Community for Kel-Tec Shooters banner
81 - 97 of 97 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,908 Posts
I "bought in" with the NRA years ago. Not only the lifetime membership, but a "lifetime ENDOWMENT membership". So, I guess that means I'm "well-endowed" or something. Maybe not. Wifey didn't seem to notice any difference either way after I spent the money years ago, so ... take that for whatever it's worth. :p

Anyway. I try to put my money towards things I feel will actually produce valid results. Do I feel the NRA is the most well-managed organization at this point? Heck no! Do I want Wayne LaPierre, who's been the head of the NRA long enough that George Carlin over a decade ago was mocking him for his name and whatnot, to continue to be the head of the NRA? Nope. (Beware, there is NSFW language and an opposing opinion within, for those willing/able to withstand that nowadays ... and bear in mind, this link was made back in 2007 and recorded in the 90's):


But does that mean I feel the NRA should be disbanded/eliminated/deleted/canceled/whatever? HECK NO! Sure, there's the GOA and NAGR and whatnot, but do they have the longstanding clout that the NRA still has? Nope. Will they eventually? MAYBE. But for right now? Nope. And while I don't feel it's the absolute 100% most efficient means of getting things done or keeping things well or improving the overall situation, I do at least feel like the NRA is at least a useful tool we, as gun owners, can wield in Congress as a means of pushing for legislation that improves gun owners' rights or, at the very least (which is the most we can hope for at this point, given the current administration), a tool we can wield to help us preserve our EXISTING rights.

Ain't gonna lie, the NRA is sorta like having a 10 weenie ... but a thin one, and it's permanently bent to one side from an old injury ... compared to another who has a 5" average-girth weenie (Bloomberg). It's definitely something, a significant something, but it's not perfect, it's not for everyone, and not everyone is gonna get it. But it's better than having a 3" weenie that's 3" around, or having no weenie at all. Or in gun terms, it's the difference between having a brand new .45 ACP Hi-Point carbine at 15 yards versus having a smoothbore black-powder single-shot pistol, or no gun at all, while the opposition has a clapped-out pawn shop .25 ACP Raven Arms pistol. Is it the absolute best possible tool for the job? No. But does it beat the alternative? Definitely. Kinda the same thing.

Sorta. Maybe. I dunno. I kinda suck at similes. However, I like bourbon with honey, so there's also that... :p
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,135 Posts
I haven't been a member since they bashed police for doing their job, regardless of the objection, police shouldn't be crapped on.

Its been a long time and nobody will find it, and NRA does a lot of good work with/for LE.
but it happened.
I have decided with all the wasted money they spend on sending junk mail enticing me to sign up for a chance to win free guns and stuff, they don't need mime. Apparently they have enough to waste on garbage in my mailbox. Too bad, I really liked the magazines. But I have to take a stand against what I see as a misuse of my support.
I will join again only if I can get a life membership for $200. And unsubscribe from all the junk mail.
Keep the free hat.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,135 Posts
I "bought in" with the NRA years ago. Not only the lifetime membership, but a "lifetime ENDOWMENT membership". So, I guess that means I'm "well-endowed" or something. Maybe not. Wifey didn't seem to notice any difference either way after I spent the money years ago, so ... take that for whatever it's worth. :p

Anyway. I try to put my money towards things I feel will actually produce valid results. Do I feel the NRA is the most well-managed organization at this point? Heck no! Do I want Wayne LaPierre, who's been the head of the NRA long enough that George Carlin over a decade ago was mocking him for his name and whatnot, to continue to be the head of the NRA? Nope. (Beware, there is NSFW language and an opposing opinion within, for those willing/able to withstand that nowadays ... and bear in mind, this link was made back in 2007 and recorded in the 90's):


But does that mean I feel the NRA should be disbanded/eliminated/deleted/canceled/whatever? HECK NO! Sure, there's the GOA and NAGR and whatnot, but do they have the longstanding clout that the NRA still has? Nope. Will they eventually? MAYBE. But for right now? Nope. And while I don't feel it's the absolute 100% most efficient means of getting things done or keeping things well or improving the overall situation, I do at least feel like the NRA is at least a useful tool we, as gun owners, can wield in Congress as a means of pushing for legislation that improves gun owners' rights or, at the very least (which is the most we can hope for at this point, given the current administration), a tool we can wield to help us preserve our EXISTING rights.

