Outpost Armory new building

[TGO David]

We go through similar conversations any time a new range opens up...

 

"They won't let me shoot reloads there?  I'll never darken their doorstep!"

"They require me to buy and shoot their ammo?  I'll never darken their doorstep!"

"They require a safety class before letting me shoot on their range?   I'll never darken their doorstep!"

"They won't let me do rapid-fire shooting on their range?   I'll never darken their doorstep!"

"They won't let me shoot my .454 Casull on their range?    I'll never darken their doorstep!"

"They won't let me shoot my NFA items on their range?   I'll never darken their doorstep!"

"They won't let me shoot human-shaped targets on their range?   I'll never darken their doorstep!"

"They charge HOW much?   I'll never darken their doorstep!"

"They won't let me shoot from a draw?   I'll never darken their doorstep!"

"They won't let me take head-shots on the targets?   I'll never darken their doorstep!"

 

Guess what, folks.  There are plenty of people who will do whatever the requirements are to shoot on a state of the art facility.  Clearly the people signing the big fat check to build the range get to dictate whatever terms they want.  It's a free country.    

The NRA isn't perfect but no organization is.  Church, fraternity, civic organization, take your pick.  All have detractors.  Only the NRA has a pimp-ass state of the art shooting facility about to be built in Murfreesboro.

Besides, for each of you who say you won't shoot there, that's one more person I don't have to wait in line behind when I want to go shoot.

 

[felinesNfreedom]

I will try it out. I just prefer to shoot outside. This range will be much closer than the O.K though. 

[ShamGlock]

15 hours ago, Dolomite_supafly said:

Lets see, I am not a member but I call and send emails to representatives all over this country. Not just our representatives either, I call offices all over this country trying to help out my fellow gun owners. And that is the type of action we need because that did more to ward off the Sandy Hook legislation on a national level than the NRA ever could. There are more gun owners who do exactly that than there are members of the NRA. Just because someone sends $35 a year doesn't mean they get to sit on their butts, do nothing else and question what others are doing. It is almost like they are joining so they don't have to do anything else.

Ask a NRA member what they did to help preserve our rights and the majority will say "I joined the NRA" (And got a free magazine subscription). Ask a typical gun owner and most will say they have sent emails, made calls as well as show up to events.

The NRA, just like the liberals, only get involved if it fits their narrative.

Just seen an article about a women who was arrested and charged for discharging a firearm. She she fired shots to try to save her children after a bad guy shot her, soon to be, husband in the head, killing him. I will bet almost anything that calls to the NRA regarding that women will get ZERO response because it does not fit there narrative. BTW, the lady had a handgun carry permit, a legally purchased firearm and had every legal right to defend her children and herself from her would be attackers but instead she was arrested. And despite this being the PERFECT case to support I bet the NRA will sit that one out.

 

 

 

 

Joining the NRA and reaching out to your elected officials are not mutually exclusive actions. I spend time doing both, when I can. I also utilized the NRA's populated form letters after Sandy Hook. Which they could not have developed without the resources to do so. The NRA, like any organization, is not perfect and has it's warts. The good they are doing right now far outweighs the things I dislike. Or I believe they are at least doing $35 worth of work on my behalf every year. 

I completely understand the NRA's decision to cherry pick their involvement. For one, they do have limited resources, and secondly they can't take on cases that are losers due to the narrative that would be spun by anti's should they lose in court. In a perfect world they would be able to pick up every case like the one you mentioned, but that isn't where we are right now. 

I'll stand by my original statement, if you own a gun the NRA is worth every penny of $35/yr and while I understand people have a variety of reasons for not joining, none of them resonate with me. I love the work that organizations like the Second Amendment Foundation do, but how long do you really think they would stand up to the Washington machine without the NRA taking the majority of fire?

[E4 No More]

12 hours ago, TGO David said:

We go through similar conversations any time a new range opens up...

