04-11-2008, 10:40 PM
| #81 |
| Senior Member  | I don't always agree with the NRA ( like when they were willing to let them ban 357 and 44 mags thank goodness that did not work out.) But I am a Life Member of it, and the LEAA. The GOA and 2nd Am. found. are great groups and I hope to one day become a life member of them also. When Char. Heston was Pres. was when I came back to the NRA point of veiw we will miss him, the leadership now seems to be doing ok but there was a time back in the Harlan Carter days I did not trust them to do right by me. |
|  |
|
04-12-2008, 02:02 AM
| #82 |
| Banned | Since You Asked? A GUN LOBBYIST'S LAMENT The NRA's Main Target? Its Members' Checkbooks. By Richard Feldman Sunday, December 16, 2007; Page B03 The bulletin came over the radio as I was driving home on Dec. 5: "Nine dead, five wounded in shooting massacre at an Omaha mall." It was tragic news. But even as I lamented the lives lost, I was hearing the questions I knew would immediately arise as the two sides in the endless debate on guns in America squared off once again. "Why don't we ban all military-style rifles?", one side would ask, while the other would demand, "Why did the mall prevent law-abiding citizens from carrying guns for self-protection?" TOOLBOX    Resize Text  Save/Share + Digg Newsvine del.icio.us Stumble It!  Print This  E-mail This COMMENT  washingtonpost.com readers have posted 43 comments about this item. View All Comments » Comments are closed for this item.  Discussion PolicyDiscussion Policy  CLOSEComments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post. Who's Blogging  » Links to this article I've been down this road more times than I care to count. But the truth is that much of the public debate over gun rights and gun control is disingenuous. Gun owners of every stripe -- liberal, moderate, conservative -- and non-owners alike can and do agree that violent criminals, juveniles, terrorists and mental incompetents have no right to firearms. Federal and state laws, despite poor enforcement by the courts, underscore that. Further, there's no significant debate -- nor should there be -- over private ownership of guns for lawful purposes such as target shooting, hunting, self-protection and collecting. What we do have, though, is an organization whose senior leadership is dedicated to keeping the gun debate alive and burning in the American consciousness, for its own self-serving and self-preserving reasons. That organization is the National Rifle Association. Unfortunately for American gun owners, the nation and the NRA itself, this major lobbying group has become intoxicated with money and privilege. The leadership has lost sight of its mission. Safeguarding the rights of gun owners has become secondary to keeping the fundraising machinery well greased and the group's senior staff handsomely compensated. I know, because I once worked for it. In 1984, I landed my dream job as Northeast regional representative of the NRA. I was a young lawyer, keen on politics and the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. This post promised to indulge both passions, and for a time it did. But soon enough, I was watching with growing dismay as the NRA morphed from a reasonable, responsible voice of sportsmen and firearms owners into a giant money machine that provides more benefits to its insiders than to its 3 million-plus members. During my tenure at the NRA, the theme was "We're not in the business of fundraising; we fundraise to stay in business." The "business" of the NRA then was defending the Second Amendment rights of a considerable number of Americans (if pollsters are correct that guns are kept in almost one of every two American homes). But today, the association's primary business is fundraising. And nothing keeps the fundraising machine whirring more effectively than convincing the faithful that they're a pro-gun David facing down an invincible anti-gun Goliath. In the NRA's lexicon, "compromise" is a dirty word, code for gun owners' surrendering their rights while getting nothing in return from gun-control advocates. Compromise is all give and no get. That definition echoes and re-echoes in the NRA's fundraising letters, which whip the membership into the check-writing frenzy that built the association into the impressive grass-roots political juggernaut it is today. It stands to reason that cooperation among parties is the way to find solutions to deep-seated societal problems. Given its size, resources and influence, the NRA could and should be a force in solving firearms-related problems. But it is not leading such efforts even when Second Amendment protections are being denied. Take the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, now pending before the Supreme Court. It was the libertarian Cato Institute, not the NRA, that took up the plight of D.C. residents who seek firearms for personal protection. Before the case reached the high court, the