The NRA just broke a 15-year fundraising record

Discussion in 'Firearm Related' started by Wegahe, Apr 24, 2018.

  1. Wegahe

    Wegahe NRA Instructor

    1,530
    106
    63

    http://www.courier-tribune.com/news/20180424/nra-just-broke-15-year-fundraising-record
     
    MSgt G likes this.
  2. Nemo

    Nemo Man of Myth and Legend

    7,672
    151
    63
    I have met recently (at shows in the area) a half dozen people who renewed an old membership, have been thinking about it for years and this caused them to go ahead and join, or decided its time to not accept more 2A attacks by liberals and joined the NRA.

    I would like to see what the membership increase is now.

    Nemo
     

  3. GlockGary

    GlockGary Glock Block Supporter

    2,563
    35
    48
    I stop renewing years ago. I started putting my money into GOA and SAF. I can be a member of both of them for less than what the NRA asks. It's a no brainer to me.
     
  4. Nemo

    Nemo Man of Myth and Legend

    7,672
    151
    63
    Won't discuss membership in any of them again, but the idea of making the 800 pound gorilla the 900 pound or half ton gorilla is a good thing from a political viewpoint.

    Besides, heard anyone remotely connected to Parkland rant and rave about how bad the SAF and GOA is? Those organizations are not really in the fight so far.

    Nemo
     
    WGTactical likes this.
  5. Wegahe

    Wegahe NRA Instructor

    1,530
    106
    63
    The NRA's stand on "bump stocks" is the exact same as the other groups.

    Carlos Curbelo is not receiving money from the NRA because of his betrayal to gun owners by this bill.
     
  6. Mrs_Esterhouse

    Mrs_Esterhouse Swollen Member

    11,007
    239
    63
    It is? Show us.
     
  7. Wegahe

    Wegahe NRA Instructor

    1,530
    106
    63
    I already have. You just keep turning every thread that mentions the NRA into your agenda to keep your bashing of the NRA going and going and going. You simply either do not or can not read very well. This thread is about fund raising and political support funds of both the NRA and gun control groups. Maybe reading the article would help you understand this is not about bashing the NRA. This is why you were suspended at ARF. You just don't stop. But if it will shut you up about it.

    https://www.georgiapacking.org/thre...-out-nra-hypocracy.274282/page-3#post-2925670

    Read carefully this time. Then go look up the statement the NRA made about "Bump Stocks".
     
  8. Mrs_Esterhouse

    Mrs_Esterhouse Swollen Member

    11,007
    239
    63
    Okay I will.

    No, that is completely false.

    “The Second Amendment Foundation and Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms support a productive dialogue concerning “bump stocks,”

    is not even close to

    "The NRA believes that devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations."

    To believe these are the same is delusion.
     
  9. Wegahe

    Wegahe NRA Instructor

    1,530
    106
    63
    More...

    http://thehill.com/regulation/lette...h-comments-opposing-regulation-of-bump-stocks
     
  10. Wegahe

    Wegahe NRA Instructor

    1,530
    106
    63
    Did or have the GOA or SAF filed suit against Florida for their ban on bump stocks?

    No but the NRA has.

    So far the GOA and the SAF are only blogging about it. No action what so ever.
     
  11. Mrs_Esterhouse

    Mrs_Esterhouse Swollen Member

    11,007
    239
    63
  12. Wegahe

    Wegahe NRA Instructor

    1,530
    106
    63
    https://www.salon.com/2018/02/25/da...oesnt-support-bump-stock-ban-age-limit-raise/

    https://www.cnn.com/2017/10/05/politics/nra-bump-stock/index.html And it worked!

    What the NRA said...
    What the SAF and CCRKBA said.

    Semantics? Is that really your argument when saying it's not the same thing? Note the NRA said so called bump stock. The SAF and CCRKBA actually called them bump stocks.
     
  13. Mrs_Esterhouse

    Mrs_Esterhouse Swollen Member

    11,007
    239
    63
    Euphematicaly rephrase what the NRA said all you want. It doesn't change what they actually said, which was that bump stocks should be subject to additional regulations.
     