 

"They won't let me shoot reloads there?  I'll never darken their doorstep!"

"They require me to buy and shoot their ammo?  I'll never darken their doorstep!"

"They require a safety class before letting me shoot on their range?   I'll never darken their doorstep!"

"They won't let me do rapid-fire shooting on their range?   I'll never darken their doorstep!"

"They won't let me shoot my .454 Casull on their range?    I'll never darken their doorstep!"

"They won't let me shoot my NFA items on their range?   I'll never darken their doorstep!"

"They won't let me shoot human-shaped targets on their range?   I'll never darken their doorstep!"

"They charge HOW much?   I'll never darken their doorstep!"

"They won't let me shoot from a draw?   I'll never darken their doorstep!"

"They won't let me take head-shots on the targets?   I'll never darken their doorstep!"

 

Guess what, folks.  There are plenty of people who will do whatever the requirements are to shoot on a state of the art facility.  Clearly the people signing the big fat check to build the range get to dictate whatever terms they want.  It's a free country.    

The NRA isn't perfect but no organization is.  Church, fraternity, civic organization, take your pick.  All have detractors.  Only the NRA has a pimp-ass state of the art shooting facility about to be built in Murfreesboro.

Besides, for each of you who say you won't shoot there, that's one more person I don't have to wait in line behind when I want to go shoot.

 

Good for them. I'm NOT one of them.

Their range; their rules. I get that: however, that doesn't mean that I have to patronize them nor hold my opinion to myself on the matter. The good news is that you won't have to wait on me. 

[Chucktshoes]

2 hours ago, ShamGlock said:

 

 

Joining the NRA and reaching out to your elected officials are not mutually exclusive actions. I spend time doing both, when I can. I also utilized the NRA's populated form letters after Sandy Hook. Which they could not have developed without the resources to do so. The NRA, like any organization, is not perfect and has it's warts. The good they are doing right now far outweighs the things I dislike. Or I believe they are at least doing $35 worth of work on my behalf every year. 

I completely understand the NRA's decision to cherry pick their involvement. For one, they do have limited resources, and secondly they can't take on cases that are losers due to the narrative that would be spun by anti's should they lose in court. In a perfect world they would be able to pick up every case like the one you mentioned, but that isn't where we are right now. 

I'll stand by my original statement, if you own a gun the NRA is worth every penny of $35/yr and while I understand people have a variety of reasons for not joining, none of them resonate with me. I love the work that organizations like the Second Amendment Foundation do, but how long do you really think they would stand up to the Washington machine without the NRA taking the majority of fire?

I believe the NRA and the smaller orgs like GOA and the SAF to be indespensible to each other. The NRA is huge and has the influence to get things done whilst the smaller orgs keep the NRA honest and focused. 

[TGO David]

3 hours ago, SWJewellTN said:

Good for them. I'm NOT one of them.

Their range; their rules. I get that: however, that doesn't mean that I have to patronize them nor hold my opinion to myself on the matter. The good news is that you won't have to wait on me. 

LOL I get it man.  You're as entitled to take that stance as they are to take theirs.  That's all I'm saying.  Well, that and TGO really does seem to go through a different version of this conversation every time a new range opens.

The key lesson in this seems to be a reminder that a lot of Pro-2A folks are also very liberterian at heart (small L).  They don't like folks telling them what to do or how to do it.

[monkeylizard]

David, you forgot "They won't let me pick up any brass I see? I'll never darken their doorstep!"

[ShamGlock]

11 hours ago, Chucktshoes said:

I believe the NRA and the smaller orgs like GOA and the SAF to be indespensible to each other. The NRA is huge and has the influence to get things done whilst the smaller orgs keep the NRA honest and focused. 

Agreed.

[seez52]

Gallatin gun club is NRA only. Last time I heard the waiting list was about 3 years. 

Like it or not, the NRA is the 800 pound gorilla when it comes to the second amendment and I'm glad as to which side they are on.