NRA did its best to derail it. Why? Because the District gun ban is one of the reddest flags the organization could wave to inflame its membership. If the NRA were to "solve" the D.C. gun-ban problem, it would lose some powerful talking points for getting the check-writing machinery rolling. Now that the case looks like a winner, the association has climbed aboard the bandwagon and will be asking for "emergency" donations to defray its legal costs. The NRA needs dragons to slay. It's a heady feeling, striding off to battle the bad guys, whether they're Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), Rosie O'Donnell or the anti-gun groups that clamored for the hide of Bernhard Goetz, the geeky New York subway rider who used a pistol to fend off what he believed to be a threat to his life in 1984. I used to love it myself. I never dreamed that one day I'd be one of the dragons. In 1997, after I'd left the NRA, I was running a legislative trade association for the firearms industry (Colt, Glock, Remington et al.). That's when I did the unforgivable, at least in the NRA's eyes: I found a workable solution to the problematic issue of child-safety locks on guns. I shortstopped proposed gun-lock legislation predicted to be another slam dunk for the anti-gun movement by offering an option that made everyone happy. Well, almost everyone. In the White House Rose Garden -- standing before the NRA's bete noire, President Bill Clinton -- I announced that the firearms industry was instituting a voluntary program to include a gun lock with every handgun sold. As the television news cameras rolled, Clinton announced that he was satisfied and that no mandatory gun-lock law was needed. But NRA commanders were up in arms. They denounced me as a traitor to the sacred cause of the Second Amendment. Compromise was not good for fundraising, the NRA's lifeblood. H arlon B. Carter, who created the modern NRA in the 1970s, earned about $70,000 a year (about $200,000 in today's dollars) as executive vice president and was driven to meetings in the company Chevrolet. Wayne LaPierre, who currently sits upon the executive vice president throne, pocketed about $950,000 in 2005. The parking lot at the association's twin-glass-towered headquarters off Interstate 66 in Virginia is filled with shiny new BMWs and Mercedes-Benzes. What's unseemly about the stratospheric six-figure salaries flowing into NRA leadership wallets is that the cash comes from hundreds of thousands of members who are hard pressed to write $35 annual membership renewal checks or send an extra $10 or $20 to the NRA Political Victory Fund to protect their guns. Then there's the question of the millions paid to outside lobbyists (including an ex-employee and personal friend of LaPierre's). And the millions more doled out to LaPierre's friends at the Mercury Group ad agency. Who knows how much cash, thanks to the NRA, has found its way to the company that arranges the association's travel tours, allows members to buy a home through NRA real estate brokers, finance it via an NRA mortgage, save with NRA banking services, take out NRA insurance, get laser eye surgery and shoes resoled by an NRA-affiliated vendor, then pay for everything with an NRA credit card. The association claims it was only coincidence, but LaPierre's wife happened to be the vice president for marketing for the firm that set up that bonanza of member-discount services. The media and anti-gun politicians make a mistake by engaging with the NRA, penning inflammatory headlines, threatening to crush the organization and salt the earth beneath its headquarters. They are just reminding the NRA faithful that they're surrounded by enemies who threaten to batter down their doors and snatch their firearms. And all it results in is the constant "ka-ching" of cash rolling into NRA coffers. If the threat to honest citizens' right to own firearms ever dipped below the radar, so too would the association's political might. That's why the NRA leadership will never tolerate the give-and-take that makes up real problem-solving. It would be bad for business. ricochet@usa.net Richard Feldman is a public affairs lawyer and the author of "Ricochet: Confessions of a Gun Lobbyist." National Association for Gun Rights Defending the Second Amendment Standing Up for Freedom NAGR Home About Us Join Contribute Contact Us Action Center Act Now E-mail Alerts Sign the Petition Billwatch Join Our E-Mail List Email: Current IssuesHR. 