How to cancel your NRA membership

[HMFIC]

The NRA does much more than stand up for us as a collective whole on 2nd Amendment issues (which they do better than ANYONE else).

They are the number one (and always have been) advocate and promoter of all firearm activities including hunting, youth training, museums, competitions and also provide a wealth of general firearms information, safety programs, range assistance, etc... ad naseum.

I defy anyone on here to name any person or group who has done more for to promote the firearms and related sports / events that we all love and enjoy.

Therefore, I will continue to remain a life member as I have since I was a child.

 

[Nraman]

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.

I'll be the first to happily dump them as soon as the American people learn about the constitution and stop electing all those people who have no respect for the constitution.
Or the second coming happens and people are perfect, and everything works as it should.
Some find it convenient to find one imperfection or another to use as an excuse to be out of the system, not vote, not be members of a party, just be cool.
In the mean time I'll pay my dues, the NRA roundup, use my First National NRA credit card and consider the candidates the NRA supports for office.
That's all I can do and I'll keep doing it while others are busy dreaming their perfect world.
BTW, it will be a very sad day when a group, any group, can alter or "restore" the constitution to agree with their agenda.

 

[Shootum]

Absolutely!
It is impossible to please everybody; right here on this blog nobody agrees with anybody, but some expect a national organization to closely follow their personal opinion. Impossible.
They are not perfect, they don't do everything I want, when I want it and the way I want it.
Considering that there is nothing else even close to the NRA, they have my support.

You got that right. I stand with the NRA.

 

[Jefpainthorse]

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.

Point Taken....I am an NRA member and dont' drink all the cool aid. But I dont see the other groups getting the action --- but I dig their rhetoric

 

[NeekReevers]

It scares me to see so many gun owners filled with animosity towards the NRA. I hate the mailings and I don't agree with every position, but there is NO ONE ELSE standing up for your gun rights...no one. GOA may have good principles, but no legislator gives a rat's behind about what they believe because they can't influence an election.

There is a reason the NRA is always the target of the left, because they know the NRA is their true opponent. The left is not scared of you as an individual, at all, because you don't matter.

Complaining about compromise is funny to me. The fact that compromise even occurred is because of the NRA. Without them there would have been no compromise, you would have lost your rights.

For gun owners, the NRA is our voice whether we like it or not. If you don't agree with that voice, then the best thing to do is to work within the organization to change it. Unless you have a good plan for influencing Washington on your own, that is the best hope you have for having your voice heard.

 

[MaddSkillz]

I'll be the first to happily dump them as soon as the American people learn about the constitution and stop electing all those people who have no respect for the constitution.
Or the second coming happens and people are perfect, and everything works as it should.
Some find it convenient to find one imperfection or another to use as an excuse to be out of the system, not vote, not be members of a party, just be cool.
In the mean time I'll pay my dues, the NRA roundup, use my First National NRA credit card and consider the candidates the NRA supports for office.
That's all I can do and I'll keep doing it while others are busy dreaming their perfect world.
BTW, it will be a very sad day when a group, any group, can alter or "restore" the constitution to agree with their agenda.

At least you called me "cool!"

Just not a big NRA fan, never have been.

And I don't see a restoration of Constitutional law a bad thing, regardless of agenda. BTW, it simply recognizes my rights anyway, it doesn't grant them. I live my life accordingly.

 

[MaddSkillz]

It scares me to see so many gun owners filled with animosity towards the NRA. I hate the mailings and I don't agree with every position, but there is NO ONE ELSE standing up for your gun rights...no one. GOA may have good principles, but no legislator gives a rat's behind about what they believe because they can't influence an election.

There is a reason the NRA is always the target of the left, because they know the NRA is their true opponent. The left is not scared of you as an individual, at all, because you don't matter.

Complaining about compromise is funny to me. The fact that compromise even occurred is because of the NRA. Without them there would have been no compromise, you would have lost your rights.

For gun owners, the NRA is our voice whether we like it or not. If you don't agree with that voice, then the best thing to do is to work within the organization to change it. Unless you have a good plan for influencing Washington on your own, that is the best hope you have for having your voice heard.

If we worked as hard at abolishing the left/right paradigm and used that energy to have the Constitution as a whole enforced, we would need no NRA.

Maybe it's time for a National Constitutional Association? Oh that's right, we have the Tea Party.

 

[vvvvvvv]

Complaining about compromise is funny to me. The fact that compromise even occurred is because of the NRA. Without them there would have been no compromise, you would have lost your rights

Actually, if the NRA had not compromised with Due Process and had floated and lost using the Privileges or Immunities argument, the status quo would have remained the same, except that there would have been a recent precedent to consider revisiting Slaughter-House.

However, by achieving incorporation through Due Process, we have lost the ability to have our right to keep and bear arms be protected as an Immunity of a United States citizen. It is clear by the wording "shall not be infringed" that the Second Amendment is an Immunity protected by the Constitution, not granted by the government.

In light of Heller and McDonald, we now have a much tougher fight for the protection of gun rights in America. Each and every aspect of our rights that were supposed to be protected by the Second Amendment are now subject to Due Process to determine if they are in fact granted by the Constitution. According to the Supreme Court, the only right that is granted by the Second Amendment is the right to own a firearm for the purpose of self defense within your own home. According to the Supreme Court, you currently have no other gun rights except what has been explicitly approved by the Court pending further litigation.

With incorporation through Due Process in McDonald, we have likely lost the ability to fight for incorporation through the Privileges and Immunities Clause. The glimmer of hope is that the next case involving incorporation (most likely Nordyke) will be heard before a court that considers the fact that the majority was split, albeit 4-1, on Due Process vs Privileges and Immunities. But that piece of hope is unlikely to come to pass.

 

[deja]

I personally just don't feel like they really stand up for the 2nd amendment, but instead they stand for their interpretation of it.

Well that's a silly thing to say. Of course they are going to stand for what they think the 2nd amendment says. It'd be awfully awkward of them to advocate for what they don't think it means.

 

[Jefpainthorse]

In light of Heller and McDonald, we now have a much tougher fight for the protection of gun rights in America. Each and every aspect of our rights that were supposed to be protected by the Second Amendment are now subject to Due Process to determine if they are in fact granted by the Constitution. According to the Supreme Court, the only right that is granted by the Second Amendment is the right to own a firearm for the purpose of self defense within your own home. According to the Supreme Court, you currently have no other gun rights except what has been explicitly approved by the Court pending further litigation.


We cannot get 530-some odd folks in DC who can agree what "shall not infringe" means for over 200 years.

Not a lawyer (but I watched one on TV)... it seems to me that hammering out things case by case on the basis of Due Process or P and I, as deemed appropriate by legal staffers may be the only way we will ever define what A2 means in the modern day.

Right now I am more worried about having a SCOTUS that votes a split over A2 issues as often as they do.

I have not been real happy with the last couple of Republican Presidents who have cherry picked some no-so favorable gun laws and restriction into place over the years...

Pay attention, vote, lobby. It's still too early for total insurection...they system sorta works but we need to stack the deck by placing the most "right thinking" people we can in office as often as we can.