NRA Free 1-Year Membership

[imsotyerred]

if i weren't already a lifetime member...

[E30 Cabrio]

The NRA is giving FREE 1-yr memberships to everyone who wants to join. They are trying to build up their membership to fight pending legislation that
impacts our right to keep and bear arms.
It is very important that anti-gun congressmen see how many people they will have to fight to get their legislation through.

https://www.nrahq.org/nrabonus/accept-membership.asp

This can include spouses and children also.

BTW, thanks for the link.

I've been a member in the past and let my membership lapse a few years ago.

[Tree18is]

I feel bad that I joined while it was free, but I wanted to help, also

TDE30 is a fag

use cars salesmen over them?? really...

[Tree18is]

if i weren't already a lifetime member...

lol, good for you.

[E30 Cabrio]

I feel bad that I joined while it was free, but I wanted to help, also

TDE30 is a fag

use cars salesmen over them?? really...

Feel free to send them a check.

I usually donate during election years.

I also send money to the GOA as well.

[HiTheNameIsBJ]

Maluco, sure they're just trying to build up their membership numbers, but this seems like an odd way to go about it. Is a NRA membership and a basic background check enough for anyone to go out and buy a gun, or do they need a gun permit as well? If a NRA membership is all they need to acquire a gun, then this seems like a reckless decision IMO.

When you buy a gun at lets say gander mountain, you are not even asked if you are a member of the nra, let alone proof of membership. At 18 you may purchase a semi-auto rifle, rimfire or shotgun. Here in New York it is about a 8 month process (atleast it was when my dad went through it), requiring such things as backround checks, statments of character (up to 5, each a page long, with a deadline), you also have to put down a %100 non refundable deposit on a pistol (not approved? they keep it). It's a little different than free pistol with purchase of a 30 pack. NRA not only protects our rights, but they also help instate laws to keep them out of the wrong hands. It's not like they just added ezpass to the line for pistols, they simply waived a $15 fee. I've been a member for about 2 years, I shoot competitive rimfires. I'm proud to say I help protect my right to transport my rifle to and from the range to shoot at papper, not people.

[bmwpower]

Thanks for the link...signed up.

[TDE30]

When you buy a gun at lets say gander mountain, you are not even asked if you are a member of the nra, let alone proof of membership. At 18 you may purchase a semi-auto rifle, rimfire or shotgun. Here in New York it is about a 8 month process (atleast it was when my dad went through it), requiring such things as backround checks, statments of character (up to 5, each a page long, with a deadline), you also have to put down a %100 non refundable deposit on a pistol (not approved? they keep it). It's a little different than free pistol with purchase of a 30 pack. NRA not only protects our rights, but they also help instate laws to keep them out of the wrong hands. It's not like they just added ezpass to the line for pistols, they simply waived a $15 fee. I've been a member for about 2 years, I shoot competitive rimfires. I'm proud to say I help protect my right to transport my rifle to and from the range to shoot at papper, not people.

Thanks for laying that out unlike the homo who posted two posts above you. I've got a better idea of how gunowners get to that point, my main complaint is how normal civilians are able to get weapons once (or currently) used by militias. It's overkill, we don't need that kind of firepower. I don't agree with the outright ban of guns, and I don't think that's going to happen, I think it's just right-wing hype and basic misconstrusion of things Obama's administration have said. But whatever, apparently I came on here saying I was a foremost expert on guns and gun laws. (:roll:)

As for the age-old example, "what if a gun-wielding madman held up a convenience store with a shotgun and a customer inside could take care of the situation with a gun of their own," there's only a select few people who should really be allowed to take care of that sort of situation, I think that's a poor example and is basically saying everyone should have a gun and use it however they deem necessary.

[E30 Cabrio]

I remember going to a Gun Show a few years ago here in California (Crossroads of the West gun show) and some gang bangers from the 'hood went to one of the booths and wanted to buy some POS like a Lorcin or a Jennings.

The vendor asked them for their BFSC (Basic Firearm Safety Certificate) and they were like "What? What's that?"

They were also told there was a 10-day waiting period.

"What about dat gun show loop hole?"

These clowns thought they could just walk in, drop a Benjamin and walk out with a POS pistol.

Needless to say, they were a bit upset.

Too bad - I would have liked to have that POS pistol break and the slide hit one of them in the grill.

[iamsam]

Signed up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

now i get a free NRA sticker that i can put on my E30 and get eggs pelted at it by crazy liberal kids at college who still live with their moms and are stuck in the liberal mindset because all of their cool friends do and because they know so much more than all the old people do!

heh heh...

