Now thats a gun collection...

Quote:Man can't even shoot a hint of humor out there without the paranoid getting all worked up. Take it easy, I think your guns are safe.

laugh.gif
thumbup.gif


Should be the quote of the year. Well said............I love it.




And no, I am not a young Pup. In fact, I remember the 68 Gun control act and some of the supporters who are now deceased hero's. I also remember the NRA backing the "Assault Weapons" ban. I believe their reasoning was, Assault rifles such as the AR15 are not hunting rifles.
Yep, it's called "lobbying" and is the way of Government. It's also called compromising and an underhanded way of screwing the members.
 
Last edited:
Yeah that's a wet dream of a gun room. I bet there's another similar room with enough food, water, and supplies for 100 years!

I'm not that paranoid but if I had the money I would create a bunker for my family. You never know when the zombie apocalypse is coming!
 
Originally Posted By: ksyotecallrBeen a member for years. Have never thought for one second that my guns are safe and never will. One needs/should be a member of the NRA.

Quote:Cause I ain't asking nobody for nothin'
If I cant get it on my own

closedeyes.gif
 
Any gun owner who thinks that the NRA is not the primary reason that they still have 2nd Amendment Rights is foolish enough to probably buy long span bridges in the Sahara Desert.

God bless them all for they know not what they speak of.....

And shame on them for their lack of support for the only legislative lobbyist that most US congressmen will listen to and still fear on election day. In their ignorant bliss, non-NRA gun owners will most likely be the ones who complain loudest if Obama gets re-elected and goes after guns like most political experts predict that he will. A second term President has nothing to lose pursuing an unpopular objective. Maybe some of them will even vote for him.

As for the NRA "supporting" the Assault Weapons Ban, the anti's originally had the needed votes in Congress for a permanent and complete ban on the types of rifles covered by the law. The NRA was able to negotiate and lobby for (which means giving up some issues in exchange) for a 10 year sunset on a much midified law. Maybe this is possibly "called compromising and an underhanded way of screwing the members" by someone who doesn't have a clue about how our political system works. I'm glad the NRA was able to accomplish that in view of the political climate of the country during the Clinton years. Our political system is far from perfect, but if its so bad, take your prized firearms and move to another country in the world and see how it all goes.

In a nut shell, we could have lost everything without the NRA. That was the anti-gun goal at that time, and it still is. They simply haven't had a sound political forum to push for it in the past 10-12 years.

Sorry for the rant, but pro-gun, anti-NRA people are like having Judas hiding in the coat closet of Obama's office. And sadly, changing a fool's mind is like trying to push a log chain up a steep hill.
 
Originally Posted By: Winny FanAny gun owner who thinks that the NRA is not the primary reason that they still have 2nd Amendment Rights is foolish enough to probably buy long span bridges in the Sahara Desert.

God bless them all for they know not what they speak of.....

And shame on them for their lack of support for the only legislative lobbyist that most US congressmen will listen to and still fear on election day. In their ignorant bliss, non-NRA gun owners will most likely be the ones who complain loudest if Obama gets re-elected and goes after guns like most political experts predict that he will. A second term President has nothing to lose pursuing an unpopular objective. Maybe some of them will even vote for him.

As for the NRA "supporting" the Assault Weapons Ban, the anti's originally had the needed votes in Congress for a permanent and complete ban on the types of rifles covered by the law. The NRA was able to negotiate and lobby for (which means giving up some issues in exchange) for a 10 year sunset on a much midified law. Maybe this is possibly "called compromising and an underhanded way of screwing the members" by someone who doesn't have a clue about how our political system works. I'm glad the NRA was able to accomplish that in view of the political climate of the country during the Clinton years. Our political system is far from perfect, but if its so bad, take your prized firearms and move to another country in the world and see how it all goes.

In a nut shell, we could have lost everything without the NRA. That was the anti-gun goal at that time, and it still is. They simply haven't had a sound political forum to push for it in the past 10-12 years.

Sorry for the rant, but pro-gun, anti-NRA people are like having Judas hiding in the coat closet of Obama's office. And sadly, changing a fool's mind is like trying to push a log chain up a steep hill.


lol.gif
lol.gif

The NRA legal dept. should have hired you. This is a much better answer than they gave me back then and I "WAS" a life time member then. But still only sales propaganda to me. I will say this though, you may call me a Judas, but a closet hider I've never been. Lets get real here. There will be darn few in this country who will refuse at ANY cost to give up their firearms. The rest will be hiding in a closet when they come, still trying throw money at the NRA in hopes they can save them. "IF", they ban the ownership of firearms, how many of you are willing to take time off from work or family, go to Washington armed, and refuse at gun point to give up your firearm?? Any takers????

