The range is set up for mostly shotgun shooters, skeet & trap, from everything I’ve read. My main reason for not going to the range is it’s so far north that it might as well be in Utah. This type of range is definitely not conducive to our type of shooting and is definitely more for the “sportsmen”.
Just my humble opinion and something to think about. I was once taught that a truly righteous decision needs no justification. But we do need you(all of you)now more than ever.
By the time my new grandson is old enough to shoot the single-shot Marlin .22 rifle I recently bought him there won’t be enough disposable income for him to buy a box of ammo for it. Reid and the other geezer congressmen will be gone but the unsustainable debts they gave us will live on. :mad:
I would much rather go shoot on BLM land and be left the hell alone than to fawn all over doofus politicians.
From either party.
I still shoot some sporting clays but most of my scatter-gunning is tied to bird hunting now. Honestly, it wouldn’t matter to me if the land was used for air rifles, clays, pistol, 3 gun or even a hunting preserve if it encourages new participation into any of the shooting sports. I just hope the facility will see lots of use & if it gains some new nra members and new gun owners, then I really can’t see this but anything other than a win. Lord knows we need to grow all areas of our shooting arenas.
I agree with you but I don’t see it getting lots of use. The location sucks for the vast majority of the residents of the valley especially considering we’re surrounded by desert.
Here’s their website: http://www.accessclarkcounty.com/depts/parks/locations/Pages/shooting_park.aspx
NRA is single issue and Reid is a reliable pro-gun vote. He has passed more pro-gun bills than any Senate Leader in the past several decades, with zero anti-gun votes. There will never be an AW ban as long as he is there. Politics is kooky like that.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Harry_Reid
He has a mixed record on gun control, voting against the ban on assault weapons and in favor of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, but in favor of the Brady Bill and background checks at gun shows.
Yes, he is a reliable pro-gun vote, as opposed to a guaranteed pro-gun vote.
AFAIK, there are no Senators that have a perfect pro-gun record.
I don’t know anything about the surrounding area amigo…it would certainly be disheartening if it does not prosper.
Our local area outdoor rifle and pistol club got a grant from the NRA recently and the improvements are very nice so far.
Ding, ding ding!!
for Pete’s sake, if it wasn’t for the NRA, we would all be shooting single shots period. They are the only Pro-gun organization that has any clout with the politicians…
Because they have by far the largest membership. Hell keep your NRA membership(I have,) but also join GOA/JPFO/whomever else.
The politicians don’t pay attention to the NRA because it’s the NRA, they do it because it’s a large group of voters and has resources to make ads and inform voters about how it views politicians.
Really? Highlight how much clout the National Rifle Association slung about in 1968, 1986, 1988, 1994… Check those dates - they all represent MAJOR assaults on our 2nd Amendment rights to which the National Rifle Association largely did NOTHING… If anything, they used those events to whore for more memberships…There’s a great bottom line in leading the oppressed…Just ask the Democrats…
You know if you think you could do any better, jump right in. It’s really amusing that some people bitch like crazy about the NRA, and don’t realize that organizations like the NRA changes leadership often and changes are made all the time with personnel at the front office. And you also seem to forget that WE are the NRA, and can vote out all the people we don’t want in the leadership. Those dates are long gone but some people keep bringing up the past.
Hey. Let’s not ugly up the thread by starting with the bickering back and forth. Mass mark brought up a valid point and I think he was sincere and not offensive with his delivery. While I am grateful for the nra, it does seem like they do a lot of whoring… have you checked your mailbox or email lately?
The past is the present… I’m not bitching like crazy about the NRA, in fact - I praised their leadership in training, firearms safety, education and history. What I did however point out is the National Rifle Associations great failings when it comes to something they have positioned themselves as a force in: 2nd Amendment rights. As far as to whether or not ‘I’ could do better, it remains to be seen. I do know one thing for certain: I do a lot to advocate and stand up for my God-given 2nd Amendment rights…This is me:
I took a 9-hour bus ride in the middle of the night to stand up for your 2nd Amendment rights. Perhaps you can share a pic of you that day? We arrived to not the millions of people on every internet gun forum who said: “Hell yeah - I’ll be there”, but to a couple thousand patriots and snipers on the rooftops. The NRA was there as well - not participating in any way, shape or form - but whoring for memberships - off on their own.
