Why join NRA?..."controlled oposition"

[Guest dlstewart01]

Life member here. Bottom line, if it wasn't for the NRA we wouldn't be enjoying our guns today.

[Guest mark_justmark]

+1000

Thats what I wanted to say!

I actually agree with you. I would prefer the term "birthrights" myself. Actually, the Bill of Rights were not written by the framers to give us rights, they were written to prevent the government from infringing on rights we had naturally by birth.

[Guest mark_justmark]

I couldn't imagine what would happen if there were groups that wanted to require citizens to pay for a background check and be finger printed to carry a permit to be able to speak in public, to attend church, to vote.... etc

[tntnixon]

Also, and this is completely my own assumption here, but it is not uncommon for a large organization like the NRA to run at a loss to avoid massive taxation from the government. The same way that you and I might seek tax shelters by wisely "getting rid of income" via completely legal methods per the direction of our investment counselors, etc. Businesses do this all the time.

The NRA is a non-profit (501©(4)) and is therefore not subject to taxes other than the witholding taxes of its employees (which by my calculations would be about $432,000 for Wayne LaPierre, alone).

[tntnixon]

I didn't qualify my statement. According to The NRA's required federal disclosure for non-profits, Wayne LaPierre's salary is approximately $900,000 plus benefits. So at a tax rate of 36% plus 11% SSI=$432,000.

I'm sorry but two things make me angry that is highly paid clergy and highly paid leaders of non-profits. I certainly believe they should be able to live comfortably, the question is how comfortably? And what does that say about one's commitment to the cause?

I'm certainly not questioning Mr. Lapierre's commitment, but I am questioning the leadership for approving such a salary when they know a form 900 will be required and it gives ammunition to the "Brady Bunch".

Edited August 10, 2009 by tntnixon

[TGO David]

I'm sorry but two things make me angry that is highly paid clergy and highly paid leaders of non-profits. I certainly believe they should be able to live comfortably, the question is how comfortably? And what does that say about one's commitment to the cause?

You know, I see questions like this a lot. I see them even being applied to why we charge a little money to allow people to use TGO to buy and sell things in our classifieds, even when we have never advertised ourselves as being a not-for-profit entity.

Apparently people misread "not for profit" as meaning that an organization cannot make money. That's absurd. This is America and people are allowed to earn money. Any company can be listed as not-for-profit so long as they do not show a profit on their books at the end of the year. This means the people within the company can, and should, make money. The more they make, the more of the American Dream they are achieving.

I have no qualms with Mr. Lapierre's income courtesy of the NRA. He likely has a 7-day a week job as a result and obviously doesn't keep cushy banker's hours, as evidenced by the many weekends, late nights, and early mornings that he is seen doing something on behalf of the NRA at this event or that event, radio broadcasts, etc.

For some reason, it seems to be a common notion inside the "gun culture" that people shouldn't be allowed to make money... or at least not a lot of it. I see it at gun shops all the time when a customer expects the shop to not only give them a gun at a discount, but make the discount so heavy that essentially the shop is paying that customer to take their products.

I just don't understand this.

[Guest 3pugguy]

I didn't qualify my statement. According to The NRA's required federal disclosure for non-profits, Wayne LaPierre's salary is approximately $900,000 plus benefits. So at a tax rate of 36% plus 11% SSI=$432,000.

I'm sorry but two things make me angry that is highly paid clergy and highly paid leaders of non-profits. I certainly believe they should be able to live comfortably, the question is how comfortably? And what does that say about one's commitment to the cause?

I'm certainly not questioning Mr. Lapierre's commitment, but I am questioning the leadership for approving such a salary when they know a form 900 will be required and it gives ammunition to the "Brady Bunch".

You might want to check out tax rates/info and recalculate; besides the fact, he is an executive and as such, is low paid in comparison to private sector executives. For more on social security and tax rates (there is a cap on what portion is taxed for SS and for the record, SSI is what you get by calling one of the lawyers who advertise all day on TV) see this link (some of the info pasted below; put in red by me): Answer

The 2009 contribution rate, also known as the FICA tax rate, is 7.65% for employees and 15.30% for self-employed people. The rates are broken out as follows:

• 6.2% (Social Security portion) on earnings up to the maximum taxable amount ($106,800 in 2009)
  
• 1.45% (Medicare portion) on all earnings.
  

The maximum Social Security tax withheld in 2009 is $6,621.60.

Set by law, these rates haven't changed since 1990.

Maximum Earnings TaxableProgram200720082009Social Security

$97,500

$102,000

$106,800

MedicareNo Limit for any year after 1993

You may also see a history of the FICA tax rate.

[Guest 3pugguy]

You know, I see questions like this a lot. I see them even being applied to why we charge a little money to allow people to use TGO to buy and sell things in our classifieds, even when we have never advertised ourselves as being a not-for-profit entity.

