| Author | Post |
|---|
Tacomatose
Member
| Joined: | Thu May 25th, 2006 |
| Location: | Layton, Utah USA |
| Posts: | 100 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 9th, 2008 05:14 am |
|
I posted this in the Utah section, but wanted to make sure it was offered to everyone who is intersted. The post contains a link for a $10 discount on both new memberships and renewals. Here is the link to my post: http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum52/17042.html
Last edited on Thu Oct 9th, 2008 01:59 pm by Tacomatose
|
mark edward marchiafava
Member
|
Posted: Thu Oct 9th, 2008 01:18 pm |
|
Yea, uh huh. The NRA (negotiate rights away) IS spending money in this year's mockery of a presidential election, but on the WRONG candidate. If you want to "support" someone, try Chuck Baldwin.
I know. Who? I figured as much.
|
Tacomatose
Member
| Joined: | Thu May 25th, 2006 |
| Location: | Layton, Utah USA |
| Posts: | 100 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 9th, 2008 01:59 pm |
|
Amazingly, you have convinced yourself that the NRA is to blame for the fact that your beloved Chuck Baldwin wasn't able to make into the forefront of this election. I too feel that there are better candidates than M & O, but this post is not intended to be a debate, it is my way of supporting our RKBA by offering this to friends who also charish this right.
mark edward marchiafava wrote:
Yea, uh huh. The NRA (negotiate rights away) IS spending money in this year's mockery of a presidential election, but on the WRONG candidate. If you want to "support" someone, try Chuck Baldwin.
I know. Who? I figured as much.
|
mark edward marchiafava
Member
|
Posted: Thu Oct 9th, 2008 02:11 pm |
|
No, I have not blamed the NRA (negotiate rights away) for Chuck Baldwin not being a frontrunner. I merely stated the NRA is spending the money of it's MEMBERS on the wrong candidate. What part of that confuses you?
|
Doug Huffman
State Researcher
|
Posted: Thu Oct 9th, 2008 02:14 pm |
|
Comatose in Tacoma wrote: Amazingly, you have convinced yourself that the NRA is to blame for the fact that your beloved Chuck Baldwin wasn't able to make into the forefront of this election. I too feel that there are better candidates than M & O, but this post is not intended to be a debate, it is my way of supporting our RKBA by offering this to friends who also charish[sic] this right.
Blame? MEM did not mention the lying nasty reasonable regulators. And I will vote for the Constitution Party and Chuck Baldwin and suck your repugnicrat useful tools.
Every once in a while I quail at the thought of an Obamination in the White House. Then I read a screed from a NRA dic...'member' and my resolve is steeled. The demos and the GOP are equally repugnant.
Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA KMfreekinA$$
|
HankT
State Researcher
|
Posted: Thu Oct 9th, 2008 02:49 pm |
|
Doug Huffman wrote: Then I read a screed from a NRA dic...'member' and my resolve is steeled.
That's OK. The NRA is used to representing and serving the freeloa....entire gun owner/rights community.
Doug Huffman wrote: Blame? MEM did not mention the lying nasty reasonable regulators. And I will vote for the Constitution Party and Chuck Baldwin and suck your repugnicrat useful tools.
Well, you don't have to go to those lengths... 
|
Doug Huffman
State Researcher
|
Posted: Thu Oct 9th, 2008 03:49 pm |
|
I see that it got your attention. And at least as well as use of the LETTER AFTER ECHO BOMB has.
|
Slayer of Paper
Member
|
Posted: Thu Oct 9th, 2008 04:03 pm |
|
While McCain hasn't been a much of a supporter of gun rights, I believe he is far less of a threat than Obama, and I'm not delusional enough to believe that any other candidate has a snowball's chance in hell of winning. If Obama wins, I believe there WILL be another assault weapons ban that will include hundreds more weapons and will not have a sunset clause. Maybe YOU have all of the guns that would be banned under such a law, but I don't, so I very much need for there NOT to be a new assault weapons ban.
I thank the NRA for it's efforts, and Tacomatose's generous offer. I will renew my membership at full price, however.
