# "pushy" NRA doantions solicitor



## Deebo (Oct 27, 2012)

Just wanted to throw this vent out there, Had and NRA solicitor call me yesterday and explain to me the "NSA was illegally recording conversations and gun registrations". She asked me for $100. I explained that I understood the arguement, But that it was Christmas, and this month was already screwed up, and my wording sounded something like " I do feel that this needs to be faught, but right now, donating could possible be the difference between food on the table or no food on the table". She then went on to explain that a $25 donation would really help....Really... Im outside with the kids building a dog kennel, and had to "accidentally" jump off the phone with her. 
Anybody else dumb enough to put their cellphone number on their registration?


----------



## Meangreen (Dec 6, 2012)

It's not just the NRA, I have been getting calls from every type of organization. I found that things I like on Facebook has given these groups my information and so I have been getting a lot of emails and phone calls.


----------



## Chipper (Dec 22, 2012)

Caller ID, what a wonder thing.


----------



## Meangreen (Dec 6, 2012)

Chipper said:


> Caller ID, what a wonder thing.


What is this strange witchcraft you speak of? :roll:


----------



## Deebo (Oct 27, 2012)

Yes, Chipper, I add ignore to the ones I know, but in my work, I sometimes get calls from all over the world, and if it doesn't say "my baby", or "mom's house", I usually just let them go to VM, but I answered. I guess i should have just "drove throu a tunnel".


----------



## sparkyprep (Jul 5, 2013)

NRA can be VERY pushy when it comes to donations.


----------



## Inor (Mar 22, 2013)

We have been getting at least 5 per day as well. What cracks me up is when the RNC calls. I have bitched them out so many times and told them that I would only donate to individual campaigns so many times, you would think they would get the message.


----------



## ekim (Dec 28, 2012)

I gave up on the NRA over 25 years ago and never looked back, their almost as bad as the Rino's in congress.


----------



## bigdogbuc (Mar 23, 2012)

You're basic yearly membership pays for the privilege of them stuffing your mailbox full of solicitations for money. Several years ago, my membership was coming due and I started getting reminders about 4 months out. Just prior to my membership expiring, I got "THE" letter. The letter that resulted in me telling the NRA, in a long and personal e-mail, to go f--- themselves.

You see, apparently it was members like ME, that directly led to the dismantling of, and the unopposed attack on, the Second Amendment itself. Yes everyone, the freedoms we no longer enjoy, the 7 round magazines, the gun bans around the country, are all, completely and unequivocally my fault, and mine alone. MAGPUL left Colorado, because of me. California, has all but stripped the rights of gun owners to own guns at all, because I didn't ship the NRA a $35 check.

Sorry. And for the NRA;


----------



## Meangreen (Dec 6, 2012)

bigdogbuc said:


> You're basic yearly membership pays for the privilege of them stuffing your mailbox full of solicitations for money. Several years ago, my membership was coming due and I started getting reminders about 4 months out. Just prior to my membership expiring, I got "THE" letter. The letter that resulted in me telling the NRA, in a long and personal e-mail, to go f--- themselves.
> 
> You see, apparently it was members like ME, that directly led to the dismantling of, and the unopposed attack on, the Second Amendment itself. Yes everyone, the freedoms we no longer enjoy, the 7 round magazines, the gun bans around the country, are all, completely and unequivocally my fault, and mine alone. MAGPUL left Colorado, because of me. California, has all but stripped the rights of gun owners to own guns at all, because I didn't ship the NRA a $35 check.
> 
> Sorry. And for the NRA;


I really hate that the "free" gifts that they send are always cheap crap from China. I told them that I would renew my membership on my own and I didn't need weekly reminders and cheap trinkets to get me to do it.


----------



## Just Sayin' (Dec 5, 2013)

Wow, and I thought I was the only unpatriotic gun lover out there!

I gave up on the NRA when they started blowing after Sandy Hook. Yeah, enforce the laws we already have on the books. But requiring a background check for every gun sold at a gun show, okay, doesn't infringe my rights...and might stop some idiot who really doesn't need a weapon.

The NRA is all about money these days, and I would love to see the expense accounts for the top brass. I hear they are well paid too. They don't reflect my views when they refuse to compromise or offer any good legislation or solutions.


----------



## dannydefense (Oct 9, 2013)

Just Sayin' said:


> I gave up on the NRA when they started blowing after Sandy Hook. Yeah, enforce the laws we already have on the books. But requiring a background check for every gun sold at a gun show, okay, doesn't infringe my rights...and might stop some idiot who really doesn't need a weapon.


I hope I'm misunderstanding your post. If I am, I apologize in advance and ignore the following; the universal background check had nothing to do with keeping guns out of criminals hands. Anyone who believed that, I have a bridge to sell you and some property in California for you to live on.

The universal background check was a precursor to a universal registration system. If you could never transfer a firearm -- even within your own family -- without a background check, they would have a clear and concise paper trail of where every single numbered weapon in this country was. No more boating accidents. Your rights were being infringed, make no mistake about it.


----------



## Meangreen (Dec 6, 2012)

dannydefense said:


> I hope I'm misunderstanding your post. If I am, I apologize in advance and ignore the following; the universal background check had nothing to do with keeping guns out of criminals hands. Anyone who believed that, I have a bridge to sell you and some property in California for you to live on.
> 
> The universal background check was a precursor to a universal registration system. If you could never transfer a firearm -- even within your own family -- without a background check, they would have a clear and concise paper trail of where every single numbered weapon in this country was. No more boating accidents. Your rights were being infringed, make no mistake about it.


Well said! There is no gun show loop hole that is propaganda created by the liberal media.


----------



## jesstheshow (Nov 18, 2013)

I am totally conflicted when it comes to background checks. Some people who have guns legally are VERY questionable lol. I really don't think someone with a mental illness should own a gun. It is our 2nd amendment right, but who the hell would give a gun to a schizo? Come on now..

But then again, as for us regular folks, background checks may make it more difficult to get a gun and also put us in a national registry. Very split on this issue. 

As for the NRA, fo-get those guys.


----------



## AquaHull (Jun 10, 2012)

Meangreen said:


> I really hate that the "free" gifts that they send are always cheap crap from China. I told them that I would renew my membership on my own and I didn't need weekly reminders and cheap trinkets to get me to do it.