Apparently people misread "not for profit" as meaning that an organization cannot make money. That's absurd. This is America and people are allowed to earn money. Any company can be listed as not-for-profit so long as they do not show a profit on their books at the end of the year. This means the people within the company can, and should, make money. The more they make, the more of the American Dream they are achieving.

I have no qualms with Mr. Lapierre's income courtesy of the NRA. He likely has a 7-day a week job as a result and obviously doesn't keep cushy banker's hours, as evidenced by the many weekends, late nights, and early mornings that he is seen doing something on behalf of the NRA at this event or that event, radio broadcasts, etc.

For some reason, it seems to be a common notion inside the "gun culture" that people shouldn't be allowed to make money... or at least not a lot of it. I see it at gun shops all the time when a customer expects the shop to not only give them a gun at a discount, but make the discount so heavy that essentially the shop is paying that customer to take their products.

I just don't understand this.

+1

BIG BIG difference between "non or not for profit" and NO PROFIT...profit is not the issue, it is the keeping of profit that differentiates; non/not for profit use their revnue for furthering the organization (someone has to pay for the servers, the mailings, or whatever the situation).

And if I only want to pay "peanuts" to the leader of a group I want to work on my behalf, I should not complain nor be surprised when I get a monkey to do work in support of my cause .

[tntnixon]

You know, I see questions like this a lot. I see them even being applied to why we charge a little money to allow people to use TGO to buy and sell things in our classifieds, even when we have never advertised ourselves as being a not-for-profit entity.

Apparently people misread "not for profit" as meaning that an organization cannot make money. That's absurd. This is America and people are allowed to earn money. Any company can be listed as not-for-profit so long as they do not show a profit on their books at the end of the year. This means the people within the company can, and should, make money. The more they make, the more of the American Dream they are achieving.

I have no qualms with Mr. Lapierre's income courtesy of the NRA. He likely has a 7-day a week job as a result and obviously doesn't keep cushy banker's hours, as evidenced by the many weekends, late nights, and early mornings that he is seen doing something on behalf of the NRA at this event or that event, radio broadcasts, etc.

For some reason, it seems to be a common notion inside the "gun culture" that people shouldn't be allowed to make money... or at least not a lot of it. I see it at gun shops all the time when a customer expects the shop to not only give them a gun at a discount, but make the discount so heavy that essentially the shop is paying that customer to take their products.

I just don't understand this.

I actually agree with most of what you are saying. I believe in the market and for people making money in America. Actually I believe in making a lot of it.

It's the percentage of money that I have a problem with. Mr. LaPierre makes 0.45% of all the money coming to the NRA. By comparison the highest paid CEO in America (Oracle) only makes 0.08%. If Exxon's CEO made the same percentage he would make $1.7Billion (he does not). It's purely a matter of accounting.

It takes 35,000 annual memberships to cover his salary. Private business would never tolerate this. If you told me that we had quadupled our endowment and membership during his tenure, I would say great. But we are actually having fewer members by population percentage, not more. That is why an NRA endorsment is meaning less and less.

And , yes you can get good help for $500,000 a year. It doesn't require $900,000. All I'm asking for is fiscal responsibilty. We demand it from our government and we should demand it from the organizations we belong to.

[Oh Shoot]

... They sent him a multitool and spent $17.00 just on postage(It was on the envelope). ...

Sure it wasn't $1.70?

Only USPS Express Overnight could approach that cost for that weight.

- OS

[Guest 3pugguy]

I actually agree with most of what you are saying. I believe in the market and for people making money in America. Actually I believe in making a lot of it.

It's the percentage of money that I have a problem with. Mr. LaPierre makes 0.45% of all the money coming to the NRA. By comparison the highest paid CEO in America (Oracle) only makes 0.08%. If Exxon's CEO made the same percentage he would make $1.7Billion (he does not). It's purely a matter of accounting.

It takes 35,000 annual memberships to cover his salary. Private business would never tolerate this. If you told me that we had quadupled our endowment and membership during his tenure, I would say great. But we are actually having fewer members by population percentage, not more. That is why an NRA endorsment is meaning less and less.

And , yes you can get good help for $500,000 a year. It doesn't require $900,000. All I'm asking for is fiscal responsibilty. We demand it from our government and we should demand it from the organizations we belong to.

I'll look up the figures, but still contend the guy at NRA is paid low for a large organization. And comparing his salary to public companies is apples to oranges, plus the percentage is misleading, as I am sure the Oracle guy is pulling in way more than 900K; plus, those commerial company CEOs pull in nice little perks like stock options, jets, sweet little golden parachutes, etc.

I have no issue with the guy making a million, if they keep on doing what they are doing for us.

