NRA about to collapse due to illegal activity

That information was in your sources . . . there is no secret. They're dumping money into a lawsuit. They can't access money or process payments, etc. What is this super, top secret set of facts that nobody seems to know about?

That's a good question. You should ask it to the NRA supporters in this thread who are certain that they are not in dire financial straits, but are lying in order to benefit from this situation.
 
If you're concerned you should do what I did, donate at least $100 to the National Rifle Association, or the NRA-ILA (National Rifle Association-Institute for Legislative Action) or the NRA-PVF (National Rifle Association-Political Victory
Fund).

That you should go out of your way to donate a $100 to a gun rights organization over splitting that $100 across a few different charities for cancer research, or even buying toys for a few kids in need - or a million different altruistic acts you could commit your money towards - is literally all a foreigner needs to know about why this country got to be as fucked up as it is, and how it's is possible that people care so little about anyone else other than themselves... A $100 for a gun rights organization. I'd ask you to repeat that five times until you realize how shameful that is, but I'd be incorrectly assuming you have the capacity to feel shame of any sort.
 
I agree the NRA will be just fine. I also think the NRA has a hand in this "the NRA is in financial trouble" narrative. I know from past discussions we've had you've stated their ability to mobilize a strong voter base on a moment's notice, but let's not overlook the fact that just like any single cause movement they are a perpetuating institution that needs to generate support and sometimes they need things like this to motivate people. They are an advocacy group, but they are also a business and businesses need money to survive. So while the media is reporting it, it seems kind of naive to assume the NRA isn't feeding this narrative.
When Dana Loesch stated that the news media loved the mass shootings due to the ratings, she was absolutely correct. What she conveniently left out was so does the NRA and the gun manufacturers. The increase in exposure, interest and funds to the NRA go up after these incidents re-ignite the debates. The gun manufacturers love it because people start using the "B" word and there is always a rush to buy a weapon that is threatened with a ban. After a shooting involving an AR platform I can always count on at least two or three people calling me with the "which one should I buy?" question because they fear they will be banned. I pretty much just tell them get the one you like best, because I know (pretty much from experience and observations of past events) they will fire the thing once or twice at a range and it will end up collecting dust somewhere within a month or so after purchase.

People who are trying to buy before a potential ban are doing so with good reason.

Our nation already had to endure a useless "assault weapons" ban just to ease the anxieties of the overly anxious. During the time of that ban, previously owned firearms were grandfathered in.

The American consumer buying ahead of a possible ban isn't paranoia, but prudence. We've already had a ban in our lifetimes. The NRA is the only reason it was lifted.

Gun owners no longer believe the gun grabbers when they say they don't want an outright ban. They already attempted an outright ban in the 90's. This is one of the reasons so many people are loyal to the NRA despite disagreements they might have with the organization, without the NRA, the political class of our nation would be perfectly happy regulating firearms out of civilian existence just like they did in the UK.
 
The NRA jumped the shark many moons ago. Now they are little more than a far right wing propaganda group in bed with Russian spies.
Remember the time Don Jr., the president of the NRA, and a Russian honeypot spy were photographed together?
05NRA1-superJumbo.jpg
 
That you should go out of your way to donate a $100 to a gun rights organization over splitting that $100 across a few different charities for cancer research, or even buying toys for a few kids in need - or a million different altruistic acts you could commit your money towards - is literally all a foreigner needs to know about why this country got to be as fucked up as it is, and how it's is possible that people care so little about anyone else other than themselves...
The spread of individual liberty is a cause worthy of dedicating ones time, effort, energy, and money.

If $100 upsets you, you probably don't know about the "Fiends of the NRA" banquets that go on all across the country every year:

It turns out a lot more people than just me cherish the concept of individual liberty.

I find it interesting that in your post you imply that because I gave $100 to the NRA, that I'm incapable of donating to other causes. Are you aware that people can donate to more than one cause, and can find more than one cause worthy of donation? I could list the other causes that I donate to, but that wasn't really the purpose of your post.
A $100 for a gun rights organization. I'd ask you to repeat that five times until you realize how shameful that is, but I'd be incorrectly assuming you have the capacity to feel shame of any sort.

"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice."

-Barry Goldwater, Karl Hess
 
People who are trying to buy before a potential ban are doing so with good reason.

Our nation already had to endure a useless "assault weapons" ban just to ease the anxieties of the overly anxious. During the time of that ban, previously owned firearms were grandfathered in.

The American consumer buying ahead of a possible ban isn't paranoia, but prudence. We've already had a ban in our lifetimes. The NRA is the only reason it was lifted.