I got a nice black NRA hat with the American Flag on the outside,in violation of the flag code BTW. Inside it had a made in China hat. Well the folks where the hat was made must have a different shaped melon because it wouldn't fit.

I only joined since with a NRA membership I got the NRA Range Safety Officer class free, without membership it would have cost $35 + $5 for the year certs.


----------



## Meangreen (Dec 6, 2012)

jesstheshow said:


> I am totally conflicted when it comes to background checks. Some people who have guns legally are VERY questionable lol. I really don't think someone with a mental illness should own a gun. It is our 2nd amendment right, but who the hell would give a gun to a schizo? Come on now..
> 
> But then again, as for us regular folks, background checks may make it more difficult to get a gun and also put us in a national registry. Very split on this issue.
> 
> As for the NRA, fo-get those guys.


I agree but your medical records are not checked with a background check, only criminal history. When you purchase a firearm from an FFL holder, you fill out a NIX form and you confirm that you are eligible to legally purchase a firearm. The FFL holder calls in with your name and date of birth as well as your SS# if you give it to them and confirms that you are legally able to purchase a firearm. A national registry is for the firearm and not you, so why would a government need to know this information unless it is to seize your weapon? I believe the system in place is adequate and in ALMOST all cases a firearm used in a crime is obtained illegally. The sandy hook shooter broke 13 laws even before he got to the school and he had been denied purchase of a firearm, no law would have stopped him.


----------



## Titan6 (May 19, 2013)

Its just that time of year they all come out of the woodwork!! I would suggest pick the groups you are comfortable giving to and ignore the rest.. I have 3 i give to every year for the past 25 years


----------



## Meangreen (Dec 6, 2012)

I don't really give to anyone anymore and let me know if you think this is a silly reason. I give thousands of dollars a year thru CFC, Combined Federal Campaign. It is a way for federal employees to give a little from every pay check before taxes through out the year so at the end of the year it works out to be a sizable donation. I always have given to the Wounded warrior Project and have for several years. Well I was at an event and Wounded warrior was there and a lady representing them asked me if I would donate to them. I explained to her that I already have and do every year. She looked into her system and said to me rather smugly that I'm not in the system or a member so I must be lying. I told her about the CFC and that I have given thousands every year for many years, she said in a condescending sing songy voice that I must be mistaken or not being truthful.


----------



## roy (May 25, 2013)

NRA's primary mission is fund raising.


----------



## retired guard (Mar 7, 2013)

Meangreen said:


> I agree but your medical records are not checked with a background check, only criminal history. When you purchase a firearm from an FFL holder, you fill out a NIX form and you confirm that you are eligible to legally purchase a firearm. The FFL holder calls in with your name and date of birth as well as your SS# if you give it to them and confirms that you are legally able to purchase a firearm. A national registry is for the firearm and not you, so why would a government need to know this information unless it is to seize your weapon? I believe the system in place is adequate and in ALMOST all cases a firearm used in a crime is obtained illegally. The sandy hook shooter broke 13 laws even before he got to the school and he had been denied purchase of a firearm, no law would have stopped him.


I love the insanity that says some one bent on mass murder and suicide is going to abide by the restriction of a gun free zone.


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

I am all for the good work that the NRA has done and is doing. I did send them a request to be removed from their alerts and fund drives about 18 years ago. I had a nice chat with a fellow and haven't received any alerts or fund requests since. I am a life member of the NRA and a member of the SAF. (Second Amendment Foundation) They both support court cases that promote our rights. That costs a lot of money and where I put my money is in support of those things.


----------



## Just Sayin' (Dec 5, 2013)

dannydefense said:


> I hope I'm misunderstanding your post. If I am, I apologize in advance and ignore the following; the universal background check had nothing to do with keeping guns out of criminals hands. Anyone who believed that, I have a bridge to sell you and some property in California for you to live on.
> 
> The universal background check was a precursor to a universal registration system. If you could never transfer a firearm -- even within your own family -- without a background check, they would have a clear and concise paper trail of where every single numbered weapon in this country was. No more boating accidents. Your rights were being infringed, make no mistake about it.


No need to apologize Danny. As I understood it, the background check did not apply to personal transfers, whether family or friend or stranger. It would only apply to weapons purchased at gun shows. I think even the idiots in Washington realize that trying to enforce private transfers is impossible. I don't think that it's that much of a burden to require non Class 3 sellers at a gun show to have to conduct a check (I know, they are few). Just walk over to a Class 3 dealer and pay him a small fee to run it for you. We all know that criminals are not going to pay any attention to the law and that you can get any kind of weapon you want on the black market. If a background check stops one person from getting a weapon at a gun show that they shouldn't have, I'm ok with that.

As far as them coming to get my registered guns, good luck with that. There aren't enough police, sheriffs, federal enforcement, or military to even try it. Besides the fact that a pretty good percentage are just like me and you, all the ones I know would refuse such a order strictly for their own survival. The jungle telegraph would make any confiscation a short lived event. Hell, they're already under-gunned and equiped from the start in alot of situations. Most of my LE friends would love to have my goodies. I just don't really see anyone really thinking they can go door to door confiscating our weapons. Molon Labe, right?

I guess what I'm saying is that I'm all for the conversation(s) that get us to all agree that we do need to compromise on some sane adjustments to our gun laws and then actually do something about it. People with a history of mental illness shouldn't be able to purchase a weapon. Criminals who get caught with weapons should actually be punished. Open and concealed carry laws should be the same for every state. Gun laws should be the same for every state. It's constitutionally guaranteed. States shouldn't be allowed to infringe on that right.

IMHO


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

The "Universal Background Check" that DC is pushing would apply to all transfers of guns. The people who sell their privately owned guns at gun shows are just selling privately owned goods just as any individual does with their own property. It is already against the law to sell to a known felon or anyone who is legally insane. We don't need to expand any gun laws we need to get rid of all of them. There is no reason to license people to own mufflers - it is just plain smart to install them on a gun to cut down on hearing damage. There is no reason to license people to have automatic weapons as they are an integral part of securing the future of our constitution. It has been said that taxation is a method to abolish so all taxes connected with our rights as protected by the constitution should be recalled.