Ain't gonna lie, the NRA is sorta like having a 10 weenie ... but a thin one, and it's permanently bent to one side from an old injury ... compared to another who has a 5" average-girth weenie (Bloomberg). It's definitely something, a significant something, but it's not perfect, it's not for everyone, and not everyone is gonna get it. But it's better than having a 3" weenie that's 3" around, or having no weenie at all. Or in gun terms, it's the difference between having a brand new .45 ACP Hi-Point carbine at 15 yards versus having a smoothbore black-powder single-shot pistol, or no gun at all, while the opposition has a clapped-out pawn shop .25 ACP Raven Arms pistol. Is it the absolute best possible tool for the job? No. But does it beat the alternative? Definitely. Kinda the same thing.

Sorta. Maybe. I dunno. I kinda suck at similes. However, I like bourbon with honey, so there's also that... :p
You managed to get well endowed, Carlin, Bloomberg, 3" weenie, .45 HiPoint, black powder, clapped-out, honey and bourbon all in one post!

Dont ever leave us!
 
  • Like
Reactions: RAT76

·
Registered
Joined
·
125 Posts
I let my membership lapse, and it wasn't the debacle at the annual meeting nor the Ollie North mess. What did it was learning that Wayne Lapierre was prone to go shopping on the NRA credit card and spend $30K of dues monies at a crack. My dues would not have bought old Wayne a Gucci shoelace, but it's money that I earned and I don't waste it.

So I joined the Second Amendment Foundation, and was wholly underwhelmed. The "news" letters were preponderantly about how the SAF filed an amicus brief or a friend of the court brief in this that or the other legal action, and that was about it. I think the SAF is a couple of guys who entertain themselves in 2A matters, collect dues to fund their hobby, and don't amount to a bucket of beans.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,925 Posts
Discussion Starter · #86 ·
So I joined the Second Amendment Foundation, and was wholly underwhelmed. The "news" letters were preponderantly about how the SAF filed an amicus brief or a friend of the court brief in this that or the other legal action, and that was about it.
So you're upset that they're NOT spending dues money on glossy magazines and a writing staff but are, instead focusing on their core goals and competency, which is mostly litigation?

I think the SAF is a couple of guys who entertain themselves in 2A matters, collect dues to fund their hobby, and don't amount to a bucket of beans.
SAF isn't the NRA and hasn't tried to be. They focus on litigation in support of the Second Amendment. Their expansion into training and certification is, honestly comparatively recent. They certainly haven't had the resources to gain the breadth that the NRA has. But they're trying, as is USCCA. I think those two are the most likely to be able to pick up if the NRA ceases to exist. The SAF instructor programs look pretty good from what I can tell.


That said, the "couple of guys" is just not right. The Board of Trustees is 7 people:
  • Massad Ayoob, President
  • Alan Gottlieb, Vice President
  • Robert M. Wiest, Treasurer
  • Sam Slom, Secretary
  • Gene Hoffman, Jr.
  • Tom Gresham
  • Jim Irvine
  • Gen. Allen Youngman
Any of these people sound familiar to you? :) There's some heavy hitters on there.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
125 Posts
So you're upset that they're NOT spending dues money on glossy magazines and a writing staff but are, instead focusing on their core goals and competency, which is mostly litigation?

SAF isn't the NRA and hasn't tried to be. They focus on litigation in support of the Second Amendment. Their expansion into training and certification is, honestly comparatively recent. They certainly haven't had the resources to gain the breadth that the NRA has. But they're trying, as is USCCA. I think those two are the most likely to be able to pick up if the NRA ceases to exist. The SAF instructor programs look pretty good from what I can tell.


That said, the "couple of guys" is just not right. The Board of Trustees is 7 people:
  • Massad Ayoob, President
  • Alan Gottlieb, Vice President
  • Robert M. Wiest, Treasurer
  • Sam Slom, Secretary
  • Gene Hoffman, Jr.
  • Tom Gresham
  • Jim Irvine
  • Gen. Allen Youngman
Any of these people sound familiar to you? :) There's some heavy hitters on there.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk
Thanks, but I can go to the About SAF tab and click on Board of Trustees without assistance. Do you understand the difference between operating staff and the board of trustees? If you go to the Key People tab you find only three names: Massad Ayoob, Alan Gottlieb, and Julianne Versnel. Mr. Ayoob is indeed a heavy hitter in the gun world, but he's not an attorney and can't file anything with the US courts which is evidently SAF's primary endeavor. He's only been the president of SAF since September, 2020. So the true operating staff of SAF appears to be Mr. Gottleib and Ms. Versnel, but maybe Mr. Ayoob has been contributing some horsepower since he came on board. If there were more, you'd expect more "Key People."