[tntnixon]

Sure it wasn't $1.70?

Only USPS Express Overnight could approach that cost for that weight.

- OS

Yes, I'm sure it wasn't $1.70. I wouldn't have been pissed over $1.70. My wife is in the postal business and she told me what they had done. But I can't remember exactly what it was. I just remember her saying that they could have mailed it a lot cheaper and whoever mailed it didn't know what they were doing.

[TripleDigitRide]

:shake:So I'm dumb huh? Condescend much?

My comment wasn't meant to be a personal attack against you or any other member of TGO.

A willingness to compromise is a willingness to compromise. Weather you compromise 5% or 95%, you're still compromising.

You said, "I disagree with those in this thread who have said we sometimes must compromise." I'm saying that you (and many others who say the very same thing) can not honestly beleive that.

You do in fact compromise on a regular basis when it comes to firearms related laws. Of course, this is assuming you are a law abiding citizen. You may not like the fact that you're being forced to compromise everytime they pass another BS gun law, but if you are obeying the law, you have already compromised.

To not compromise would mean that you completely disregard any laws which you believe to be "God-given" or "birthrights", and live your life as you see fit. And that's where my "I would like to think we have a much smarter crowd here on TGO" comment comes into play.

If you obey laws even though you may not agree with them, you are probably in the "smarter crowd". If you disobey the laws, the shoe probably fits. Of course, this is nothing more than my opinion.

[Oh Shoot]

Yes, I'm sure it wasn't $1.70. I wouldn't have been pissed over $1.70. My wife is in the postal business and she told me what they had done. But I can't remember exactly what it was. I just remember her saying that they could have mailed it a lot cheaper and whoever mailed it didn't know what they were doing.

Well, something pretty odd there.

I got the multi-tool myself, and it came bulk metered rate, pretty cheap.

- OS

[tntnixon]

If you obey laws even though you may not agree with them, you are probably in the "smarter crowd". If you disobey the laws, the shoe probably fits. Of course, this is nothing more than my opinion.

Damn, I'm glad our founding fathers wern't part of the "smarter crowd". They must have been some of the dumbest SOB's ever.

[TripleDigitRide]

Damn, I'm glad our founding fathers wern't part of the "smarter crowd". They must have been some of the dumbest SOB's ever.

Let us know how losing ALL of your rights works out for you, because that's what often happens when you break firearms relate laws.

If you feel so strongly about not compromising, where's the next revolutionary war?

I'm far from saying that I'm happy with all of the decisions that have been made by our elected officials and/or the NRA, but without compromise, we would likely has far fewer rights than we currently have.

There are very few aspects of our lives where compromise isn't necessary, and this is one of them. Until you/I/we have absolute control over the decision making progress, there are very few options -- compromise or revolution are the only two that really come to mind. And I can't say I've seen too many of the "compromise is not an option" crowd doing much more than bitching on Internet forums.

I don't like it anymore than the next guy, but the American people have chosen these processes in which the way our country is operated. Until something changes, we live with what we have, like it or not.

[USMCJG]

My comment wasn't meant to be a personal attack against you or any other member of TGO.

A willingness to compromise is a willingness to compromise. Weather you compromise 5% or 95%, you're still compromising.

You said, "I disagree with those in this thread who have said we sometimes must compromise." I'm saying that you (and many others who say the very same thing) can not honestly beleive that.

You do in fact compromise on a regular basis when it comes to firearms related laws. Of course, this is assuming you are a law abiding citizen. You may not like the fact that you're being forced to compromise everytime they pass another BS gun law, but if you are obeying the law, you have already compromised.

To not compromise would mean that you completely disregard any laws which you believe to be "God-given" or "birthrights", and live your life as you see fit. And that's where my "I would like to think we have a much smarter crowd here on TGO" comment comes into play.

If you obey laws even though you may not agree with them, you are probably in the "smarter crowd". If you disobey the laws, the shoe probably fits. Of course, this is nothing more than my opinion.

I think you may have missed the rest of my previous post up until the line you quoted. I said that I will not break the law. There is not a whole lot that I can do about the rights that other people have already given away for me. I have to spend all of my time calling and emailing congressmen to try and save the rights I still have left and that doesn't leave a lot of time to try and get back what's already been lost.

I do not feel that I am compromising by obeying the law. The compromises preceded the laws. If not for making compromises in the first place there would be no laws to break. I am of course referring to laws that violate the Constitution and reduce liberty. I am not referring to just and Constitutional laws.

I am not advocating breaking laws that are already on the books. Obviously, as you said, if you break the law you will wind up in jail. I am simply saying that I think it's time we stopped negotiating for our rights. Then, once it's become clear that we will no longer accept any more loss of liberty, we can set about regaining what's already been lost.