----------



## Notsoyoung (Dec 2, 2013)

Chipper said:


> Caller ID, what a wonder thing.


I'm with you. If I don't recognize the person or number calling I don't answer.


----------



## jesstheshow (Nov 18, 2013)

Meangreen said:


> I agree but your medical records are not checked with a background check, only criminal history. When you purchase a firearm from an FFL holder, you fill out a NIX form and you confirm that you are eligible to legally purchase a firearm. The FFL holder calls in with your name and date of birth as well as your SS# if you give it to them and confirms that you are legally able to purchase a firearm. A national registry is for the firearm and not you, so why would a government need to know this information unless it is to seize your weapon? I believe the system in place is adequate and in ALMOST all cases a firearm used in a crime is obtained illegally. The sandy hook shooter broke 13 laws even before he got to the school and he had been denied purchase of a firearm, no law would have stopped him.


I am not saying that anything would have stopped him, but I would never willfully and knowingly give a gun to someone with mental issues. I dont think it would stop crime, but super unsettling to give someone like that a firearm.


----------



## Meangreen (Dec 6, 2012)

jesstheshow said:


> I am not saying that anything would have stopped him, but I would never willfully and knowingly give a gun to someone with mental issues. I dont think it would stop crime, but super unsettling to give someone like that a firearm.


No one gave him a gun, he was actually denied a firearm from a local gun shop. His mother for god knows what reason taught how to shoot, he murdered her and took the firearms.

This country doesn't have a gun problem, it has a mental health problem.


----------



## jesstheshow (Nov 18, 2013)

Meangreen said:


> No one gave him a gun, he was actually denied a firearm from a local gun shop. His mother for god knows what reason taught how to shoot, he murdered her and took the firearms.
> 
> This country doesn't have a gun problem, it has a mental health problem.
> 
> View attachment 3748


I am not talking about him, lol. I dont condone gun control, stop twisting my words. Lol I am not even referring to him, AT ALL.


----------



## jesstheshow (Nov 18, 2013)

Meangreen said:


> No one gave him a gun, he was actually denied a firearm from a local gun shop. His mother for god knows what reason taught how to shoot, he murdered her and took the firearms.
> 
> This country doesn't have a gun problem, it has a mental health problem.
> 
> View attachment 3748


Maybe you should read all of my previous posts to see how I feel about gun control. I never said I wanted to expand gun control, I just said my thoughts about it. I never said James' Holmes, you did. I never said he legally got a gun. I never said anyone gave him a gun.

I said, generally (NOT HIM) that I would not give someone with a mental illness a gun.

ONCE AGAIN

I know no one GAVE him a GUN.


----------



## Meangreen (Dec 6, 2012)

jesstheshow said:


> I am not talking about him, lol. I dont condone gun control, stop twisting my words. Lol I am not even referring to him, AT ALL.


I'm not twisting your words. Are you saying anyone with mental health issues because I was using the CT shooter as an example. Look at the photos and anyone that would willfully sell a firearm to these liberals (Yes they always seem to be leftist democrats) is asking for trouble.


----------



## jesstheshow (Nov 18, 2013)

Meangreen said:


> I'm not twisting your words. Are you saying anyone with mental health issues because I was using the CT shooter as an example. Look at the photos and anyone that would willfully sell a firearm to these liberals (Yes they always seem to be leftist democrats) is asking for trouble.


-sigh- Why are so confrontational today? Stop it. I am not arguing with you.


----------



## Meangreen (Dec 6, 2012)

jesstheshow said:


> -sigh- Why are so confrontational today? Stop it. I am not arguing with you.


I'm sorry if I'm coming across as confrontational, it's not my intent. I'm against gun control but I believe reasonable precautions to keep mentally ill people from obtaining firearms. We have a reasonable system with the NIX but public education would be step in the right direction.

Let me just add that I know you're not anti-gun.


----------



## Just Sayin' (Dec 5, 2013)

PaulS said:


> The "Universal Background Check" that DC is pushing would apply to all transfers of guns. The people who sell their privately owned guns at gun shows are just selling privately owned goods just as any individual does with their own property. It is already against the law to sell to a known felon or anyone who is legally insane. We don't need to expand any gun laws we need to get rid of all of them. There is no reason to license people to own mufflers - it is just plain smart to install them on a gun to cut down on hearing damage. There is no reason to license people to have automatic weapons as they are an integral part of securing the future of our constitution. It has been said that taxation is a method to abolish so all taxes connected with our rights as protected by the constitution should be recalled.


Okay, would you be for it (and I'm throwing in the addition of state records of mental illness, incomptentcy) if it did not require the check for individual transfers?


----------



## Meangreen (Dec 6, 2012)

Just Sayin' said:


> Okay, would you be for it (and I'm throwing in the addition of state records of mental illness, incomptentcy) if it did not require the check for individual transfers?


I struggle with it because it could be manipulated to bar a vast majority of people. Right now it's felonies, some misdemeanors, and crimes of domestic violence that keeps a person from buying a firearm from an FFL. How would they decide what mental illness will deny the person the right to purchase a firearm? A soldier with PTSD, a person with depression? People on psychoactive medication? We need to address the people not the firearm but this may be too daunting of a task. I believe a law abiding US citizen should be able to own whatever they want.


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

Just Sayin' said:


> Okay, would you be for it (and I'm throwing in the addition of state records of mental illness, incomptentcy) if it did not require the check for individual transfers?


No, I am not for any background checks at all. There is already a place (public records) where you can find out if someone is a felon or has been adjudicated as mentally ill. There is no reason to treat someone as a criminal without cause and that is what the background check does. Anyone else can legally own a firearm - regardless if they have "mental problems" or not. The only way your rights can be lawfully denied is if you abuse them to harm others and are found guilty in a court of law. Until you commit a crime there is no lawful reason to stop you from owning a gun. It is a right not a privilege.


----------



## Seneca (Nov 16, 2012)

Background checks by their very nature infer that you are an unknown (criminal) and not to own a firearm until you pass a check and prove otherwise. If that is not the logic then why do the the back ground check in the first place? It is now to the point where you have to prove you are capable of exercising a right before being allowed to do so. Strange yet true. And does any of this stop bad people from doing bad things. Well if recent history is any example. I'd have to say no.


