I agree BrentD. I'm very appalled by this whole travesty. I'm just not surprised by it in the least. If I wasn't a lifer member I would probably not renew my membership. They definitely are not receiving any donations from me at the moment.Hilljackoutlaw, what you say may be true to some extent, but even so, there are degrees of corruption andD, for many, it can and has reached a point where too much is too much.
I'm a member. And I'm sorely disappointed (to put it mildly) with how incredibly miserly the NRA has been with respect to supporting its original mission, which was to support, encourage, and govern competitive shooting. I could fill Big Fin's entire server with tales of how competitive shooting has been absolutely devastated by the indifference and then outright dismantling of the USA's premier competitive shooting organization.
I found this next Cuomo quote humorous as all hell!!! Haha! Anyone that believes this, I would love to rake your $ away at a poker game! Might as well show your cards and try bluffing!The lawsuit also complains that NRATV strayed into “topics far afield of the Second Amendment,” claiming AMc had “deviated from the NRA’s core mission and values.”
I agree with Trump's comments related to NRA getting their ass back in gear. Many organizations, those that proclaim their opposition towards law abiding Americans, "Bill of Rights" are salivating...
....as have their political opponents.If you truly believe NRA is a savior of the Bill of Rights and the primary reason your guns have not been "grabbed", then I adamantly defend your right to send your money to such an organization (even as corrupt as it is shown to be) where you think it does most good. However, it is difficult for me to believe that perceived end is justified by the smelly unethical means perpetrated by the likes of LaPierre and others, who IMO have lost the moral compass in furthering their cause.
Bolt actions were military guns at one time. Does that make them bad?More of the "gun grabber" money-grabbing myth. If you are opposed to background checks, love your bump stocks, and get off on firearms which heretofore were employed primarily by military forces ... then, yes, you do have legitimate concerns. It may be time to rally your new lobby group to generate wealthy executives and wine & dine the DC swamp.
Red herring question, but I will respond. No ... and you are well aware that is not the military firearm configuration to which I alluded. (BTW, as a hunter/firearms owner for well over five decades and a US Army guy for three decades. Having pulled the trigger on everything from an Army 38 revolver to the main gun of an M1 Abrams main battle tank, my opinion is no more valid than yours ... but it does come from solid context.)Bolt actions were military guns at one time. Does that make them bad?
Thank you Backgrounder for your reply. We can respectfully agree to disagree and see it differently on this subject. You have some good points and you are certainly entitled to support whom ever you see fit and thank you for the support that you provide that helps us all. When we come across things we don't like, the human mind has a way of rationalizing things that are unpleasant so we can cope with it. I will always support the rights of others to have their opinion and do what they feel is right. As long as it is not illegal, unethical, or immoral.See that's where I differ. In my opinion, Ted is an @ss. I genuinely hope at some time in my life I get to see him fade completely away from the 2A, hunting, and outdoor industry. If I choose to not give my hard earned money to USCCA because they paid Ted to endorse them, it's because I'm voting with my dollar. My wife and I also give monthly to several other 501(c)3 charities that deal with causes we feel strongly about... but... BUT... if any of them paid money (which hypothetically could be my $1) to that pant soiling, draft dodging, POACHER, they would not see a single dime from me ever again. I've been a member of RMEF since I was 8... that's 32 years of support over some years where $35 wasn't an expenditure coming out of petty cash... it meant something. If RMEF put him on their board, or sponsored his TV show, or whatever, good bye RMEF membership.
The statements about not supporting hunting because hunting is endorsed by Ted is a logical fallacy in my mind. Hunting isn't an organization. Hunting is a big ol general term. I don't have any clue what kind of arrows he shoots, but if he's on someones payroll for that endorsement, I'm out. I'm not stopping buying gas because someone I don't care for buys the same gas, I'm choosing to vote with my dollars and buy the same product (gas) from someone else. Chevron/Shell/BP doesn't matter... my truck burns it just the same.
That's just my humble opinion though. More often than not, I'm wrong. The older I get, the smarter I used to be.
That's where I would see them shifting from legal protection to hunters safety, firearms courses, more shooting competitions. Not that they don't do those now, but that could be the focus.Have you ever wondered about the internal, and unavoidable, conflict of interest for the NRA? Since it has become a 2A-only organization (and I me that pragmatically), you have to wonder how successful they want to be. If they ever accomplish their goal, then they are out of business. Like gun makers, I'm sure Obama did more for NRA membership than Trump will ever do.