Gun owners no longer believe the gun grabbers when they say they don't want an outright ban. They already attempted an outright ban in the 90's. This is one of the reasons so many people are loyal to the NRA despite disagreements they might have with the organization, without the NRA, the political class of our nation would be perfectly happy regulating firearms out of civilian existence just like they did in the UK.
stating a broad stroke label of prudence when in most cases the people know nothing about the weapon system outside what they see in movies and/or shooting incidents is a stretch. The vast majority of people that have guns I believe have no business owning them and I thank god most of them have the guns locked away collecting dust. The vast majority don't know what the hell they are doing, I see it at the ranges all the time, especially the ranges at gun stores. The people don't know what they are doing, don't have proper training and don't spend the time getting familiar with the weapon, so again I think you are giving them way too much credit.
Also I firmly believe the 2nd amendment is safe on a national level. Saying that, I have no problem if cities or local municipalities want to impose restrictions, you seem pretty knowledgeable so I'm sure you already know that there were laws banning possession in many of the cities and towns in the "old west" despite what western movies have tried to portray. Those laws and regulations didn't do anything to impede the western expansion of US laws, rights or norms. The "ban on assault weapons" failed, there were loopholes, there were design modifications and ultimately there were decreased interest in the subject as well as attorneys that wanted to assume the crusade for one reason or another.
I also disagree that the NRA was the reason the ban was lifted, they contributed to it but if there were no NRA I still believe that void would have been filled for advocacy, at the very least by a sympathetic and/or opportunistic law firm.
I was a NRA member for probably something like 26 years, personally I got tired of the scare tactics and hysteria used to solicit me for more and more money as well as what I noticed was cultural shift that in my opinion morphed from an organization that promoted hunting and gun safety as well as a sense of commerady to one that feeds on paranoia and celebrates incidents of shootings. I understand and agree with the need to defend yourself, but I think it's a sick notion to celebrate it.
 
I was a NRA member for probably something like 26 years, personally I got tired of the scare tactics and hysteria used to solicit me for more and more money as well as what I noticed was cultural shift that in my opinion morphed from an organization that promoted hunting and gun safety as well as a sense of commerady to one that feeds on paranoia and celebrates incidents of shootings.
Me too broski. After every tragedy my phone would ring and it would be the NRA looking for money to protect my guns from "liberals, the Clinton Foundation, and Hollywood elites etc. etc." It just got so old to me. Especially after knowing people who lost family in Sandy Hook.
 
That's a good question. You should ask it to the NRA supporters in this thread who are certain that they are not in dire financial straits, but are lying in order to benefit from this situation.

You forgot to add "certain posters who believe the NRA is making up their financial woes still sent them some money any way".
 
I was a NRA member for probably something like 26 years, personally I got tired of the scare tactics and hysteria used to solicit me for more and more money as well as what I noticed was cultural shift that in my opinion morphed from an organization that promoted hunting and gun safety as well as a sense of commerady to one that feeds on paranoia and celebrates incidents of shootings. I understand and agree with the need to defend yourself, but I think it's a sick notion to celebrate it.

I'm a life member . . . sure I get the junk mail and spam emails . . . those are easy enough to deal with. Same with the phone calls after some event that they think they need to prepare for . . . I block the calls and move on.

There is a mixture of promoting hunting, gun safety and the ridiculous name calling . . . I don't blindly support each and every aspect of their messages.

But I do need to find a more common sense gun group to support . . . GOA maybe?
 
Me too broski. After every tragedy my phone would ring and it would be the NRA looking for money to protect my guns from "liberals, the Clinton Foundation, and Hollywood elites etc. etc." It just got so old to me. Especially after knowing people who lost family in Sandy Hook.

I bought a gun a year or so ago that came with a free membership to the NRA (a Heritage 22LR I picked up as disposable plinker). Their emails are crazy. Did not renew my membership and their NRA magazine goes right in the recycle bin every month.
 
You forgot to add "certain posters who believe the NRA is making up their financial woes still sent them some money any way".

Why would anyone believe the NRA is making this up? It's fairly easy to verify if the actions in NY state are actually taking place.

I've donated more money to local Friends of the NRA chapters than the larger NRA organization . . . and will continue to do so to help their local activities.

There are many folks inside the NRA who are wanting the organization to shift back into concentrating more on true gun safety, training, etc. and less on the hyperbole and paranoia.
 
I bought a gun a year or so ago that came with a free membership to the NRA (a Heritage 22LR I picked up as disposable plinker). Their emails are crazy. Did not renew my membership and their NRA magazine goes right in the recycle bin every month.

Which magazine? American Hunter is actually a good read . . .
 
Which magazine? American Hunter is actually a good read . . .

Shooting Illustrated. I read it a few times. And it was ok. Nothing that ground breaking to me. As I grew more tired of the NRA in general I just put everything they send me in the recycling.

To be fair, the magazine Game Stop sends me from my customer rewards with them also goes in the recycle bin.
 
I'm a life member . . . sure I get the junk mail and spam emails . . . those are easy enough to deal with. Same with the phone calls after some event that they think they need to prepare for . . . I block the calls and move on.

There is a mixture of promoting hunting, gun safety and the ridiculous name calling . . . I don't blindly support each and every aspect of their messages.

But I do need to find a more common sense gun group to support . . . GOA maybe?
quite honestly I've stopped supporting single cause movements/organizations. Regardless if they are liberal, conservative, environmental or whatever they all become self propagating devices to enrich someone. So I can't really help you on that one.