----------



## Arizona Infidel (Oct 5, 2013)

I didn't see any other group stand up and fight for our freedom and liberty after new town. 
I support the NRA.


----------



## Just Sayin' (Dec 5, 2013)

Before I wade back in... 

No, I'm not a bleeding heart liberal puke for gun control. I spent my time on the pointy end.

Paul said "The only way your rights can be lawfully denied is if you abuse them to harm others and are found guilty in a court of law. Until you commit a crime there is no lawful reason to stop you from owning a gun. It is a right not a privilege." And I agree with you, it is a right. But you do have to check to see if someone has forfeited that right. I mean, we are talking about something that in the wrong hands has the ability to destroy alot of peoples lives very quickly, not something like a baseball bat. But, I also agree with Meangreen, in that it can be manipulated at some point in the future to ban more people from owning firearms. I have to show ID now to buy ammonium nitrate because some idiot got mad at the gov't and decided to blow up a bunch of kids and innocent people.

I don't feel like I'm being treated like a criminal when getting a background check done any more than when they check my ID to exercise one of my other rights, to vote. It was the far right conservatives that pushed to make me prove who I am before I can exercise my right to vote. If we keep resisting any reasonable ideas to help prevent people that should not have a firearm, I am afraid that sooner or later there is going to be a massacre that tips the scales and we end up with some really draconian laws banning gun ownership.

As for people with mental illnesses owning firearms, I'm pretty sure that there are some that absolutely don't need to, as well as some that it isn't a problem. Yeah, it might be their right, but it doesn't make it right either. I don't know enough about mental illness to say which is which, but I'm sure that there's some gun owning Docs out there that could figure that out.

Background checks are here to stay, just like taxes. Let's get the most bang for the buck and use them to keep the people who really shouldn't have access to weapons from getting them. Yeah, it's not perfect and never will be. But at least the anti-gunners won't be able to say that we didn't try. And if it works only some of the time, that's better than none at all. If it stops that one event that pushes public opinion over the edge toward a gun ban, even better. imho


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

We have evil lawmakers in Congress. It wouldn't surprise me if someone in Congress writes a Bill that says gun owners are crazy and anyone attempting to buy a gun is thereby mentally ill and should be denied the gun. Good is now evil and evil is now good. Nothing surprises me anymore. God Save this Great Republic.


----------



## Seneca (Nov 16, 2012)

The point isn't whether or not a person agrees with background checks. The point is are background checks useful in stopping bad people from doing bad things? Some say yes some say no. I think law abiding citizens simply comply whether they agree with background checks or not. How one feels about it is moot.


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

Background checks, extended waiting periods and other restrictions only affect those who follow the rules and obey the law. Criminals belong to a different group that don't follow the rules or obey the laws. 

Understand that you cannot prevent crimes. No law in existence prevents crimes. The laws are in place so that those who do break the law can be prosecuted once they break the law and are caught.

Even if you take away all the rights we have there will still be those who break the law. We have to learn to deal with criminals and stop trying to prevent them from breaking the law through the escalating removal of the rights of the individual. I am not a criminal. I have not broken any laws. I do not deserve to be treated like a criminal so others can feel good about having done something that prevents a crime when it doesn't accomplish anything of the kind.

No! Background checks do nothing to prevent crimes. Criminal won't go through the background checks. Criminals don't buy guns from dealers. Why is there any kind of background check?


----------



## Meangreen (Dec 6, 2012)

Just Sayin' said:


> Before I wade back in...
> 
> No, I'm not a bleeding heart liberal puke for gun control. I spent my time on the pointy end.
> 
> ...


Real quick, you're not getting a background check now as the system stands. You fill out a nix form and they quickly run your drivers license or social security number. Have you ever applied for a law enforcement job? Then you would now what a true background check is. If the people vote and start requiring a background, THERE IS NO ORGANIZATION OR AGENCY IN PLACE TO DO THE VOLUME OF BACKGROUNDS THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED. That means that all sales would stop until a system is put in place to do the backgrounds. It would cost a minimum of $400 or more and would take months.

What is the wait right now for a suppressor? Last time I checked it was 10 months and that is a real cursory background check.

Research the affect of the Saturday Special law regarding pistol in CA and you will understand the manipulation of laws and what they can do to firearms owners.


----------



## Just Sayin' (Dec 5, 2013)

Meangreen said:


> Real quick, you're not getting a background check now as the system stands. You fill out a nix form and they quickly run your drivers license or social security number. Have you ever applied for a law enforcement job? Then you would now what a true background check is.


Yes, Meangreen, I've know what a true background check involves having held a TSSBI clearance in the military and applying for an LE job. I understand that the "background check" is not a true "name your:" for the past 15 years type of background check. I was merely using the term commonly applied to what is done today when purchasing a weapon. And believe me, I'm not advocating that they start doing a full, true background check. I don't have the time to find the numbers right now, but there is a significant number of people that do fill out the form who are disqualified to purchase or possess firearms every year. And most of them are not prosecuted, even though it is against the law to apply as I understand it.

I also understand that criminals do not buy from FFL's. They are by nature going to break any law they please.

So I guess the question is what is the solution? Do nothing? Better mental health care? Lock the criminals up for longer periods after they've broken the law? I'm listening.

Oh, and I'll let you know on the wait time for a suppressor in about, oh about 9 and a half months, Meangreen.


----------



## Meangreen (Dec 6, 2012)

Just Sayin' said:


> Yes, Meangreen, I've know what a true background check involves having held a TSSBI clearance in the military and applying for an LE job. I understand that the "background check" is not a true "name your:" for the past 15 years type of background check. I was merely using the term commonly applied to what is done today when purchasing a weapon. And believe me, I'm not advocating that they start doing a full, true background check. I don't have the time to find the numbers right now, but there is a significant number of people that do fill out the form who are disqualified to purchase or possess firearms every year. And most of them are not prosecuted, even though it is against the law to apply as I understand it.
> 
> I also understand that criminals do not buy from FFL's. They are by nature going to break any law they please.
> 
> ...


The answer to stop mass shootings...more guns.