As far as leadership changes and the ability of members to vote out those who are not worthy of their position as champions of the Second Amendment - check your NRA history - it’s not as simple as you make it out to be.
If you would like to debate my ‘perceptions’ of the NRA’s short comings, I am at your service. Please be versed and ready to engage on the NRA’s actions, (or lack) in the following areas:
-
1968 Gun Control Act
-
1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act - with special attention to The Huges Amendment
-
The 1989 Assault Weapon Import Control Act
-
The 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act
-
The NRA’s abandonment of 2nd Amendment fights in New Jersey, California, Massachusetts and other states.
-
The NRA’s attempt to derail DC vs Heller.
-
The NRA giving away Leatherman tools, when Tim Leatherman is not pro 2A
-
The NRA selling cheap, Chinese crap to it’s membership and marketing ‘NRA Optics’ which are also made in The People’s Republic of China.
All of these, (and a few more) are prime examples of the National Rifle Association’s willingness to “wheel and deal” when it comes to our God-given right to keep and bear arms. The real problem lies within the membership who still hold the NRA as omnipotent - beyond reproach, when what really needs to happen is more members standing up and to quote you: “bitch like crazy”. Rather than build multi-million dollar office complexes and pumping membership money into China, the NRA needs to circle it’s wagons, choose a side, roll up their collective sleeves and fight - for real.
If I could “jump in and do better”, my main mission would be to see that the National Rifle Association would one day soon be out of the 2nd Amendment business and back in the training, history, event and education business where it all began. The Institute for Legislative Action would cease to exist. Why? Because at last, the NRA would pour all it’s resources into achieving victory - rather than pumping it’s fist in the air to one side, while it pats the other on the backside…
No offense but I can’t imagine a single civil rights organization that would actively work to kill the single most important court case in the history of it’s existence. The NRA did everything in it’s power to try and kill Heller and only joined in when those efforts failed and the court agreed to hear the case. Have you ever asked yourself why?
If they had their way we wouldn’t have won the Heller case and we wouldn’t be on the verge of winning McDonald, but they’d still be asking for money telling us that only they stand between us and the gun grabbers. There was a time when the NRA was a real advocacy group but now it is run by a bunch of corporate types who care more about milking the cash cow than fighting for our rights. Thanks but no thanks.
If you want to send them your cash knock yourself out. I’d rather donate my money to help men like Alan Gura who are actually out there fighting the good fight.
Yes, because they wanted a better case to go to court with, DC is not a state and they wanted a better city to argue their case. But, when it looked like the case was going to be heard anyway, they jumped right in and helped. In this case, it came out alright, now they are taking other cities to court since the Heller case did indeed come out in our favor.
You have the right not to donate or be a member of course, but the other pro-gun organizations just don’t have the clout to have politicians even listen to them, they just ignore them. But, to each their own…
Baloney. They have had the chance over the years to bring a suit in Federal court over the restrictive gun laws in NYC or Chicago and never could be bothered to do so, and they had plenty of people willing to bring the suit.
Their stated reason for opposing Gura’s suit initially was because they didn’t think he could win not because they wanted to go after a state first. Why is it the NRA with it’s vast resources and thousands of attorneys at it’s disposal is always one step behind an attorney from a firm that only employs a grand total of two lawyers? After Gura won Heller how is it he beat them to court with McDonald? Where the hell are they and why the hell aren’t they leading from the front? Instead a 38 year old lawyer has shown more leadership and ultimately done more to secure our rights than the NRA.
…probably because they were afraid of a bad ruling. Rulings that wouldn’t be favorable to the 2nd amendment would be very, very, VERY dangerous in a way that a lot of people don’t understand if they haven’t studied law.
The fact is that our federal, state, and local governments are by in large OPENLY HOSTILE to the rights we hold under the 2nd amendment. That includes the courts.
I’ve lamented many times our current social structure which takes the 4th amendment rights of pedophiles and terrorists more seriously than the 2nd amendment rights of people who’ve never done anything wrong…but that’s still the structure we’re left with. The courts are not generally sympathetic to a pro-gun argument because they are generally going to side with some perceived need for government control in that arena under the notion of promoting safety and security. That the laws proposed do not objectively accomplish either goal is irrelevant.
The game of politics and law is chess, folks…not checkers. It’s a complicated game with fuzzy rules and some pretty stiff penalties.
Do I think that the NRA has played the game perfectly? Absolutely not…but sometimes there is merit in playing not to lose.