At any rate, I was not impressed with SAF while I was a member and elected to allow my membership to lapse. Even that was unimpressive, as I had to inform SAF repeatedly that I was no longer a member before they understood the message.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,925 Posts
Discussion Starter · #88 ·
Thanks, but I can go to the About SAF tab and click on Board of Trustees without assistance.
But not any other links mentioning staff members who aren't on the BoT? Julianne Versnel? Glen Carolin? But anyway, I'm still not sure what your complaint is. So SAF doesn't have as heavy a staff as the NRA? That's bad?

Do you understand the difference between operating staff and the board of trustees?
So, for some reason, now you're angry with me too and looking to take pot shots. OK, I'll play. Yo mamma. :rolleyes:

If you go to the Key People tab you find only three names: Massad Ayoob, Alan Gottlieb, and Julianne Versnel. Mr. Ayoob is indeed a heavy hitter in the gun world, but he's not an attorney and can't file anything with the US courts which is evidently SAF's primary endeavor.
Why did you ignore what I wrote and linked about SAF's entry into the training and certification arena? Surely you're aware of Mr. Ayoob's training and certification programs: MAG20/40/80? SAF is now doing training and instructor certification. They're not a big as the NRA in that area, at least not yet, but it is there.

He's only been the president of SAF since September, 2020.
IMS, before him, it was Gresham. What is your point?

So the true operating staff of SAF appears to be Mr. Gottleib and Ms. Versnel, but maybe Mr. Ayoob has been contributing some horsepower since he came on board. If there were more, you'd expect more "Key People."

At any rate, I was not impressed with SAF while I was a member
I'm still unclear as to what your complaint with SAF is. It appears to be "I'm unhappy with SAF because they are not as big as the NRA, but I'm mad at the NRA because they were so big that it hid internal corruption."

I really don't understand your complaint. A smaller organization is, well, smaller.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
125 Posts
@lklawson sir, when I read SOF's newsletter I noted that they made great mention of briefs that they filed. Very occasionally they mentioned the outcome of a case in which they had filed a brief. But never during my membership did they indicate that the brief that they filed in a case or the points that they made in that brief made a difference in the outcome of the case. Of course they would mention that if it had happened, because the newsletter was all about the SAF itself. I can only conclude that the SAF is in the business of collecting dues and filing briefs that don't get any traction. That's a bit more clarity than my #85 post, I suppose, but I thought it was clear enough. Okay? So now you understand my "complaint," I hope. No pot shot intended, BTW. And my momma is dead.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,925 Posts
Discussion Starter · #90 ·
But never during my membership did they indicate that the brief that they filed in a case or the points that they made in that brief made a difference in the outcome of the case. Of course they would mention that if it had happened, because the newsletter was all about the SAF itself. I can only conclude that the SAF is in the business of collecting dues and filing briefs that don't get any traction.
Well, no. That's not right at all. SAF is the instigator of many of the suits. They do file Friend of the Court briefs (and regular briefs) and they often lend support and counsel to various cases. These do make a difference. Just because Judges and Panels seldom write in their Opinion or Judgement that "point XYZ from SAF was particularly swaying" doesn't mean that it isn't influential.

SAF is, in fact, doing "good work." Now, if you don't want to support that particular organization, want to spend your money on other things, or whatever, well that's OK. Heck, I don't have infinite money to join every organization that I'd like either. But to say that SAF isn't actually doing anything and is just collecting dues is completely inaccurate.