The Reason the Arapahoe School Shooting Lasted Only 80 Seconds Will Annoy Gun Control Supporters | Independent Journal Review


----------



## Just Sayin' (Dec 5, 2013)

Agree with you there Meangreen. It would be helpful if they would standardize the rules among states so we'd know where you can and where you can't carry, but I don't think that's gonna happen any time soon. But yeah, it would definitely put a dent in mass shootings if more people had immediate access to a weapon when someone starts the shooting. Wonder how many other shooters that are crazy would finish themselves off if confronted?


----------



## Meangreen (Dec 6, 2012)

Just Sayin' said:


> Agree with you there Meangreen. It would be helpful if they would standardize the rules among states so we'd know where you can and where you can't carry, but I don't think that's gonna happen any time soon. But yeah, it would definitely put a dent in mass shootings if more people had immediate access to a weapon when someone starts the shooting. Wonder how many other shooters that are crazy would finish themselves off if confronted?


About all of them because their cowards and the reason they pick places like schools, movie theaters, and because of that ****** Clinton, Military bases is because they're gun free.


----------



## roy (May 25, 2013)

Meangreen said:


> About all of them because their cowards and the reason they pick places like schools, movie theaters, and because of that ****** Clinton, Military bases is because they're gun free.


So Hillary disarmed the military bases.


----------



## Meangreen (Dec 6, 2012)

roy said:


> So Hillary disarmed the military bases.


No it was Bill Clinton who is not a man so obviously a ******.

The Clinton Legacy: Disarming Military Bases & Dead Soldiers


----------



## vandelescrow (Nov 17, 2012)

I joined the NRA so my membership would help pay for lobbyists, instead it payed for junk mail. I dropped it after one year, 5 years later I'm still getting their crap. Someone tell me, with all the mailings they do, How is there any money left over to fight for our gun rights?


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

vandelescrow said:


> I joined the NRA so my membership would help pay for lobbyists, instead it payed for junk mail. I dropped it after one year, 5 years later I'm still getting their crap. Someone tell me, with all the mailings they do, How is there any money left over to fight for our gun rights?


The NRA was started as a gun control organization. The money has never went toward fighting for gun RIGHTS. The only fight they ever fought was to preserve a *general privilege* to be able to own a firearm.


----------



## Montana Rancher (Mar 4, 2013)

Deebo said:


> Just wanted to throw this vent out there, Had and NRA solicitor call me yesterday and explain to me the "NSA was illegally recording conversations and gun registrations". She asked me for $100. I explained that I understood the arguement, But that it was Christmas, and this month was already screwed up, and my wording sounded something like " I do feel that this needs to be faught, but right now, donating could possible be the difference between food on the table or no food on the table". She then went on to explain that a $25 donation would really help....Really... Im outside with the kids building a dog kennel, and had to "accidentally" jump off the phone with her.
> Anybody else dumb enough to put their cellphone number on their registration?


I am in REALLY deep with the NRA, lifetime member... millennium member... Patron member... Endowment member... Crap I've forgot anything past that but my point is

BE A FREEKIN MEMBER


----------



## Montana Rancher (Mar 4, 2013)

The Resister said:


> The NRA was started as a gun control organization. The money has never went toward fighting for gun RIGHTS. The only fight they ever fought was to preserve a *general privilege* to be able to own a firearm.


You are wrong wrong wrong, NRA is at the front of lawsuits defending the 2nd amendment.


----------



## roy (May 25, 2013)

Montana Rancher said:


> You are wrong wrong wrong, NRA is at the front of lawsuits defending the 2nd amendment.


They were on the back of the last couple of lawsuits.


----------



## Seneca (Nov 16, 2012)

The NRA was not started as a gun control organization. Unless the control you speak of has to do with hitting the target. 

The NRA was and always has been a governing body for organized shooting sports, that hasn't changed. 

If you've ever participated in any organized shooting sport, it's likely the NRA established the rules and guidelines. 

Their involvement in gun control issues is what people most associate with the NRA yet it is not their founding function.

GOA on the other hand was started and continues as a gun rights organization. 

Perhaps you'd prefer to join GOA, If you enjoy shooting you should belong to one or the other.


----------



## Seneca (Nov 16, 2012)

ESA said:


> I normally agree with you. Although logically speaking more guns will not reduce the chances of a mass shooting. I will give you just two reasons but I could list many more..
> 
> 1)	Most of these shootings are done at gun free areas. So if one is a law abiding citizen he or she will not have their firearms with them in these gun free zones.
> 
> ...


If you understand the NRA is only a gun lobby, then you really don't understand the NRA. Yes we do need to stand together, how do you suggest we do that? if not through organization and affiliation? I can understand people not wanting to be associated with the NRA that's fine by me. It's not for everybody

If the worst thing I have to complain about is the occasional solicitation or flyer, then overall I'd say I've got it pretty good.


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

The NRA has set up the training for LE, military and civilian shooters. They have arguably the best training in the world outside of swat and covert insertions. They have sponsored hunter safety courses, shooting ranges, offered grants to shooting organizations and fought along side other second amendment groups. There are other organizations that do more in the courtroom because that is all they do - like the Second amendment Foundation (SAF) which is based in Washington state. They are for the most part non-profit corporations set up to keep the second amendment alive and well. There are two court battles going on right now in California and the NRA and SAF are involved in them. If you care about your second amendment protected rights then you should belong to as many of these organizations as you can afford.


----------



## Meangreen (Dec 6, 2012)

ESA said:


> I normally agree with you. Although logically speaking more guns will not reduce the chances of a mass shooting. I will give you just two reasons but I could list many more..
> 
> 1)	Most of these shootings are done at gun free areas. So if one is a law abiding citizen he or she will not have their firearms with them in these gun free zones.
> 
> ...


The only thing that will stop a bad man with a gun is a good man with a gun. Almost all of these mass shootings happens in gun free zones because of that very reason. Look at Chicago with the strictest gun laws in the country. Active shooters have the same goal, "shoot as many people as possible and then shoot myself." As a law enforcement officer, our training in dealing with an active shooter has completely changed from the past. It used to be that you secured the area and waited for SWAT to arrive. Now it's get in as fast as possible and take out the shooter.

