NRA member here.

Old_Hickory · Mar 1, 2004

I am an NRA member /forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif and the NRA magazine I opted for titled "Freedom 1st" has an article in it (March 2004") that says the NRA is going to start a 24 hour news service on the internet,and they were also working on a radio and tv deal.
Does this mean the NRA is going to have a TV channel I could possibly hope to get on my satellite in the future ? /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

gsganzer · Mar 1, 2004

Yes, the NRA is getting into the media market. They did this in response to the "censorship" against the NRA's views by the general media outlets. The censorship problem was compounded by the recent relaxations in the rules governing media monopoly ownership in regional areas. The rule used to limit the amount of ownership that any one media giant could control (radio, television etc.) in a geographical area. It was recently relaxed this past year. The NRA has been prevented from airing commercials by most of the media giants.

The NRA also decided to get into the media market in order to facilitate posting campaign ads and to help get their message out during elections.

GO NRA!!!

fivestring · Mar 1, 2004

"Does this mean the NRA is going to have a TV channel I could possibly hope to get on my satellite in the future ?" 

Knowing my luck, it'll be on the oval DTV dish like RFDTV. /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif

wroughtn_harv · Mar 1, 2004

That's great.

Today they had a news story on NPR about how five hundred gun clubs were up in arms about the current policies governing drilling--mining in the wilderness areas. It seems the NRA is joining the environmentalists on this issue.

One of the spokespersons for the gun guy-gals pointed out their interest were a lot more intimate than some of the green peace types. He said for them it was personal because no one knows the land like someone who hunts and fishes on it.

rdln · Mar 1, 2004

just paid off my easy pay life should be getting my patch soon, BTW, American Rifleman show is already on the Outdoor Channel.

what's wrong with RFDTV, if you dont like the Cumberland Highlanders, turn 'em off.

NIXON · Mar 1, 2004

Been a life member since the 80's . Got to say that I'm impressesed with the 20 K "gun control" laws . I feel so much more protected by those laws /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif.. NOT ! John

fishman · Mar 2, 2004

rdln,

I think Fivestring was complaining that he couldn't get RFDTV because he has the old round dish, just like me! /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif

fivestring · Mar 2, 2004

Correct.
And, I listen to the Highlanders! /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

rdln · Mar 2, 2004

Oh, well dig deep $$$$$$

fivestring · Mar 2, 2004

That's what I've heard.
Hopefully, with HDTV mandates coming soon, the price will drop.
Cable TV will never be an option.

rozett · Mar 2, 2004

Actually, that is NOT why the NRA is getting into the media business. The real reason is the new campaign finance law controlling 'soft money' in political campaigns. Under the new law, organizations like unions, NRA, etc will be prohibited from airing ads extolling the virtues of their favorite social issue within some time period of the election. (I think it is either 90 or 120 days). The ads didn't target specific candidates (that's hard money), but pushed the social issue as a way of steering voters for or against specific candidates. Anyway, one of the exceptions written into the law allows media outlets to air news and investigative reporting pieces during that period. By becoming a media outlet, the NRA believes that they can circumvent the intent of the new campaign finance law.

fishman · Mar 2, 2004

Not to get confrontational here Rozett, but what exactly to you think the intent of the new campaign finance law is?

It appears (to me at least) that the new regulations effectively muzzle what used to qualify as free speech by any entity representing the interests of a group of citizens. Those include the ACLU, NAACP, and yes, the NRA among others. It's easier to silence one voice at a time rather than 5 million all at once. Now the only "free" speech America will hear in the days before the election is what the major networks think is worthy of reporting.

And maybe this is by design, ya think? IMHO the majority of Americans have been sold a rotten bill of goods on this deal, and most don't know it or don't care.

There, I said it, and won't say any more. Feel free to respond until the thread is shut down as too political.

dmccarty · Mar 4, 2004

Fishman,

Rozett got it right on why the NRA is getting into the media biz.

I was shocked that the Supreme Court approved this law since
it muzzles free speech.

I think Congress will eventually modify the law since I think the
Dems shot themselves in the head on this one.

On the bright side I think most people don't like the major TV
networks. Their share has been falling for decades and I think
its due to their biases among other things.

Later,
Dan McCarty

Old_Hickory · Mar 4, 2004

As a last resort the NRA will use a "Constitutional Convention " which is in the Constitution's article 5 to repeal this law.

Docsknotinn · Mar 6, 2004

I guess this means in addition to all the political mailings asking for $$$ from the NRA we will start to get even more levels of lifetime membership. Hope it flys but I get a little fed up with a new letter every week asking for more $$ even after I donate on top of a Lifetime membership.

Slamfire · Mar 6, 2004

The NRA is opposed to a constitutional convention because there is no way to focus it on a single issue. They could overhaul the whole thing. Of course it would have to be approved, and 3/5 of the voters is a hard thing to get.

Old_Hickory · Mar 7, 2004

( The NRA is opposed to a constitutional convention because there is no way to focus it on a single issue. They could overhaul the whole thing. )

My March 2004 issue of Freedom 1st which is an NRA publication has an article in it where Wayne Lapierre says"If there is no other way we will demand a Constitutional Convention......"

dmccarty · Mar 8, 2004

I heard YEARS ago, meaning early/mid 1980s, that only a few
states needed to vote to approve a Constitutional Convention.
Apparently over the years many states had voted for the
Convention for various reasons and on certain issues. The
argument on the radio was that once the vote was recorded it
was in effect forever. Thus a state may have voted for a
Convention say to approve the ERA 20-30 years ago. Then
another state may vote for a Convention to make the
Feds have a balanced budget. Both votes count towards the
calling of the convention.

I don't know if this is really true and I don't think anyone does
since there has only been one Convention.
be to call a Convention that another state had /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

The problem with a Convention is that it is uncontrolable. It
might be called to sovle Problem X but everything is up for
grabs in the Convention. The Bill of Rights, later Admendments
and everything else.

Having a new Convention would scare the heck out of me.... /forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif

Lapierre better be very careful for what he wishes. He might
get a Convention and loose the Second Admendment.....

Later,
Dan McCarty

Old_Hickory · Mar 8, 2004

( The problem with a Convention is that it is uncontrolable.It
might be called to sovle Problem X but everything is up for
grabs in the Convention. The Bill of Rights, later Admendments
and everything else.
It )

That is interesting,I have no idea myself. Anyone else care to elaborate?

dmccarty · Mar 9, 2004

Old_Hickory,

IGADs but the Internet still amazes me.... I searched for the
US Constitution and my frist hit or two gave me Article V.

(
Article. V.
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate. )

( shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, )

This is the scary part. Depending on who is in the Convention
anything can be proposed. Of couse it has to be ratified by
the Convention and approved by 75% of the states/Congress

Its a very high bar to amend the Constitution and it has not
been done that often. Which is good. Trying to get a single
admendment through Congress/States is very hard and the
each admentdment is voted on a one by one basis. The
problem with the Convention is that the changes to the
Constitution ccould be bundled in one package for a take it
or leave it vote that happens so often in Congress.

Later,
Dan