I am not in any way bashing the NRA. As I said earlier, the NRA has done more to protect our 2nd Amendment rights than any other organization. I am currently, and will continue to be, an NRA member. But I still prefer the GOA's "no compromise" stance on 2A rights.

Cliff

[USMCJG]

Let us know how losing ALL of your rights works out for you, because that's what often happens when you break firearms relate laws.

I should be able to tell you in the next three years or so.

I'm far from saying that I'm happy with all of the decisions that have been made by our elected officials and/or the NRA

I am right there with you on this one.

, but without compromise, we would likely has far fewer rights than we currently have.

This may or may not be true.

I don't like it anymore than the next guy, but the American people have chosen these processes in which the way our country is operated.

Actually the American people haven't chosen any processes. The processes are clearly laid out in the United States Constitution. This is NOT a Democracy. True, our officials are democratically elected, but they are supposed to be bound to the laws of the republic. Unfortunately, often through compromise, the government has grown to the point where they believe that the Constitution no longer applies to them. And unless more Americans(not talking about you, but Americans in general) educate themselves on what it is to be truly free, they may be right. Edited August 11, 2009 by USMCJG

[TripleDigitRide]

I think you may have missed the rest of my previous post up until the line you quoted. I said that I will not break the law. There is not a whole lot that I can do about the rights that other people have already given away for me. I have to spend all of my time calling and emailing congressmen to try and save the rights I still have left and that doesn't leave a lot of time to try and get back what's already been lost.

I do not feel that I am compromising by obeying the law. The compromises preceded the laws. If not for making compromises in the first place there would be no laws to break. I am of course referring to laws that violate the Constitution and reduce liberty. I am not referring to just and Constitutional laws.

I am not advocating breaking laws that are already on the books. Obviously, as you said, if you break the law you will wind up in jail. I am simply saying that I think it's time we stopped negotiating for our rights. Then, once it's become clear that we will no longer accept any more loss of liberty, we can set about regaining what's already been lost.

I am not in any way bashing the NRA. As I said earlier, the NRA has done more to protect our 2nd Amendment rights than any other organization. I am currently, and will continue to be, an NRA member. But I still prefer the GOA's "no compromise" stance on 2A rights.

Cliff

Not compromising only works if you have something to back it up if/when things don't go your way. And that "something" better scare the hell out of your opposition. Better yet, that somthing better be able to destroy your opposition.

I'm not sure I've seen any evidence of anything that fits that description as of yet. Without it, chance are you'll be left standing there with a dumbfounded look on your face, and far less rights than you may have had if you decided to compromise. It's a touchy situation, and I'm far from having all the answers.

Seems to me, more pressure needs to be put on the NRA. If enough paying members are willing to take a stand against the NRA for their willingness to play softball, maybe they will understand that many folks want them to take a tougher stance against these politicians when it comes to our Second Amendment Rights.

If the NRA were to begin taking a tougher stance, you must be willing to accept the outcome. There's always a possibility the laws would begin to lean more in our favor, but there's an equal possibility we could lose even more of our rights. Then what? It's a gamble that many are simply not willing to take.

[TripleDigitRide]

Actually the American people haven't chosen any processes. The processes are clearly laid out in the United States Constitution. This is NOT a Democracy. True, our officials are democratically elected, but they are supposed to be bound to the laws of the republic. Unfortunately, often through compromise, the government has grown to the point where they believe that the Constitution no longer applies to them. And unless more Americans(not talking about you, but Americans in general) educate themselves on what it is to be truly free, they may be right.

You are 100% correct. I should have chosen my words more carefully.

Unfortunately, the Constitution means far too little to far too many. Even more Unfortunate, too many of them are in power.

With a country so devided, the chances of any of this changing in the near future are almost none. Not peacefully anyway.

[Guest kerstuff]

They have a special online now where you can join for a year for free. Anyone tried it? https://www.nrahq.org/nrabonus/accept-membership.asp

Yep, I did! I also sent the link to all my family members and friends and several joined up. I'm planning on becoming a life member but went ahead and signed up under this promo.

[USMCJG]

Unfortunately, the Constitution means far too little to far too many. Even more Unfortunate, too many of them are in power.

Sadly, I think you're exactly right.

With a country so devided, the chances of any of this changing in the near future are almost none. Not peacefully anyway.

I am actually feeling like things may be moving in the right direction in many ways. As we slip closer to socialism I am seeing more and more people take a greater interest in learning about our founding fathers and what it means to be free. I hope as the current administration continues to push their socialist agenda that there will be a huge backlash at the polls in 2010. Perhaps leading the way to a candidate for president who truly believes in small government and individual and economic freedoms getting in the White House in 2012. Of course this all may be wishful thinking, but I'm "hope"ing for some "change".