By more guns means have armed people, (security, teachers, trained employees, etc) to deal with shooters because police are not going to get their in time to do anything. Law enforcement doesn't stop crime, they clean up the mess afterwards.

An armed society is a polite society.


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

ESA said:


> Are you kidding me? Teachers being armed is not a good idea. My wife is a teacher and she is anti guns. Not anti the secondand amendment just that she does not want a gun on or near her.She is an educator not a shooter. My wife and I hold different ideology. I believe you need to have arms not so much for protection from criminals, but to keep our government from becoming tyrannical. Although there is a need for conversations on how to stop these mass shooting and gun related crimes.
> 
> I do not know if there is a way around this issue that will not affect the law abiding citizen. I think we should have the conversation about no longer having gun free zones and allowing the individuals choose if they want to carry a firearm or not. But let us for a second go with your idea and teachers carry a gun and one day one of the teachers would have a melt down and kill their students or other teachers.. Americans would be upset that a law even passed to allow teachers to carry weapons.
> 
> This is a very hard conversation to have. I do not believe there is a solid answer that one can say they are correct and others are wrong. I just don't believe more guns are the answer. I would look at the current laws like in Chicago and change it to allow a person the right to bear arms in a way that could change the criminals mindset that they are the only ones with guns.


No one said teachers should be required to be armed. Teachers, like everyone else should have a choice though. This has been stated before and evidently needs to be repeated. Mass shootings take place in gun free zones. Why? Because people can't shoot back. Law abiding citizens are at a disadvantage by following the rules.

Is it possible that changing the law, making more laws will cause criminals to not consider doing this? For years DC had the strictest gun laws in the nation. They also had a higher gun related crime rate. When the average person was allowed to own a gun in DC, the crime rate dropped. Why? Criminals don't know who has the ability to shoot back.

Chicago has some of the toughest gun laws in the country. They are at or near the top of the list for gun related crimes. So you think stricter laws work?

Maybe we should consider making all guns illegal. I mean, it worked for drugs, didn't it?

It is sad though that the feds thought supplying drug lords with weapons was a good idea. I'll bet campaign contributions went up.


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

ESA said:


> Please read what I have written...


I did. The part about teachers was in answer to you. The rest was just my thoughts.

My wife also works for the school system. She is a librarian. My wife was anti gun until a time came when we thought we needed one. She is no longer anti gun but chooses not to carry. She states that is my job.


----------



## Meangreen (Dec 6, 2012)

ESA said:


> Are you kidding me? Teachers being armed is not a good idea. My wife is a teacher and she is anti guns. Not anti the secondand amendment just that she does not want a gun on or near her.She is an educator not a shooter. My wife and I hold different ideology. I believe you need to have arms not so much for protection from criminals, but to keep our government from becoming tyrannical. Although there is a need for conversations on how to stop these mass shooting and gun related crimes.
> 
> I do not know if there is a way around this issue that will not affect the law abiding citizen. I think we should have the conversation about no longer having gun free zones and allowing the individuals choose if they want to carry a firearm or not. But let us for a second go with your idea and teachers carry a gun and one day one of the teachers would have a melt down and kill their students or other teachers.. Americans would be upset that a law even passed to allow teachers to carry weapons.
> 
> This is a very hard conversation to have. I do not believe there is a solid answer that one can say they are correct and others are wrong. I just don't believe more guns are the answer. I would look at the current laws like in Chicago and change it to allow a person the right to bear arms in a way that could change the criminals mindset that they are the only ones with guns.


Everybody wants security just as long as it doesn't affect them. Somebody should do something but just not me. I don't like guns their scary and nothing bad will happen. Yadda yadda yadda....

There doesn't need to be a law to arm teachers just allow the teacher the right to make the decision. 
Something to digest:
https://www.gunowners.org/sk0802htm.htm


----------



## Inor (Mar 22, 2013)

ESA said:


> Are you kidding me? Teachers being armed is not a good idea. My wife is a teacher and she is anti guns. Not anti the secondand amendment just that she does not want a gun on or near her.She is an educator not a shooter. My wife and I hold different ideology. I believe you need to have arms not so much for protection from criminals, but to keep our government from becoming tyrannical. Although there is a need for conversations on how to stop these mass shooting and gun related crimes.
> 
> I do not know if there is a way around this issue that will not affect the law abiding citizen. I think we should have the conversation about no longer having gun free zones and allowing the individuals choose if they want to carry a firearm or not. But let us for a second go with your idea and teachers carry a gun and one day one of the teachers would have a melt down and kill their students or other teachers.. Americans would be upset that a law even passed to allow teachers to carry weapons.
> 
> This is a very hard conversation to have. I do not believe there is a solid answer that one can say they are correct and others are wrong. I just don't believe more guns are the answer. I would look at the current laws like in Chicago and change it to allow a person the right to bear arms in a way that could change the criminals mindset that they are the only ones with guns.


Let me get this straight, you would entrust your kids with somebody that you do not trust to safely carry a firearm?


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

Meangreen said:


> Everybody wants security just as long as it doesn't affect them. Somebody should do something but just not me. I don't like guns their scary and nothing bad will happen. Yadda yadda yadda....
> 
> There doesn't need to be a law to arm teachers just allow the teacher the right to make the decision.
> Something to digest:
> https://www.gunowners.org/sk0802htm.htm


Quit being so wishy-washy. Tell us what you really think.


----------



## Meangreen (Dec 6, 2012)

inceptor said:


> Quit being so wishy-washy. Tell us what you really think.


Let's just say that I'm sick of liberal bullshit. Either you're for protecting yourself and your family or you're a pussy.


----------



## retired guard (Mar 7, 2013)

Meangreen said:


> Let's just say that I'm sick of liberal bullshit. Either your for protecting yourself and your family or you're a pussy.


Meangreen I'm sure you realize as well if not better than I do. There are women who you take your life in your hands if you threaten their family.


----------



## Meangreen (Dec 6, 2012)

retired guard said:


> Meangreen I'm sure you realize as well if not better than I do. There are women who you take your life in your hands if you threaten their family.


Pussy as in gutless panty-waste who dances around the issue instead of standing up for what is right.


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

Inor said:


> Let me get this straight, you would entrust your kids with somebody that you do not trust to safely carry a firearm?