Originally I ignored the emails and snail mail and the phone calls I'd usually just blow off but over time the calls became very accusatory and berating. If you are asking me for money that's fine, but the point where you question me beliefs or dedication in an attempt to shame me into giving more money is the point I draw the line.
It's a shame because I used to enjoy American rifleman magazine to the point that was at a gun show and found a copy of the magazine from the year and month I was born that I had to buy it.
 
stating a broad stroke label of prudence when in most cases the people know nothing about the weapon system outside what they see in movies and/or shooting incidents is a stretch. The vast majority of people that have guns I believe have no business owning them and I thank god most of them have the guns locked away collecting dust. The vast majority don't know what the hell they are doing, I see it at the ranges all the time, especially the ranges at gun stores. The people don't know what they are doing, don't have proper training and don't spend the time getting familiar with the weapon, so again I think you are giving them way too much credit.
And I think you saying the vast majority has no idea what the hell they're doing, is speaking in too broad of a brush stroke as well.

You think I give them too much credit, it's clear you're not going to give them enough.

We currently have more guns than we have people in this country, and 99.9% of those guns will never be used in the commission of a crime. Statistically speaking, the American people are amazingly well behaved with their firearms.

Also I firmly believe the 2nd amendment is safe on a national level. Saying that, I have no problem if cities or local municipalities want to impose restrictions, you seem pretty knowledgeable so I'm sure you already know that there were laws banning possession in many of the cities and towns in the "old west" despite what western movies have tried to portray. Those laws and regulations didn't do anything to impede the western expansion of US laws, rights or norms.
The gun bans you're mentioning were in a select few towns, and was only possible in territories. No Citywide gun ban has ever held up in court in a U.S. state.

When people bring up the argument you did, they forget that at the time, territories we're governed under a different set of rules than States. This is why so many people wanted statehood. The rules are more uniform and easily defined in a state versus a territory.

The "ban on assault weapons" failed, there were loopholes, there were design modifications and ultimately there were decreased interest in the subject as well as attorneys that wanted to assume the crusade for one reason or another.
I also disagree that the NRA was the reason the ban was lifted, they contributed to it but if there were no NRA I still believe that void would have been filled for advocacy, at the very least by a sympathetic and/or opportunistic law firm.
No. The assault weapons ban was going to be permanent, but the NRA got in a 10-year sunset clause placed into the ban at the last minute.

Without the NRA, the "assault weapons" ban would still be law the United States.

No other activist group or Law Firm had the clout to get that done, and no politician since has been willing to spend the kind of political capital that would have been necessary to get the ban lifted.

I'm afraid there's no counter to my argument:

Without the NRA, the "assault weapons" ban would still be law.

I was a NRA member for probably something like 26 years, personally I got tired of the scare tactics and hysteria used to solicit me for more and more money as well as what I noticed was cultural shift that in my opinion morphed from an organization that promoted hunting and gun safety as well as a sense of commerady
*camaraderie

You can place yourself on a minimum contact list.

The sense of camaraderie that you enjoyed is still very much alive and well at NRA sponsored events.

to one that feeds on paranoia and celebrates incidents of shootings. I understand and agree with the need to defend yourself, but I think it's a sick notion to celebrate it.
The NRA doesn't celebrate incidents of shooting. Please name one.
 
Why would anyone believe the NRA is making this up? It's fairly easy to verify if the actions in NY state are actually taking place.

I've donated more money to local Friends of the NRA chapters than the larger NRA organization . . . and will continue to do so to help their local activities.

There are many folks inside the NRA who are wanting the organization to shift back into concentrating more on true gun safety, training, etc. and less on the hyperbole and paranoia.
If that happened I'd join back up in a heartbeat.
 
I bought a gun a year or so ago that came with a free membership to the NRA (a Heritage 22LR I picked up as disposable plinker). Their emails are crazy. Did not renew my membership and their NRA magazine goes right in the recycle bin every month.

You can get a second cylinder for that Heritage Rough Rider revolver, so out of the same gun you can fire 22 long rifle, and 22 Winchester magnum rimfire (.22 WMR). The cylinder only costs about $30.

Here's a video breaking down a complete review of the pistol, and the process of swapping out the cylinders to change your calibers:
 
You can get a second cylinder for that Heritage Rough Rider revolver, so out of the same gun you can fire 22 long rifle, and 22 Winchester magnum rimfire (.22 WMR). The cylinder only costs about $30.

Here's a video breaking down a complete review of the pistol, and the process of swapping out the cylinders to change your calibers:


I have the 22mag cyclinder too, and I bought the checkered grips. I love the little thing, I've put thousands of rounds through it. I shoot at an outdoor range run by Winchester (they make Winchester brass near me) and whenever the weather is nice, I go shoot. After I've spent about $20 to $40 on 9mm, I'll just shoot with the Heritage for the rest of the day to get more time without breaking the bank.
 
Back
Top