starts at $25,000+. A full auto AK-47, that the news people think is every gun, goes for about $8,000+ on Gun Broker last time I looked.

Then you have to get your chief local law enforcement officer's permission and clearance to buy it and get fingerprinted.

Then you pay for a $200 tax stamp and wait 6 months while they complete pretty exhaustive background checks on you.

Then, about 6 to 9 months later, you can pick up the gun from the guys who sold it to you when you have all your approved paperwork from BATFE and the FBI.

It's real expensive hobby even if you can afford the gun. You go through $75 to $100 every time you pull the trigger and empty a magazine.

I've never seen anything from the NRA challenging the NFA or encouraging people to run out and get full auto weapons. But try not to let any of these actual facts get in the way of a good misperception.

[benEzra]

102. Perhaps if you did, you'd learn that your proposal is ALREADY LAW.

And take control of the NRA, making sure no automatic weapons are sold to anyone other than police and FBI and CIA and military?

Perhaps if you did, you'd learn that your proposal is ALREADY LAW. Automatic weapons are as tightly controlled as howitzers, tanks, and rocket launchers in this country, and for practical purposes ARE restricted to police/military only. There is an exemption for a handful of pre-1986 Federally registered collectibles, and here is the Federal process you have to go through to qualify to purchase one:

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/faq2.htm#m

(M15) What are the required transfer procedures for an individual who is not qualified as a manufacturer, importer, or dealer of NFA firearms?

ATF Form 4 (5320.4) must be completed, in duplicate. The transferor first completes the face of the form. The transferee completes the transferee's certification on the reverse of the form and must have the "Law Enforcement Certification" completed by the chief law enforcement officer.

The transferee is to place, on each copy of the form, a 2-inch by 2-inch photograph of the transferee taken within the past year (proofs, group photographs or photocopies are unacceptable). The transferee's address must be a street address, not a post office box. If there is no street address, specific directions to the residence must be included.

If State or local law requires a permit or license to purchase, possess, or receive NFA firearms, a copy of the transferee's permit or license must accompany the application. A check or money order for $200 ($5 for transfer of "any other weapon") shall be made payable to ATF by the transferor. All signatures on both copies must be in ink.

Fingerprints also must be submitted on FBI Form FD-258, in duplicate. Fingerprints must be taken by a person qualified to do so, and must be clear and classifiable. If wear or damage to the fingertips do not allow clear prints, and if the prints are taken by a law enforcement official, a statement on his or her official letterhead giving the reason why good prints are unobtainable should accompany the fingerprints.

Forward the completed application and appropriate tax payment to the Bureau of ATF, P.O. Box 73201, Chicago, IL 60673.

Transfer of the NFA firearm may be made only upon approval of the ATF Form 4 by the NFA Branch. If the application is approved, the original of the form with the cancelled stamp affixed showing approval will be returned to the applicant. If the tax application is denied, the tax will be refunded.

Upon approval of the ATF Form 4, the transferor should transfer the firearm as soon as possible, since the firearm is now registered to the transferee.

(26 U.S.C. 5812, 27 CFR 479.84-86)

Automatic weapons have been controlled for 75 years now, but apparently not everyone has gotten the word.

Who, other than a criminal, needs to mortally wound more than one person in 3 seconds?

You aren't seriously proposing to ban guns that can fire more than one round in 3 seconds, are you? You could buy handguns in 1836 that could fire faster than once per second, and rifles in the 1860's that could fire 15 rounds in less than 15 seconds. The first 30-round civilian rifle hit the market in 1873.

WHY you need to own a several hundred dollar automatic weapon.

See above re: automatic weapons. A pre-1986 civilian-transferable NFA Title 2 AK-47 or M16 will set you back $17,000 to $75,000, depending on model and collectibility, if you obtain Federal authorization to possess one.

[Statistical]

108. Show me where & how I can buy an automatic weapon?

Especially a "several hundred dollar" automatic weapon?

[hendo]

113. please tell me where in the US I can legally buy

a fully automatic weapon in this fantasy world you have created?

Seriosly, I want to know.

[rl6214]

94. Another organization I have heard of is

Gun Owners of America.

Don't know anything about them though.

[Name removed]

95. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[hendo]

114. you are a questionable DU member

if you do not support this member's choice to donate his or her money to whomever he or she wishes.

[baldguy]

120. A lot of people post here, then support GOP fascists in the real world.

We call those people trolls.

[hendo]

121. And those who egg them on and flame them in return are just as guilty

if you suspect someone to be an anti-DU poster then report them to the mods. They see far more than the average poster ever could.

Ya know, a while back i had a gadget in my sig that told everyone what their IP was, what their OS was, and what browser they were using. Tons of people flipped out. Funny thing is, it kept no record and was only for them to see. But want to know something? If this board is even half as powerful as the forums that i used to moderate, the mods here know all that and more; and guess what, it keeps a record.

So please, let the mods do their job. It makes it harder on forum staff if they need to extinguish flame wars too.

[Redneck Socialist]

98. No thanks.

They are little more than an arm of the republican party, the far, far right arm. I'm sure someone has posted a list of Democrats that they've endorsed, but one look at their propaganda, I mean, magazines gives lie to the idea that they are non-partisan. While they may do the heavy lifting on seconded amendment issues, they constantly rail against "the left," Democrats and environmentalists and progressives of all stripes. Any group that pals around with the likes of Ollie North and Ted Nugent is no friend of mine.

[mistertrickster]

116. Now is a good time to join . . . because Obama's gonna take our guns away?

This gun owner would rather send 35 dollars to Rush Limbaugh than the NRA.

Are you kidding me?

[geek_sabre]

122. I can't remember where I found the link

but I got a free year's subscription, and got a second year for $25. I support the organization, not because they're "right-wing," but they're consistently willing to defend our rights. They support any candidate who supports the 2nd amendment, regardless of party affiliation.