If you have children, this sums it up nicely. Discussion over in my opinion.


----------



## Just Sayin' (Dec 5, 2013)

I have been a member of the NRA for years. I am no longer a member because I feel they no longer represent my views. It's as simple as that. Same thing goes for my state representative and senator. There is middle ground on every issue, however slight, and the refusal to even visit it is harmful to our nation. 

I'm not so set one way or the other that I cannot recognize a good idea from either side. And if it's not a good idea, then propose one of yours.
Unfortunately, our government representatives have gotten hijacked by the lure of money. They really don't represent the people any more, rather they represent the group(s) that pay to get them re-elected. Hell, they get an ironclad retirement plan for their service to the country something like after 6 or 8 years years of service, while they are proposing cuts to the retirement of folks who actually got shot at. Go figure that.

The NRA has done some really good things for shooting over the years. That is what they were originally created for, that is what they should stick to. Just my opinion.


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

Montana Rancher said:


> You are wrong wrong wrong, NRA is at the front of lawsuits defending the 2nd amendment.


I was a lobbyist for the NRA in the 1980s. At that time, the NRA was pressuring us to alert people to a proposed "_Armor Piercing Bullet Ban_." At the same time, while taking people's money over that legislation, they were telling legislators that they had no objection to them voting for it.

In about 2000 / 2001, Charlatan Heston, as PRESIDENT of the NRA, *supported *the Brady Bill.

I could give you over a hundred instances where the NRA did NOT help gun owners... look up the case with Hollis Wayne Fincher. We literally begged for the NRA to intervene. No such luck. The attorney of record got disbarred for going above and beyond what the Bar would allow in Fincher's defense.

If you look closely, the NRA is all about a Second Amendment *PRIVILEGE*. They are about licenses, fees, permits and special classes of people that can own firearms. When it comes to the RIGHT to keep and bear Arms, they are usually most conspicuous by their absence.


----------



## Just Sayin' (Dec 5, 2013)

WoW, Resister


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

Armed teachers doesn't bother me nearly as much as no guns in the school to protect against a bad guy with a gun does. If a teacher wants to carry concealed they have to go through the same process that everyone else does and since I am not afraid to be around complete strangers who are licensed to carry why would I object to a teacher who was licensed to carry concealed? 

The NRA has fought right up to the supreme court protecting our right to keep and bear arms. I find it hard to believe that they are looking to have the right turned into a privilege at any level. I would like to see evidence to support your statement, Resistor.


----------



## Meangreen (Dec 6, 2012)

ESA said:


> And
> 
> Arming teachers will be viewed by many individuals as purely irresponsible. Teachers are not law enforcement. They do not take the required courses or training to be responsible for the safety of individuals like law enforcement officers. Just because one may have their conceal carry permit does not make them equal to law enforcement or even having the skills necessary to protect their children without harming innocent children in the rooms across or beside their rooms.
> 
> ...


I'm not putting words into your mouth.

Armed teachers works in Israel.

We have armed police officers on our college campuses and even these men have failed to stop an active shooters. The teachers are putting safeguards in place and have saved many children's lives by locking doors, rushing children out of the building to safety, and even using their own bodies to protect the children. With the correct training they could protect themselves and the children. 
Chicago is perfect example that taking peoples rights away is not the answer and anti gun laws and gun free zones shouldn't exist. I'm all for concealed carry, open carry, and exercising all your rights. I interact with armed citizens on a daily basis and I believe as a law enforcement officer my best protection is a law abiding armed citizen because many times they are my only backup. It is an unfortunate part of law enforcement that almost always you're there after the crime has been committed. 
It is YOUR job to protect yourself and the lives of your loved ones. 
You are correct that there are many people in our society that shouldn't be armed (criminals, mentally ill, etc) But the actions of these people shouldn't dictate our rights as citizen's of America. 
As for school bus drivers being armed, maybe it's because I live in such a rural area that the fact that both my mailman and my school bus driver are both armed doesn't seem odd to me.

The principle of my daughters elementary school is also the president of our local Tea Party chapter and I know for a fact that he is armed. I don't believe our teachers are but most of them are the snively liberal types so I doubt it.


----------



## Just Sayin' (Dec 5, 2013)

Meangreen said:


> Chicago is perfect example that taking peoples rights away is not the answer and anti gun laws and gun free zones shouldn't exist. I'm all for concealed carry, open carry, and exercising all your rights. I interact with armed citizens on a daily basis and I believe as a law enforcement officer my best protection is a law abiding armed citizen because many times they are my only backup. It is an unfortunate part of law enforcement that almost always you're there after the crime has been committed.
> It is YOUR job to protect yourself and the lives of your loved ones.
> You are correct that there are many people in our society that shouldn't be armed (criminals, mentally ill, etc) But the actions of these people shouldn't dictate our rights as citizen's of America.


I don't know if people get this point Meangreen. It has been stated over and over by Police and Sheriffs Departments as well as affirmed by the Courts, it IS NOT the police or sheriffs responsibility to protect you 24 hours a day. It is your responsibility. If you choose not to take that responsibility lightly, that is your decision not mine. And don't try to infringe on my ability to protect myself and family, because I take my obligation seriously.


----------



## Meangreen (Dec 6, 2012)

Just Sayin' said:


> I don't know if people get this point Meangreen. It has been stated over and over by Police and Sheriffs Departments as well as affirmed by the Courts, it IS NOT the police or sheriffs responsibility to protect you 24 hours a day. It is your responsibility. If you choose not to take that responsibility lightly, that is your decision not mine. And don't try to infringe on my ability to protect myself and family, because I take my obligation seriously.


It's the truth and one that people have a hard time understanding, personal responsibility. I had a state trooper say to me, "It's gotta be frustrating catching all those illegals and not making any difference." I then asked him how it was going stopping all the speeders. Law enforcement is a frustrating job because it will never end and you're usually always a day late and a dollar short. Nature of the business.