Well maybe the NRA can save your shotgun for you in exchange for turning in or banning 10-22 Rugers. After all, folks that don't own one of those wouldn't care, so what's the big deal, it would only Quote:means giving up some issues in exchange) for a 10 year sunset on a much midified law. After all, it's only 10-22's that they are after............................. Ya, I love it when somebody or an organization thinks they have the right to compromise my rights and/or my freedoms in the name of helping me out. And then want me to pay them to boot.
I'll still stand on............Quote:'Cos I ain't askin' nobody for nothin',
If I can't get it on my own.
 
Last edited:
Your comments make my point about a chain and a steep hill - and sensationalism.

Just for the record, I own quite a few shotguns, a couple 10-22's, a bunch of bolt action rifles from RF to large bore CF, hand guns of various makes and kinds, and probably more semi-auto rifles of various makes and configurations (including quite a few of military nature and design, including AR's) than you can imagine under one roof.... All legal. And I never lost one of them because of the NRA.

So, if its OK with you, please don't lecture me on what the NRA caused me to lose. In return, good luck on your own at legally keeping what you have, if it ever comes to that. I'm sure you'll do well on your own. Until then, you should feel good that the Brady Bunch didn't get their way with the Assault Weapons Ban as they originally intended it to be passed. If they had, we'd probably be chatting about what sized marbles to shoot in our sling shots at coyotes. And the NRA would now be the NSSA.

But that probably wouldn't matter to you. You'll probably be too busy watching Doom's Day Preppers hoping to discover how to defend yourself with a 17 caliber marble. Which closet in your house should all of us Nancy NRA'ers look in first to find you? Or will you be in a hole out in the back yard personally defending your rights? On your own.

Get real indeed.
 
For those who get too much mail, call then and tell them you don't want it. It will stop.

Don't want your money going to lobbying, give to the Friends of the NRA, a charitable arm of the NRA and by law, totally apolitical. Feel free to do a google search to see what they do, maybe even in your neighborhood.

bob
 
I know they give allot of grants for improvements to our range.
Unfortunately they don't/can't/won't monitor it so a great majority of it gets wasted by the Einsteins on our board of directors that dream up the alleged "improvements".
I can't really say it's the NRA's fault, but it reminds me of the waste we saw with the "stimulus". Or any spending without accountability for that matter.
As others have pointed out though, "they're just another part of the Washington bubble" and the alternative is the "Brady Bunch".
It's kinda like voting for president. Ya generally have to choose the lesser of two evils.
Anybody else getting tired of that?
tongue.gif


Off my soap box and back on topic.
Military firearms hold ZERO interest for me so I just see a rich guy squandering his money on self indulgent paraphernalia.
Nothing more, nothing less.
JMO
 
Originally Posted By: RePete.....Military firearms hold ZERO interest for me so I just see a rich guy squandering his money on self indulgent paraphernalia.
Nothing more, nothing less.
JMO

"self indulgent paraphernalia"

Maybe you can share that new term you've coined for military firearms with Jim Zumbo. He needs all the help he can get to insure that only the firearms "you" like should be available to everyone, rich or poor. But, I think he gave up that effort a few years ago due to lack of support in the firearms industry, if I remember correctly.

"a rich guy squandering his money"

Are you also for Mr. Obama's redistribution of wealth, or is the American dream of a person working harder than the next guy chooses to do, and that person being more successful in the process, still OK? It's called Capitalism. The opposite view Mr. Obama seems to be pushing with his redistribution of wealth message is called Socialism.

With any grant given out, private or federal, a resident supervisor sent by the grantor along with the money is seldom an option. The grantor has to hope the grantee has a collective IQ high enough to handle the money wisely. But, it doesn't always work that way. Maybe you should run for Board President and get things "right" like you want them.

And for the record, if it really matters, I'm far from being "rich", but I do like shooting and hunting with "self indulgent paraphernalia".
 
I didn't say chit about the guy not having the right not to indulge himself. I just stated "MY OPINION" about military firearms and that I wasn't impressed with the extravagance.

I'm not sure why you have to spin everything you don't agree with into a personal assault, but just like voting for bought and paid for politicians, it sure gets old after a while.

Guess there's just never "a good day in Texas".
 