2640 Forest Service Ban More Information White House '08 Candidate Info Links RKBA Links Link to Us  Sen. Coburn stands heroically, while NRA's response fails to hit mark U.S. Senator Tom Coburn (R-Oklahoma) is standing firm against H.R. 2640, but he needs your help (see below). His leadership in the U.S. Senate, a body almost totally devoid of principled and courageous statesmen, has been rivaled by few in the last decade. Send a quick note to Senator Coburn at to thank him for being one of the few voices supporting our Constitution. If you contacted the NRA in opposition to H.R. 2640, you may have received an e-mail dismissing gun owners' objections to the bill. But make no mistake, the NRA is feeling the heat, and the criticism from the gun rights community is getting louder. The NRA is bragging about how this bill, with it's rabid anti-gun House sponsor Carolyn McCarthy driving it, will improve the Brady Registration system, but they miss one fact: Gun owners want to repeal the Brady Registration system, not improve it. We were opposed to the original compromise, which was cut by the NRA (Click here for details on how it passed originally), and are opposed to anything short of repealing it. Gun owners are also adamantly opposed to building massive government databases where, even if you have a clean record, the system will -- sooner or later -- come back to haunt you. Witness Virginia, long considered one of America's most pro-gun states. Gun banners in that state proposed a one-gun-a-month rationing scheme, but couldn't pass it through the legislature because it was too costly to create the system to restrict the purchase to one gun a month. But once the NRA passed the state-level Brady in Virginia, the system was in place. It gave our opponents the tools to advance their anti-gun agenda, and it was accomplished through the actions of the NRA. The real tone of the NRA's response is "Trust us, we wouldn't do anything to hurt your rights". But gun owners around the United States are starting to question that trust. Take, for instance, the comments of one former NRA member: "You told us to trust you in the past, and we got the 1934 National Firearms Act; the 1968 Gun Control Act; the Brady Registration system; the Assault Weapons Ban; the Lautenberg Gun Ban, so many compromises on the state level I've stopped counting, and now this: HR2640.” Eric, NRA member Or this one: “Any trust you might have earned from me by the tough talk in your fundraising letters has long-since vanished with your cacophony of compromises on my gun rights. I'd sooner write a check to Sarah Brady, as she's not as effective at passing gun control as the NRA." Gerry, former NRA member A checklist of problems hasn't been answered by the NRA, and can't be, because these are devastating facts: 1. Why pass this gun control (everyone knows that's what it is)? Without the NRA's help, this bill wouldn't have a prayer. But our enemies are smiling, knowing they have cornered the group that is tasked with defending gun owners into supporting HR2640. 2. This bill is a massive expansion of the Brady Registration system, a scheme gun owners want to repeal, not expand. 3. This bill is offered by the most rabid anti-gunners in Congress, and is being praised by all of the enemies of freedom. That alone should give anyone pause. 4. We're told we should trust the very group that has been bargaining our rights away for decades. Let me ask you: Are you more comfortable with today's firearms laws than those 50 years ago? No, you aren't. And who is the self-appointed decision maker on gun issues? But why is the NRA doing this? It's very simple: the NRA is more concerned with their image in the press and their relationship to squishy politicians than in standing firm for gun owners. They'd rather be liked by Washington insiders than respected by their members. They covet their media-dubbed status as the being the "powerful gun lobby" (ever wonder why the anti-gun press would praise the NRA in such a manner?), and you can't maintain that image if you don't sit down with your opponents to cut deals -- that's what Washington demands of its players. And cutting deals is what the NRA does best. Of course, that isn't what they'll tell you in their fundraising mail, but their actions speak volumes. The NRA will tell you that that H.R. 2640 will bring relief to gun owners; they claim it only enforces existing law; they claim it is an improvement to the NICS system. Gun Owners of America's long-time gun rights attorney does a great job of detailing why these claims are not only wrong, but misleading. You can read those here. In order to swallow the NRA’s minor clerical “improvements” to the NICS system, we must assume it is better to fix unconstitutional gun control than repeal it. Most gun owners have enough common sense to understand that no matter how much you try to change them, a bad law is still a bad law and an “infringement” is still an “infringement.” The NRA also claims that “wrongfully” accused gun owners will now have recourse to regain their rights. If the NRA hadn’t bargained our rights away in the first place, combat veterans, kids with ADHD and gun owners whom liberal judges view as “extremists”, wouldn’t have to spend $100,000’s to regain their constitutionally protected rights. The anti-gunners are doing a good enough job putting gun owners behind bars. We certainly don't need those considered to be "on our side" to help them. What the NRA refuses to publicly acknowledge is that H.R. 2640 loosens the restraints on anti-gun BATFE agents and liberal judges in the process of “adjudicating” the mental state of gun owners. No matter how much perfume the NRA uses, this pig still smells like a pig. What you can do:
 Copyright © 2007 National Association for Gun Rights NEAL KNOX REPORT The Mutiny At NRA By NEAL KNOX WASHINGTON, D.C. (Jan. 1, 1999)--There had been rumbles of problems for months, but Wayne LaPierre's mutiny against the NRA Board really began at the September 1996 meetings, when the Directors did something most unusual: They exercised their Bylaws-imposed duty to "formulate the policies and manage and have general charge of the affairs and property of the Association." The Board prohibited the use of costly, member-angering certified mail fundraising letters, and took steps to rein in LaPierre's free-spending policies that threatened to drive NRA into bankruptcy. The paid staff, led by the executive vice president and financially supported by contractors who were growing wealthy from NRA, attacked the uppity board with a well-planned, well-financed campaign that resulted in the replacement of three incumbent Directors and the subsequent defeat of the two Vice Presidents in 1997. Thirteen more incumbent Directors were replaced in 1998, and 11 more are targeted for removal by the election that gets underway in February. Electing new NRA officers and directors can be beneficial-if it results in a better, more financially secure NRA, one doing a better job of defending our Second Amendment rights. But before you cast the ballot in your February NRA magazines you need to have a better understanding of what triggered the director purge, and decide for yourself whether it's in NRA's best interests--and the interests of America's gunowners--for the purge to continue. During that 1996 meeting LaPierre told 2nd Vice President Albert Ross that the proposed Board resolution could destroy "the greatest fundraising organization this country has ever known." Albert was appalled, for NRA's duty is to defend gun rights and provide services to the members, not milk them. Under a deluge of fundraising letters since LaPierre became E.V.P. in 1991, contributions to NRA had increased from $13 million (mostly to NRA-ILA) to $36.4 million in 1995. But the members were tired of it. The certified mail fundraising letters, which caused many members to have to take off work or make long drives to their post offices, were the last straw. Despite the generous member contributions, NRA's tax-exempt IRS returns showed that the association's net worth had declined more than $60 million in five years--from $12.1 million at the beginning of 1991 to a negative $51.5 million in the hole at the beginning of 1996. (Thanks mainly to the runup of the stock market and an unauthorized cut-rate sale of Life Memberships, NRA's net worth has since improved to around $30 million in the red.) At that 1996 meeting the Board was shown a preliminary management audit prepared under the direction of Finance Committee Chairman Rick Carone (a highly successful businessman and former vice president of one of the nation's largest banks). It showed that millions had been spent in violation of long- standing Board policies requiring approval of the non-paid officers (President and Vice President) on all contracts and agreements over $100,000, and that millions more had been spent without written contracts. More sweeping changes, such as taking away LaPierre's control over NRA finances, or even removing him as E.V.P., would almost certainly have occurred at that meeting if Directors had not been worried about adversely impacting NRA's efforts in the 1996 general elections six weeks away. Further actions were deferred until the winter meeting, but the Board gave the Finance Committee unprecedented powers to try to get NRA's financial house in order. LaPierre--and NRA's contractors who benefit from their cozy relationship with him--struck back. Items were planted in the National Journal and Washington Times<D> that "the Neal Knox faction" intended to remove LaPierre, President Marion Hammer and ILA Executive Director Tanya Metaksa-which diverted attention from LaPierre. (LaPierre was on thin ice with the Board, but to my knowledge there was never any plan or organized effort to remove either Hammer or Metaksa.) LaPierre launched a media blitz--with the help of NRA's public relations firm--in which he accused me of "extremism," said the Board majority wanted to turn NRA into the John Birch Society, and claimed we wanted to make NRA into a "militia-type organization." It was a classic Bill Clinton-type attack on those who exposed his wrongdoing. At the February 1997 Board meeting a Bylaw change allowing the Executive Vice President to be suspended or removed by majority vote was supported by a solid 39-30 majority, but short of the