No pot shot intended,
OK.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk
 
  • Like
Reactions: 62-10

·
Registered
Joined
·
125 Posts
"Now, if you don't want to support that particular organization, want to spend your money on other things, or whatever, well that's OK."
Well, I thought that was so all along! :)

"But to say that SAF isn't actually doing anything and is just collecting dues is completely inaccurate."
Good thing that's not what I said, huh?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,925 Posts
Discussion Starter · #92 ·
"Now, if you don't want to support that particular organization, want to spend your money on other things, or whatever, well that's OK."
Well, I thought that was so all along! :)

"But to say that SAF isn't actually doing anything and is just collecting dues is completely inaccurate."
Good thing that's not what I said, huh?
Hmm... You wrote:
"I think the SAF is a couple of guys who entertain themselves in 2A matters, collect dues to fund their hobby, and don't amount to a bucket of beans."

And:
"I can only conclude that the SAF is in the business of collecting dues and filing briefs that don't get any traction."

So I'm sure you'll understand why other readers, such as myself, would believe that you were saying the "SAF isn't actually doing anything and is just collecting dues."

But I'm glad you've decided that isn't actually your position.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
125 Posts
I know what I wrote. That's what I had reference to.

"But I'm glad you've decided that isn't actually your position."
It never was.

No one likes being gaslighted.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
631 Posts
I taught another Ohio CHL (concealed carry) class this weekend. At the end of class I have a segment on joining pro-firearms advocacy group. I have always advocated for the NRA as one of the best bang-for-the-buck, if for no other reason then because of their breadth and influence. This time I didn't. I told them, without much details, that until the NRA gets their act cleaned up maybe the students should consider one of the other advocacy groups such as Buckeye Firearms, The Second Amendment Foundation, or even JPFO. I told them that I'm keeping my membership up because I want the NRA to reform and, as a voting eligible member, I at least have that. But the students, on the other hand, might want to wait on the NRA and join something else for now.

Wayne LaPierre and his cronies have to go.

BTW, I have now heard of at least three different organizations which have sprung up since the debacle at the last NRA Annual Meeting with the specific aim of forcing LaPierre & cronies out and reforming the NRA to be what it is supposed, NEEDS, to be. One of them is aimed at big doners and what if I heard is even half right is going to cost the NRA millions of lost donations. Another one is Save The Second ( Home - Save the Second ), spearheadded by well known firearms trainer Rob Pincus and Jeff Knox, the son of Neal Knox the engineer of the famous Cincinatti Revolt which is credited for changing the direction of the NRA in 1977. This is the one which I am supporting and which I think is the best vehicle for the average NRA member to affect change.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk
i've been feeling for quite a while that it is long past time for another Neal Knox type Cincinnati revolution in the NRA
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,925 Posts
Discussion Starter · #95 ·
I know what I wrote. That's what I had reference to.

"But I'm glad you've decided that isn't actually your position."
It never was.

No one likes being gaslighted.
Can't "gaslight" you by quoting your own words.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,135 Posts
Helmet Peripheral Font Sports gear Input device


HMMM....
Let me think?
so many choices of crap to choose from!
Junk that will never get used.
Do I want merch with a big blaring NRA on it?
Keep your crap NRA.
Show me that my money is going to legal endeavors, not buying junk to give away.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,132 Posts
There is some merit to a little bit of advertising and showing of support. A few thousand NRA hats at a big political rally would be noticed by politicians who occasionally think the NRA is less relevant than it used to be. Still, I 99% agree with you... some thoughts...

-their 'free' magazines are largely advertising now. that is money making, though they have no moral compass about who they let buy in. There are a lot of shady things in the ads and have been for a long time.
  • I am sure some of the 'free' crap they give away with memberships is left over 'no one wanted a NRA toilet brush on our market site? Who woulda thunk it, lets give em away to the new members'.
  • all that aside, the junk needs to die. It should be a sideline where members can buy stuff (profits help the org) they want if the want it, and if they do not want it, it should go under and fail. The free gun giveaways and other stunts need to stop.
  • its everything. They come across as third rate trash, to be honest. You go to their site, and get pop ups about buying in, full all out attack. To find information as a new person, you have to navigate and hunt for it around all the adware and money grubbing. It should be really easy to get some 'I got a gun, how do I handle it safely' info from the NRA site. It is not. The primary link when you search them takes you to the buy a membership now page. The home page is largely political opinions. Its a turn off to anyone new, I would run the other way after 10 seconds or less if I were coming in as a new gun owner. It certainly has 0 appeal to anyone under the age of 40.

IMHO the best way to get some people back on board would be a few wins. Its been a long while since the NRA backed something major that improved RKBA.
 
81 - 97 of 97 Posts
Top