Opinions are a little like noses...Almost every one has one, just in different proportions to the overall subject...

Arguing over whose nose is bigger or better doesn't normally resolve the issue...until you meet a person that has none...
 
I was just commenting on your comments. If that's a personal assault, maybe choose your words more wisely and you won't feel that way.

From the influx of northerners we keep getting here in Texas that are looking for "opportunity", even a "bad day in Texas" must be better than a good day up north. Protecting both borders has been discussed, but it would involve a big undertaking, and Texans would likely have to handle both of them as the feds don't seem real serious about their duty along the southern border.

Crawfishin" is a term down here for those who say something and then deny it. As for politicians, not voting is an option, and then you can legitimately blame everything on everyone else.
 
Originally Posted By: Winny FanI was just commenting on your comments. If that's a personal assault, maybe choose your words more wisely and you won't feel that way.

From the influx of northerners we keep getting here in Texas that are looking for "opportunity", even a "bad day in Texas" must be better than a good day up north. Protecting both borders has been discussed, but it would involve a big undertaking, and Texans would likely have to handle both of them as the feds don't seem real serious about their duty along the southern border.

Crawfishin" is a term down here for those who say something and then deny it. As for politicians, not voting is an option, and then you can legitimately blame everything on everyone else.

"... Protecting both borders has been discussed,"

Thank you for my second good laugh of the day. I was born in Ft. Worth, and grew in Shiro - my folks came north for "opportunity"

We got 19% real unemployment, and engineers are standin' line for minimum wage jobs at Wally-world.

Even when this economy gets better, the north east will never recover...


.
 
Since you seem to have strong convictions, I can see you having been born south of the Red River. Like the game show, "come on Down", fellow Texican.

Do you have to waffle, dance, and shuffle to the "right tune" to get along in CT? I've been there but always just passed through in a few minutes.
 
Originally Posted By: Winny FanSince you seem to have strong convictions, I can see you having been born south of the Red River. Like the game show, "come on Down", fellow Texican.

Do you have to waffle, dance, and shuffle to the "right tune" to get along in CT? I've been there but always just passed through in a few minutes.



Funny you say that. I was talkin' to a woman last fall - she is also conservative, and religious.

We were laughin' about it's like being a Jew in pre-war Germany in the late 30's - if you like your job, you keep your damm mouth shut or you loose your job (unless you work in what's left of the firearms industry).

The way we started talking was she drew an "arc" on a napkin and I drew another crossing it, like the Christians did in Pharaoh's time.

CT is now more liberal than Massachusetts, and second only to California.

When I came here (from New Yawk City) in 1980, it was a very cool state to live in - most of the gun companies were here, Remington had an ammunition plant that went on for 6 city blocks, and you could own a 40mm Bofors and keep it in your driveway if you wanted.

But the liberals moved here when the crack wars were running hot and drugs took over NYC in the mid/late 80's and the state hasn't been the same since.


.
 
Quote:Maybe you can share that new term you've coined for military firearms with Jim Zumbo. He needs all the help he can get to insure that only the firearms "you" like should be available to everyone, rich or poor. But, I think he gave up that effort a few years ago due to lack of support in the firearms industry, if I remember correctly.

I knew ol' Zumbo's name would come up. His rant on "military" firearms wasn't even his own idea. Heck, he almost borrowed his rant from the NRA back when they were vilifying "assault weapons" and the need to ban them. Zumbo looses his job and respect and the NRA gets more members.
crazy.gif


I would think that some NRA members by now would be asking themselves this question. Since the NRA came into existence have we gained back any gun rights since the 68 gun control act, or are we just holding our own, or are we slowly loosing a little at a time? Are we like the Frog in a pan of cold water and then the heat is slowly turned up until your cooked and you didn't even realize it.

Just in case you didn't get it Winny Fan, what RePete was referring to is called "The Machiavelli Process/Theory". Most of us blindly fall for it.
sleep.gif


Quote:Opinions are a little like noses...Almost every one has one, just in different proportions to the overall subject...

Arguing over whose nose is bigger or better doesn't normally resolve the issue...until you meet a person that has none...

I agree Old Turtle.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: RePeteI know they give allot of grants for improvements to our range.
Unfortunately they don't/can't/won't monitor it so a great majority of it gets wasted by the Einsteins on our board of directors that dream up the alleged "improvements".

Having been an NRA member over 60 years and serving as chairman for the first Friends of NRA volunteer committee, formed in 1994 in our area, perhaps I can shed some light on this subject.