two-thirds that President Hammer ruled was required for passage. LaPierre then asked for negotiations with the officers and Carone, which kept the rest of the Directors twiddling their thumbs for seven hours. No agreements were reached, but the delay caused Carone's complex financial report to be presented in the middle of the night, when most directors were too punchy to understand it, much less make any intelligent decisions. The Board meeting adjourned at 4 a.m. What the Board majority didn't know was that the previous week LaPierre and his supporters had secretly ordered the placement of a full page ad in the ballot issue of the NRA magazines-six weeks after the published deadline for election ads. That ad featured then-President Hammer, E.V.P. LaPierre and then-ILA Director Tanya Metaksa. It urged members to "Support the Winning Team" and to "Vote Against" nine director candidates, including Vice Presidents Knox and Ross, and Finance Chairman Carone. The ad worked. five of the nine, including Carone, were defeated, tipping the balance of power on the Board. At the May 1997 Seattle meeting, the head of NRA's public relations firm, Tony Makris, who has had a long relationship with actor Charlton Heston, openly directed Heston's campaign for the one-year Directorship chosen at the annual meeting. Vice President Ross and I had refused to extend the Makris firm's $80,000 per month (plus expenses) contract. Not surprisingly, Heston was overwhelmingly elected (although he had not been a director nominee, as required by the Bylaws). Two days later, Heston won the First Vice Presidency by four votes. Albert Ross was defeated as Second Vice President by one vote. (The new officers quickly approved a new contract for Makris.) The next day, speaking from his home while the rest of the board was still in session, Vice President Heston began his campaign to "move NRA into the mainstream." On KGO San Francisco he said, three times, "the private possession of AK-47s is inappropriate." Within the next month he said, repeatedly, that he intended to purge NRA of the "I prefer the term--extremist element." On KABC he named me, adding that I had made "accusations of failure to do the job right, of wasting money, of funneling money to the wrong agenda." On NBC's "Meet the Press" Mr. Heston told Tim Russert "We unfortunately, have a few extremists in the organization. ... and we're going to deal with that, I promise you." In last year's election, Mr. Heston pursued that pledge. He was featured in a swarm of ads and mailings urging members to "Vote Against" the entire slate of incumbent directors I supported. Again those ads worked; all those I supported were defeated. You'll see the same type of ad in the February ballot issue of NRA magazines. This fall a more compliant Board--as has been widely reported--increased LaPierre's salary and bonuses to around $250,000. And they specifically authorized LaPierre to again make fundraising mailings by certified mail--over the objections of our Board minority. The new Board has put the "NRA fundraising machine" back in business. And the purge of watchdog directors goes on. As some of you know, there is a formal effort to remove me from NRA membership for life--because I have truthfully informed you members of the problems within NRA. The "ethics hearing" has been stalled until February, so if my expulsion is recommended, the Board vote on my removal will be after new Directors are elected. If you would like to see restraints on NRA's fundraising and fiscal policies, and tighter oversight of the relations between NRA's senior staff and its contractors, I urge you to vote for the following Board candidates--most of whom are incumbent or former directors who understand how the NRA works and how it ought to work. Please support, and ask you friends to support, Michael Beko, Sally Drews Brodbeck, Bill Dominguez, Howard Fezell, Dan Fiora, David Gross, Fred Gustafson, Bob Hodgdon, Michael Kindberg, Albert Ross, Frank Sawberger, Tom Seefeldt, John Trentes and Glenn Voorhees. Vote only for these 14 to multiply the weight of your votes. --- For more information about NRA and these candidates see The Firearms Coalition and http://www.2ndAmendment.com on the Internet. You also can see the Neal Knox column on the SHOTGUN NEWS web site, w Last edited by alaskamonte; 04-12-2008 at 02:15 AM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost |
| |
|
04-12-2008, 12:31 PM
| #83 |
| Senior Member  | Wow, good post. I was also getting the feeling they wanted my money more than anything when I was browsing their web site. Everything they offer I am not really interested in, and all they do is mass media. |
|
| |
|
04-12-2008, 12:57 PM
| #84 |
| Senior Member  | It's about time someone else done some indepth research. You will meet with loud shouts against by those who have not and don't understand. The members are great folks, it is the leadership that has gone sour. Just my opinion.