[HiTheNameIsBJ]

Thanks for laying that out unlike the homo who posted two posts above you. I've got a better idea of how gunowners get to that point, my main complaint is how normal civilians are able to get weapons once (or currently) used by militias. It's overkill, we don't need that kind of firepower. I don't agree with the outright ban of guns, and I don't think that's going to happen, I think it's just right-wing hype and basic misconstrusion of things Obama's administration have said. But whatever, apparently I came on here saying I was a foremost expert on guns and gun laws. (:roll:)

As for the age-old example, "what if a gun-wielding madman held up a convenience store with a shotgun and a customer inside could take care of the situation with a gun of their own," there's only a select few people who should really be allowed to take care of that sort of situation, I think that's a poor example and is basically saying everyone should have a gun and use it however they deem necessary.

I assume by guns used my militias, you are referring to the infamous AK47. I'll start off by saying we own one. It it semi-auto, full wooden stock, small magazine (I think, 9 rnds.) Because of these restrictions, it is legal. To have a full auto, folding stock, or large mag you need to have a ffl licence, which is damn near impossible to get. This same rule applies to all assualt rifels, the ones you see in stores, are slowed down, shortened mags, full stock and semi auto.

About the amount of firepower, why turbo your car? Why do you have to be faster then cops? It's human nature, you want to be fast. We want guns that shoot fast, and are accurate. Honestly when you're shooting the thing your not thinking about the mob you could mow down, just like your not thinking about how many high speed pursuits you can win. If you are in either case, it should be taken from you.

[Pinepig]

Thanks for laying that out unlike the homo who posted two posts above you. I've got a better idea of how gunowners get to that point, my main complaint is how normal civilians are able to get weapons once (or currently) used by militias. It's overkill, we don't need that kind of firepower. I don't agree with the outright ban of guns, and I don't think that's going to happen, I think it's just right-wing hype and basic misconstrusion of things Obama's administration have said. But whatever, apparently I came on here saying I was a foremost expert on guns and gun laws. (:roll:)

As for the age-old example, "what if a gun-wielding madman held up a convenience store with a shotgun and a customer inside could take care of the situation with a gun of their own," there's only a select few people who should really be allowed to take care of that sort of situation, I think that's a poor example and is basically saying everyone should have a gun and use it however they deem necessary.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


It's pretty simple really, what you think doesn't matter so EAD douchebag.

Before you go calling me a right wing whacko, allow me to add that I believe what you do with and put in your own body is none of the .gov buisness, freedom is not piecemeal ( like you seem to think ), it's absolute. Only complete fucking mouthbreathers think that some words on a piece of paper ( like a restrictive law ) cause bad people to stop doing bad things.

Allow me to leave you with this one fuckstick,

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.



Think about that one and what you are asking good peple to give up with your silly little laws.

[TDE30]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


It's pretty simple really, what you think doesn't matter so EAD douchebag.

Before you go calling me a right wing whacko, allow me to add that I believe what you do with and put in your own body is none of the .gov buisness, freedom is not piecemeal ( like you seem to think ), it's absolute. Only complete fucking mouthbreathers think that some words on a piece of paper ( like a restrictive law ) cause bad people to stop doing bad things.

Allow me to leave you with this one fuckstick,

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.



Think about that one and what you are asking good peple to give up with your silly little laws.

Ah okay, the right wing copy and paster calls me a fuckstick, oh shucks.

I don't recall saying shit about my freedom or the freedoms of anyone else. I recall saying that those weapons should not be able to be bought and sold illegally, that the government should do more about prohibiting that, that regular old law-abiding citizens don't need the same kind of firepower used to defend against armies. Things have changed since the second amendment was written, you and your right wing idiots seem to disacknowledge that. If what I say doesn't matter, then why do and the rest of your Obama hate gang continue to copy and paste topics on a fucking car enthusiast website? I guess you four or five can really get shit done.

Excellent Burke quote, so what do you suggest, we counter the misuse of assault weapons by what, doing nothing? Good idea, I'll pencil that one onto Obama.

[Farbin Kaiber]

TDE30, What's changed?

[HiTheNameIsBJ]

Well the fact of the matter is if you ban guns, criminals aren't going to turn them in. Effecting the availability of 7.62x39 rounds may make a difference, but then legal owners will have issues as well. I suppose if you produce different bores for auto and semi models, making the auto sized rounds ffl restricted it could work, but not retroactively.

I'd like to see the breakdown of types of guns used in crimes, my guess would be shotguns and pistols taking up the large majority. I don't think full auto rifles are really the problem. The amount of crimes committed by legal pistol owners is nominal. I'm pretty sure companies are forced to fire and keep a ballistic record of all pistols that may end up for sale in NY, apparently this is why kel tec isn't available here anymore. It's laws like that, that keep people from committing crimes in the first place, they don't have to find the gun to trace it to you anymore, only the bullet.


You know pinepig, I'm kinda surprised your so pro gun. I know quite a few police officers and they seem to feel they should be the only ones with em. I guess the experience, instilled some realism. People are law abiding because they have morals, not because some rulebook tells them not to.