Each geographical division of FONRA has a grant committee made up of one volunteer from each committee in the division that considers all grant applications submitted. Approved grants are then submitted to national FONRA headquarters where it is determined that the applicants qualify (have not-for-profit status, etc.)

Organizations approved for grants have always been required to submit an "after action" report to headquarters so as to assure the funds were used as specified in grant request. This requirement, however, was not strictly enforced in the early years of the program.

While I am still active in our FONRA program, I no longer serve on the grants committee but have been told that the after action reports are now being enforced in an effort to be sure hard earned funds are not squandered. Hopefully that will help address your concerns in that area, RePete.

Originally Posted By: K22I would think that some NRA members by now would be asking themselves this question. Since the NRA came into existence have we gained back any gun rights since the 68 gun control act, or are we just holding our own, or are we slowly loosing a little at a time?

Since you mention the 68 gun control act specifically, yes we "have gained back"some gun rights. NRA fought hard to get the 68 GCA repealed and consequently, we can now order reloading components by mail that were once prohibited by that very act. I'm quite familiar w/NRA's efforts in that regard since I worked closely with our NRA area rep. to get one of the final congress member's signature required on a discharge petition to force the bill out of committee for a vote on the house floor. Believe me, NRA worked tirelessly with volunteers across the country in that regard. This, in fact, is where some of the NRA member's money is spent.

Another area where we have made giant strides is the fact that thirty some states now have "shall issue" concealed carry provisions as well as many states that have passed "castle doctrine" self defens laws in recent years.

Have we lost any gun rights "a little at a time" over the years? Sure, no organization is 100% successful. You can, however, rest assured that we have lost a lot less ground than would have been lost had it not been for the powerful NRA (as well as several smaller pro-gun groups).

Gun owners, as do most ordinary folks, unfortunately have a short memory. When our gun rights are threatened, NRA membership swells in numbers but when the threat is defeated, many of those gun owners no longer feel the need to support NRA with their membership. A strong NRA is a deterrant to passage of anti-gun laws just as surely as a strong military is a deterrant to invasion of the country by foreign aggressors.

There is strength in numbers and NRA is the largest pro-gun organization in the nation.

Regards,
hm
 
First off, thank you hm1996 for posting some non-sensationalized comments about what the NRA has done and is doing for gun owners. The NRA does not always win, but it keeps us in the ball game.

Originally Posted By: K22.....I knew ol' Zumbo's name would come up. His rant on "military" firearms wasn't even his own idea. Heck, he almost borrowed his rant from the NRA back when they were vilifying "assault weapons" and the need to ban them. Zumbo looses his job and respect and the NRA gets more members.
crazy.gif


As for this quoted statement above, it is entirely sensationalized and is patently false. But it makes for great drama in print. I again mention that chain and steep hill issue.

I still have all of the "assault weapons" I owned before the Assault Weapons Ban, that I have chosen to keep, and I legally bought others - with a few cosmetic changes - during the 10 years of the Ban. After the Ban sunset out of law after 10 years under Bush II, which ended the need for the mentioned cosmetic changes, I have legally bought others. Without the NRA's involvement in getting the Ban modified in content and placing a 10 year time limit on its life, the ban would still be in place and the supply of "assault weapons" would slowly be drying up as the Brady Bunch originally intended for the Assault Weapons Ban to do.

Compromise, which was against the wishes of the anti-gun lobby, brought about the 10 year life of the Ban as part of the original legislation, and having a pro-gun President in the White House at the 10 year point, kept that from happening. Without the 10 year legislated life of the Ban, it would still likely be in effect and Bush could have done nothing to stop it when he did.

Today, on the weapons ban, we are exactly where we were the day before the Assault Weapons Ban went into effect, with some additional improvements to our overall pro-gun position as hm1996 mentioned in his post. But obviously the NRA screwed it all up for some people.

Have a nice day everyone.

 
Originally Posted By: K22

Just in case you didn't get it Winny Fan, what RePete was referring to is called "The Machiavelli Process/Theory". Most of us blindly fall for it.
sleep.gif



Let it go Jim. It's not worth it.
Probably best that a couple of rubes like us leave the complicated 2nd Amendment issues to the big thinker from Texas anyway.
I mean, with all the liberal text books and multitude of minimum wage jobs that have come from there, I'd say we're in pretty good hands.

I gotta go flick a bugger anyways.
Later
 
Back
Top