__________________ GOD, COUNTRY, AND FLAG |
|
| |
|
04-20-2008, 08:27 PM
| #85 |
| Member | NRA or ? Howdy, I'm a Life member in the NRA, but also belong to 2nd Amendment Foundation. I don't fund the NRA as much as I did in the past. I belong to the ISRA and they are the leading voice for gun rights in Illinois. They stepped up, when the NRA chickened out, to stop the AWB in Cook County. They said(The NRA) that we didn't have enough representation in Cook County to warrent any suits to stop the AWB. I told them if you don't stop it here, you will lose Illinois, and then it will leapfrog across America. King Richie, Blago, and Toad Todd will do everything in their power to reinstate this useless piece of trash. If Clinton or Obama get in, say good bye to your guns, in Illinois. I was a life long Democrat, until they decided that my guns are bad. Personal Freedoms are in jeparody, when they are in power. If I wrong to vote one way or one freedom, then I'm wrong. I will vote my conscience, not the way the media, union, or company wants me too! When I go in the voting booth, I vote for whom I want. Just my .02's.... John Krzos |
|
| |
|
04-21-2008, 08:38 AM
| #86 | |
| Moderator   | Quote:
__________________ troylaplante.com | |
|
| |
|
04-21-2008, 03:37 PM
| #87 |
| Senior Member  | I have been an NRA member for 25 years, and I think they help us tremendously. However the never ending letters asking for cash have to cost them millions of dollars that could be better well spent. I also donated more money a while ago and had them take it out on my credit card each month. (Supposed to get a small pocket knife gift, which I never got) and they are still taking money out every month after they should have stopped. I have to call them this week ! I really don't care about the knife but I do collect them and it is just the point ! Last edited by Mad Hatter; 04-22-2008 at 05:13 PM. |
|
| |
|
04-21-2008, 03:39 PM
| #88 | |
| Member  | I've been a member for 10 years. Quote:
__________________ If guns kill people, then I can blame misspelled words on my pencil.- Larry "The Cable Guy" Last edited by Apollo Morelos; 04-21-2008 at 03:40 PM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost | |
|
| |
|
04-22-2008, 02:00 PM
| #92 |
| Senior Member   | 0ctober 2007 GUNS Magazine John Taffin quote: The NRA is not perfect, no organization made up of men can possibly be. Those shooters who refuse to join because they don't approve of this policy or that policy are not only very short sighted, there are leeches living off the efforts and money of other shooters. Without the NRA our GOD given rights would have disappeared long ago. 'Nuff said leeches....