----------



## Meangreen (Dec 6, 2012)

ESA said:


> @ meangreen &#8230; I thought I was pretty clear on who was putting words in my mouth. It was not you&#8230;
> 
> Anyways I believe you are a border patrol agent, after reading some of your thoughts and ideology it all makes perfect sense. You have a dangerous job and you are correct that many times you are alone and having a citizen with a gun is your nearest backup depending on your location ect. Although I agree that there should be less gun free zones. We all know criminals do not obey the laws. We differ on school teachers being allowed to carry and the NRA. I do believe talking about subjects that we all do not agree with is a good thing.


You are correct on all the above. Criminals have guns and always will not matter the penalties or punishments. We should not infringe on the rights of the people in an attempt to disarm criminals.

P.S. I wasn't calling you a pussy either


----------



## Dr. Prepper (Dec 20, 2012)

I've been following this thread with interest for a while now. One thing that I sometimes think about when it comes to the "arming teachers" idea is that I think most folks who enter that profession do it with the idea of teaching our youth for the good of mankind. I have a daughter and three friends who are teachers at the high school level. Every one of them started out with high hopes and goals that were based on EDUCATION and working with people who are hungry for knowledge. Of course, one year in the trenches (classrooms) teaches the teachers that their ideals and aspirations were misdirected ;-)

Yes I know that there are many out there that think our teachers are paid well and I agree, somewhat. But our teachers are under tremendous pressure these days to be politically correct, to be psychologists, to be baby sitters, to be baby sitters for the student's parents, to be politicians, and to compromise their desire to teach the basics. The teaching profession at the K thru 12 level in public schools really, really sucks these days. The precious snowflakes they must deal with every day in the classroom are absolutely unbearable and the parents are worse. Now we are entertaining the idea that the teachers become LEOs in the schools as well. I'm not opposed to it but if I were a teacher I would demand that my pay be tripled for the responsibility and the liability involved. If a teacher's salary was $50k without carrying a weapon it would be $150k after agreeing to carry. I would also demand that all teachers go through a semi-annual training course in weapons handling, sharp shooting, and in-school tactical training. All training would be on "company" time with pay and at no expense to the teachers at all. All legal expenses must be paid 100% by the school district if an incident were to happen.

If today's parents (who were spoiled little brats themselves) want to raise spoiled little brats (precious snowflakes) and send them off for someone else to deal with they had better be prepared to pay for it.


----------



## Meangreen (Dec 6, 2012)

Dr. Prepper said:


> I've been following this thread with interest for a while now. One thing that I sometimes think about when it comes to the "arming teachers" idea is that I think most folks who enter that profession do it with the idea of teaching our youth for the good of mankind. I have a daughter and three friends who are teachers at the high school level. Every one of them started out with high hopes and goals that were based on EDUCATION and working with people who are hungry for knowledge. Of course, one year in the trenches (classrooms) teaches the teachers that their ideals and aspirations were misdirected ;-)
> 
> Yes I know that there are many out there that think our teachers are paid well and I agree, somewhat. But our teachers are under tremendous pressure these days to be politically correct, to be psychologists, to be baby sitters, to be baby sitters for the student's parents, to be politicians, and to compromise their desire to teach the basics. The teaching profession at the K thru 12 level in public schools really, really sucks these days. The precious snowflakes they must deal with every day in the classroom are absolutely unbearable and the parents are worse. Now we are entertaining the idea that the teachers become LEOs in the schools as well. I'm not opposed to it but if I were a teacher I would demand that my pay be tripled for the responsibility and the liability involved. If a teacher's salary was $50k without carrying a weapon it would be $150k after agreeing to carry. I would also demand that all teachers go through a semi-annual training course in weapons handling, sharp shooting, and in-school tactical training. All training would be on "company" time with pay and at no expense to the teachers at all. All legal expenses must be paid 100% by the school district if an incident were to happen.
> 
> If today's parents (who were spoiled little brats themselves) want to raise spoiled little brats (precious snowflakes) and send them off for someone else to deal with they had better be prepared to pay for it.


As with many social service jobs, if you have all the qualifications you would find a better paying job. I don't envy teachers in their daily struggles and they say the same thing to me about my profession as to my wife as hers as a nurse. Teachers jobs are getting to be very dangerous and they have little recourse.


----------



## bigdogbuc (Mar 23, 2012)

Dr. Prepper said:


> I've been following this thread with interest for a while now. One thing that I sometimes think about when it comes to the "arming teachers" idea is that I think most folks who enter that profession do it with the idea of teaching our youth for the good of mankind. I have a daughter and three friends who are teachers at the high school level. Every one of them started out with high hopes and goals that were based on EDUCATION and working with people who are hungry for knowledge. Of course, one year in the trenches (classrooms) teaches the teachers that their ideals and aspirations were misdirected ;-)
> 
> Yes I know that there are many out there that think our teachers are paid well and I agree, somewhat. But our teachers are under tremendous pressure these days to be politically correct, to be psychologists, to be baby sitters, to be baby sitters for the student's parents, to be politicians, and to compromise their desire to teach the basics. The teaching profession at the K thru 12 level in public schools really, really sucks these days. The precious snowflakes they must deal with every day in the classroom are absolutely unbearable and the parents are worse. Now we are entertaining the idea that the teachers become LEOs in the schools as well. I'm not opposed to it but if I were a teacher I would demand that my pay be tripled for the responsibility and the liability involved. If a teacher's salary was $50k without carrying a weapon it would be $150k after agreeing to carry. I would also demand that all teachers go through a semi-annual training course in weapons handling, sharp shooting, and in-school tactical training. All training would be on "company" time with pay and at no expense to the teachers at all. All legal expenses must be paid 100% by the school district if an incident were to happen.
> 
> If today's parents (who were spoiled little brats themselves) want to raise spoiled little brats (precious snowflakes) and send them off for someone else to deal with they had better be prepared to pay for it.


:lol: - For someone who doesn't work in the education system, you have a very firm grasp on what goes on there. I'm the head of security at a high school. I can't tell you how many first year teachers I have seen come in with grandiose ideas of how they are going to change the world, only to become jaded and cynical by the end of the first year, if they stick around at all. The same delusions of grandeur I had when I first went into law enforcement.

But I can tell you this, we will have more students dead at the end of a school year by the hands of their teachers, than we would from psychopathic gunmen. With the exception of two or three, I don't know a teacher I would hand a gun to, to protect students.

"They're not right in the head"


----------

