You can keep the DVD, they just try to get you to send it back but you don't have to at all. How did they get your credit card Info? If they actually bill you that's wrong.
You can keep the DVD, they just try to get you to send it back but you don't have to at all. How did they get your credit card Info? If they actually bill you that's wrong.
I'm not quite sure you understand the current make-up of the Court...
Then perhaps we should all join GOA while maintaining our NRA dues. What if Congress had lobbyists from 4 million+ NRA members AND 4 million+ GOA members? That would double the lobbying power of gun rights advocates while letting the NRA know they're not the only game in town.
The problem with the NRA is twofold. On the one hand you have the inside the beltway types running the organization. They're part of the good ol boy power elite, brokering our rights. On the other hand you have a substantial percentage of the NRA membership who are complete fudds. They believe everything the NRA "leadership" says and really don't care about the rights of very gun owner, just the rights they care about. Those shotgun elitists, cowboy purists and bubba deer hunters could care less if you have an "evil assault rifle" and some even actively oppose it!
We've always been a fractured group that the leftists pick off one by one with divide and conquer tactics. The biggest problem with the NRA is a significant portion of the herd is diseased and weak. The NRA is not the only reason we still have gun rights. Statistics more than anything protect us. The left knows that NRA membership is less than 10% of the total gun owners in America. Cut too deep and the sleeping giant will wake up and rip their heads off.
If you want to support the NRA's lobbying efforts, just donate to the NRA-ILA... no need to waste money on an NRA membership.
hang around the lobby/legislative business for a little while and tell me that it's not about compromise.
NRA brings enough lawyers to the table ... and they seem pretty good at picking the battles that make good case law... that set precedent.
Not to burst anyones bubbles.. but gun owners are a "special interest" group... we won't get what we want or keep what we have by spouting sound bites. It's a lawyer's world out there... and we keep our rights by fighting in court.
NRA brings enough lawyers to the table ... and they seem pretty good at picking the battles that make good case law... that set precedent.
Not to burst anyones bubbles.. but gun owners are a "special interest" group... we won't get what we want or keep what we have by spouting sound bites. It's a lawyer's world out there... and we keep our rights by fighting in court.
I've never really had a problem with "Junk" mail or evening phone calls from them.
I took the time to let them know I didn't want either.
Problem solved. I get an occassional email. Maybe one or two a week.
If you don't want stuff from them don't sign up for it.
Always a good idea to read the fine print guys.
I took the time to let them know I didn't want either.
Problem solved. I get an occassional email. Maybe one or two a week.
If you don't want stuff from them don't sign up for it.
Always a good idea to read the fine print guys.
And sometimes, those are the wrong precedents to set.
Who made the oral arguments on behalf of the NRA in McDonald? Paul Clement.
In Heller, then Solicitor General Paul Clement filed a brief on behalf of the Bush Administration taking the position that the DC handgun ban was constitutional.
In McDonald, the NRA had two options: go with the Privileges or Immunities argument that Alan Gura had made throughout the appeals process, or argue Due Process with Paul Clement. They chose the latter because it was the more probable "win". Their choice was not about protecting gun rights, it was about chalking up another tally in the W column. But those who truly value their rights as protected by the Second Amendment do not see the creation of a new open season of litigation against the Second Amendment as a "win", they see it for what it is: a compromise that the NRA made that, in exchange for a case that the NRA could say it won (and even resulted in an extremely limited interpretation), they chose to consent to the Courts free reign in deciding what is and isn't protected by the Second Amendment.
You are correct, I don't understand anything about the court. I never did.
To me a straightforward matter like the bill of rights needs no outside defense because it can stand on its own and all the members of the court should unanimously vote to restore all of our gun rights.
Once this is not happening, it is all a bunch of BS and straight thinking no longer applies and that is why you need the NRA.
In the 1935 US vs Miller the court decided that a sawed off shotgun was not protected because it had no value as a military gun. Only guns like the M16, M2 etc. are protected, which means you can walk in a gun store and buy a full auto M4 without any infringement. Perhaps in an alternate universe. In this universe you get what we, the special interest group, are allowed to have. With help from the NRA.
If you want to pin a blame, pin it on all your fellow citizens that continue to vote anti gun people to office.
Reality is a beach.
I've not seen any interest in the NRA to restore what our Constitution intended. To me they exist to keep the pro-gun people somewhat happy and inactive.
Similar threads