__________________ U.S. Army 1976-1979 237th Combat Engineers Heilbronn, Germany |
|
| |
|
04-22-2008, 02:05 PM
| #93 | |
| Senior Member | Quote:
Could not the same thing be said about the NRA? Are they not leeching off gun owners and then in return asking for more money? Why do they not make their books public so we can see where this money goes? They are making 10s of millions each year, and I bet part of it is going towards some self interest rather than to benefit its members. I will continue to not be a member until I can clearly see what they exactly are doing other than taking our money, asking for more, and not even really defending or fighting for anyone's rights. They are just a mass media machine in my eyes. Correct me if I am wrong, and not trying to offend any members either. | |
|
| |
|
04-23-2008, 12:39 AM
| #94 |
| Senior Member  | The NRA does do great things for gun owners. They hit politicans where it hurts most- votes. Gun owners get out and vote better than most people, but we could still do better. The NRA notifies its members of what new laws that are prohibitive to the 2A, which is helpful if you would like to write your congressmen. Tlarkin, one benefit is that you do get a monthly magazine. This might not interest you, but it is usually a pretty good magazine, and you get to choose between a couple of diffrent ones. The American Hunter is the one I get, but there are others that might be more suited to what you want or like. I can get Field and Stream our Outdoor life for 10 dollars a year cheaper, but I figure for a measly 10 dollars a year, I might as well give it to an orginazation that fights for your rights AND gives you a monthly publication. Just something to think about. |
|
| |
|
05-09-2008, 04:22 PM
| #95 |
| Member  | wow... a lot to think about. I am sitting here looking at the NRA recruiter card that came in the box when I got my remington shotgun, and I am still undecided. My husband's opposed to the NRA on principals. But he hunts and owns lots of guns. The guys at the local gun club have pretty strong opinions in favor. And they make sense too. So I am still deciding. |
|
| |
|
05-10-2008, 06:19 AM
| #96 | |
| Senior Member | Quote:
Today will be a day to remember, mark it on the calendar. I agree with tlarkin on something.
__________________ GOD, COUNTRY, AND FLAG | |
|
| |
|
05-10-2008, 06:37 AM
| #97 | |
| Senior Member  | Quote:
| |
|
| |
|
05-12-2008, 11:05 PM
| #98 | |
| Senior Member  | Quote:
 I write Senators & Representatives regularly, regardless of their State, District, or party affiliation; also pro & anti-gun lobbyists, editors of newspapers & magazines (especially in response to articles related to gun-control), and pro & anti-gun bloggers. I also send emails (or call) radio talk-show hosts (Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck; and my favorite local, Russ Johnson). While a majority of the time the reply is either a canned "thank-you, but I/we are too busy" or nothing at all, very occasionally I'll get a personal response. The best (most exciting too) is when I manage to speak my mind on the radio. So far I've not gotten through to Rush, Beck, or Hannity, but I've made it onto the local radio programs. Instead of signing & forwarding what I consider spam petitions and letters from pro-gun groups to persons in seats of power, I always take the time to compose thoughtful and individualized letters/emails, especially when I'm writing to lawmakers. I'm sure more than a few correspondence screeners for Senators/Representatives recognize pre-written email/letters, and use the delete-key/shredder often. I figure that perhaps if they see an obviously personalized & well-written letter/email, the chances of it actually making into the hands of the lawmaker are greater. So as LEE3370 said, it's not enough to just join and carry a membership card around. Become active, and be vocal. The larger the number of us who speak up, the harder it is to ignore us. Money helps, but money doesn't talk all the time.
__________________ Надежные Друзья Болгарское SLR-95 Польское TT-33 Ветераны войны '34 M91/30 '44 M38 '29 Nagant | |
|
| |
|
05-14-2008, 11:32 AM
| #99 |
| Moderator | The NRA has just sent a membership solicitation to my woman's five year old. They are starting young, now.
__________________ troylaplante.com |
|
| |
|
05-14-2008, 11:36 AM
| #100 |
| Senior Member  | I am a member and will always be , you may make a mistake but none of us know what goes on in the political circles and the nra is our voice!
__________________ I'm part kalishnakov, part heckler and Koch. |
|
| |
