JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Clearly you don't understand the game, or how it's played. Exactly what rights have you lost? A bumpstock is useless, not a gun, and not necessary to operate a gun. Seems you have rights and feelings confused.
Why are you ignoring everything else I listed?

Why does the NRA give A+ ratings to obvious anti-gun politicians, and actively campaign against candidates that are pro-2A?

Why has the NRA actively opposed constitutional carry in some states?

Why hasn't the NRA been helping Oregon and Washington try to beat these laws at the ballot, and where's their help in overturning them when they pass?

Where's the NRA when other gun rights groups are fighting for our rights in courts?

Where was the NRA when Florida needed their help last election?

Oh, that's right... They were busy requesting that the President regulate something that was completely legal per the law as written, confirmed to be legal on multiple occasions by the ATF, and if banned would deny half a million gun owners of their legally purchased property without any compensation or make them felons overnight. They were too busy to help... :rolleyes:

I find it hilarious that you accuse me of confusing rights with feelings, when you and the NRA both think bumpstocks should be banned, despite laws to the contrary.

Who's really the one operating on feelings here? :s0153:
 
Last Edited:
The more I think about it, the more NRA supporters resemble battered women.

"They didn't mean to ban bumpstocks, I'm sure of it."

"I know they've cheated on me, but they promise they'll stop."

"I can't leave, they're the only ones who care about me and take care of me."

"I know they've hurt me before, but it will be different this time. They promised!"

:s0054:
 
Pro-gun?

Yes?

No?

Convinced the NRA is actually 'for' gun control?

Ah, see 'conspiracy everywhere' do ya ah?...ok.

I see 'flaws' that need to be rectified, but not a pro-gun control NRA.

If you do, ok, your decision.

The only conspiracy I 'maaaaaaaabe see', is pro-control advocates wanting to appear pro-gun...
 
No. Not good orgs. A charity that spends 90 percent of the funds on salaries for administrators should not be supported. There are charity watch orgs that identify these so wise contributors can avoid them.

.

Do you have the real numbers for contributions from members, and the actual amount spent on salaries for the NRA?

Anyone else have those numbers?
 
Oh, if this man only can thank enough those who proclaimed themselves The 2nd Protectors!

Substitute teacher fired after taking bullets to preschool class

"Millbury police said the 22-year-old man was subbing at Elmwood Street School on Thursday when 9 mm bullets fell out of his pocket and onto the floor.
Another teacher saw it happen and immediately reported it to the principal's office.

According to officials, it is not illegal to bring ammunition on school grounds, but police said the man will face criminal charges for what they found at his home.

When police went to his house later that day, they a number of improperly secured rifles and handguns, along with ammunition.

Millbury Police Chief, Donald Desorcy said he's certain the teacher knew he was carrying ammunition when he walked into school on Thursday, even though the man claimed it was an accident.

"He explained to us that he had been out shooting the day before and apparently had these rounds, these magazines, in his clothing, and apparently he wore the same clothing to school yesterday," Desorcy said.

The teacher was licensed to carry and his weapons were registered, but his license has now been revoked under the police chief's discretion.

"To me, that's just not sound judgment, an individual not thinking clearly or have a strong concept of gun ownership or gun responsibility," said Desorcy.

Police said they aren't identifying the man because he has not been criminally charged. He has, however, been fired from the district."
 
Here are links to 69,800 articles on such instances. Does this satisfy you? Your avatar indicates you are in Oregon. Ever heard of IP43?

https://www.google.com/search?q=nra/ila+current+lawsuits&oq=nra/ila+current+lawsuits&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i58.8103j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
That's a nice Google list, but what does it show about the here and now? Does it show that the NRA was the first to recommend a bumpstock ban, and then threw Florida to the wolves when they proposed a state ban? Where was Marion Hammer during all of this, concerning she lives in Florida? Oh yeah, she supports banning them.

Now that they've tried to backpedal from their initial recommendation and support of the bump stock ban, where is their support for the current lawsuits against it? Why haven't they stepped forward to fix their mistake yet?

Why is it that the NRA has currently been opposing constitutional carry in some states, and yet endorsing red flag laws nationwide? Do you also support red flag laws the way you support the bumpstock ban?

Here's a fun one... Why does the NRA have over 5 million dollars in "Investments" in "Central America and the Caribbean"? Any bets they have a private island somewhere, with a golden parachute for the high level execs? Remind me again why they keep begging for donations.

You're welcome to try to defend the NRA all you want, but I'm not buying it. At this point, considering that you openly support the bumpstock ban, as well as the NRA's proposal and support for it, I consider you firmly on the side of the Fudd and NRA gun grabbers.

May your chains rest lightly...
 
Do you have the real numbers for contributions from members, and the actual amount spent on salaries for the NRA?

Anyone else have those numbers?

The post I quoted said all orgs spend 90 percent on administrative costs. I say no, not organizations that supporters are wise to support. I don't know what NRA spends on various things, including actually fighting for gun rights. My post did not address that. I agree that it would be interesting to know.
 
Why don't we just take a look at NRA vs GOA or SAF on CharityNavigator or GuideStar?

NRA: Can't CN doesn't do 501(c)4s.
SAF:
  • Program Expenses (Percent of the charity's total expenses spent on the programs and services it delivers) 71.6%
  • Administrative Expenses 5.6%
  • Fundraising Expenses 22.7%
  • Fundraising Efficiency $0.23
  • Working Capital Ratio (years) 1.21
  • Program Expenses Growth 3.9%
  • Liabilities to Assets 12.4%
GOA: 501c4, same as NRA
 

In response, please see the below statement from the NRA:

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

NRA | Joint Statement
 
In response, please see the below statement from the NRA:



NRA | Joint Statement

At the bottom of that it should read "A whole bunch of gun owners voted to elect Hilary and have screamed ever since she lost". "A whole bunch of gun owners in OR voted Kate in twice now". So of course this will fix it right up when the NRA is found to be lacking." Then these same gun owners wonder why we are losing so many battles.
 

Upcoming Events

Redmond Gun Show
Redmond, OR
Centralia Gun Show
Centralia, WA
Klamath Falls gun show
Klamath Falls, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top