  14. Wegahe

    Wegahe NRA Instructor

    1,530
    106
    63
    This statement was issued on 10/05/2017... the one I posted above was the day after on 10/06/2017
    https://www.nraila.org/articles/20171005/nras-wayne-lapierre-and-chris-cox-issue-joint-statement

    "In the aftermath of the evil and senseless attack in Las Vegas, the American people are looking for answers as to how future tragedies can be prevented. Unfortunately, the first response from some politicians has been to call for more gun control. Banning guns from law-abiding Americans based on the criminal act of a madman will do nothing to prevent future attacks. This is a fact that has been proven time and again in countries across the world. In Las Vegas, reports indicate that certain devices were used to modify the firearms involved. Despite the fact that the Obama administration approved the sale of bump fire stocks on at least two occasions, the National Rifle Association is calling on the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) to immediately review whether these devices comply with federal law. The NRA believes that devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations. In an increasingly dangerous world, the NRA remains focused on our mission: strengthening Americans' Second Amendment freedom to defend themselves, their families and their communities. To that end, on behalf of our five million members across the country, we urge Congress to pass National Right-to-Carry reciprocity, which will allow law-abiding Americans to defend themselves and their families from acts of violence."

    The 3 key statements are highlighted above. Look at them carefully and what exactly do they say.

    1) REVIEW if the devices comply with federal law. The ATF did already not once but twice. Once in 2010 and again in 2013. The "Slide Fire Stock" does not allow a semi auto to function like a full auto. So nothing to see here move on...

    2) Devices that allow semi auto to function like full auto should be subject to regulation. (Even Gunsmoker would agree with that but I don't.) However those devices are already regulated under the NFA anyway so not asking for anything new.

    3) Urging Congress to pass national reciprocity. This is the only important thing the NRA said in the statement issues on 10/05/2017.

    While this statement has been twisted so many ways by so many in the media and even the NRA bashers such as yourself to mean the NRA called for banning bump stocks. It's simply not true. The only thing the NRA called for was a REVIEW to see if they comply with federal law and for Congress to pass national reciprocity.
     
    Last edited: Apr 25, 2018
  15. Speevl

    Speevl Member

    841
    12
    18
    This has always been my understanding as well. I believe the NRA statement was very poorly worded. There’s no getting around that. It’s not what I would have written. That said, Wegahe is correct. The NRA in effect preempted any attempts for action in congress by asking for the ATF to review something they had already stated on two occasions in the past didn’t require regulation. If the NRA’s goal was to prevent legislation, mission accomplished.
     
  16. moe mensale

    moe mensale Well-Known Member

    5,280
    341
    83
    Over the course of a year, that additional $35-$40 is a definite no-brainer.
     
  17. moe mensale

    moe mensale Well-Known Member

    5,280
    341
    83

    The more I read the NRA statement, the more I feel that it was just poorly worded and not an attempt to throw bump stocks and everything similar under the bus. Everybody seems to focus in on the second statement above while completely ignoring the immediately preceding statement.

    Logically reading the first statement, it has been proven twice, by the ATF's own testing procedures, that bump stocks do comply with the existing federal machine gun laws and definitions.

    If that statement is true, then the second statement is not talking about bump stocks but rather devices like drop-in auto sears and lightning links which do allow semi-auto rifles to function as true machine guns according to existing federal laws and definitions.

    The problem we are facing is not whether a certain item is or isn't a machine gun according to existing federal laws, it's (1) whether the ATF has the legal authority to change the existing federal laws and definitions- it doesn't - and (2) whether the ATF's current test protocol for bump stock functioning is valid - it isn't, go read it yourself - or if it is only designed to generate a preordained political outcome based on emotions.


     
  18. Wegahe

    Wegahe NRA Instructor

    1,530
    106
    63
    So let them test it again. NO matter how you test it it requires you to push the rifle forward to access the trigger again

    The statement was issued prior to the NRA meeting with Trump. This is the same statement made to Trump and released to the media. Trump and the media jumped on making it out to be supportive of a ban on bump stocks. Then the NRA bashers jumped on the band wagon and the GOA and the SAF got on it was well to boost their membership and rake in the money. It was all a big hoax and some I told to read it carefully still insisted the NRA threw bump stocks under the bus. The NRA has issued several statements since the original on 10/05/2017 saying it was a false claim and the NRA did not support any new regulations. The anti NRA then claimed the change in stance was because of the membership demands. The NRA has not supported any new regulations at this point.

    Some people need to improve their reading sill somewhat.
     
  19. WGTactical

    WGTactical Member

    792
    5
    18
    That's just it. SAF and GOA isn't even on their radar and unless something very drastic happens, probably wont be for another 50-75 years at the rate they're going. But then again, sometimes it's the thought that counts...
     
  20. moe mensale

    moe mensale Well-Known Member

    5,280
    341
    83
    Ah, but therein lies the problem! ATF has tested it again but this time has come up with an entirely new definition of how a bump stock operates. Basically, once the trigger is pulled the bump stock will continue firing without any additional physical manipulation by the shooter. Really? Try shooting a bump stock one handed after pulling the trigger. That's not how a bump stock operates. You can read it in the NPRM here:

    https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=ATF-2018-0002-0001