Does the GOA actually go after anti gun politicians, or do they spend all of their money attacking the NRA? I know I haven't seen any of their ads.
|
mark edward marchiafava
Member
|
Posted: Thu Oct 9th, 2008 04:05 pm |
|
Slayer of Paper and others: it's not our duty to vote for someone who has the best chance of winning or is the lesser of many evils. No, ours is to ALWAYS do that which is right, consequences be damned.
|
Flyer22
Member
|
Posted: Thu Oct 9th, 2008 04:15 pm |
|
mark edward marchiafava wrote: Slayer of Paper and others: it's not our duty to vote for someone who has the best chance of winning or is the lesser of many evils. No, ours is to ALWAYS do that which is right, consequences be damned.
Well, I sure am glad that you weren't a member of the Constitutional Convention. I suppose you would have voted against the Constitution because of the slavery compromises, and thus there never would have been a vehicle available for the 2A at all.
|
HankT
State Researcher
|
Posted: Thu Oct 9th, 2008 04:18 pm |
|
Slayer of Paper wrote: Does the GOA actually go after anti gun politicians, or do they spend all of their money attacking the NRA?
Although a staunch supporter of gun owners/gun rights, GOA has made the strategic error of defining itself as an anti-NRA platform for their advocacy.
GOA errs in thinking it is a zero-sum game.
|
mark edward marchiafava
Member
|
Posted: Thu Oct 9th, 2008 04:20 pm |
|
You're correct, I would not have voted for the constitution, but on different grounds. Things would have turned out better had they remained 13 sovereign nations.
|
Doug Huffman
State Researcher
|
Posted: Thu Oct 9th, 2008 06:26 pm |
|
mark edward marchiafava wrote: You're correct, I would not have voted for the constitution, but on different grounds. Things would have turned out better had they remained 13 sovereign nations.
Woo hoo! Sovereign red, white and blue rather than a muddy gray democracy.
|
Slayer of Paper
Member
|
Posted: Thu Oct 9th, 2008 06:51 pm |
|
mark edward marchiafava wrote: Slayer of Paper and others: it's not our duty to vote for someone who has the best chance of winning or is the lesser of many evils. No, ours is to ALWAYS do that which is right, consequences be damned.
I strenuously disagree. I believe it is our duty to whatever it takes to protect our right to keep and bear arms, because when we lose that, we lose the only means we have to protect the rest of our rights.
If they've taken away our guns, it's going to be a pretty short and disappointing second revolution.
|
Doug Huffman
State Researcher
|
Posted: Thu Oct 9th, 2008 06:53 pm |
|
When my guns are gone then I am gone.
It appears that 'from my cold dead hands' was NRA rhetoric.
|
mark edward marchiafava
Member
|
Posted: Thu Oct 9th, 2008 07:10 pm |
|
The second American revolution has come and gone. I'm eagerly awaiting the third one. You, and lots like you, very well may be surprised.
|
HankT
State Researcher
|
Posted: Thu Oct 9th, 2008 07:48 pm |
|
Doug Huffman wrote: When my guns are gone then I am gone.
Wanna sell all your guns? Now.
Whatcha got?
|
Thundar
Member
|
Posted: Thu Oct 9th, 2008 09:28 pm |
|
HankT wrote: Slayer of Paper wrote: Does the GOA actually go after anti gun politicians, or do they spend all of their money attacking the NRA?
Although a staunch supporter of gun owners/gun rights, GOA has made the strategic error of defining itself as an anti-NRA platform for their advocacy.
GOA errs in thinking it is a zero-sum game.
No JPFO spends a lot of energy trying to point out the two faced tactic of the NRA.
GOA is focused upon gun rights. Often gets results in court.
You see the NRA is an ends justify the means organisation. Too bad they are not principled and forthright.
Please remember, the biggest threat to DC v. Heller was the NRA, not the criminals who run DC.
The last straw, and why I shun the NRA: In Virginia elections for State the NRA did not rank Dr. Tabor, who is a vociferous gun rights advocate. (He was at the Norfolk City Council meeting and the NRA was not). So the NRA endorsed Blevins, a mediocre supporter of gun rights. It was the Republican V. the Libertarian, no Democrat running. I have written two e-mails and one letter, but they have not answered me yet. I know that they never will because they are too cowardly to admit their mistake.
The NRA certainly is pumping out scary adds against Nobama, but McPain certainly deserves some knocks as well. Too bad the NRA didn't endorse Bob Barr or Chuck Baldwin, both of whom are far more solid on gun rights.
|
HankT
State Researcher
|
Posted: Thu Oct 9th, 2008 09:33 pm |
|
Thundar wrote:
No JPFO spends a lot of energy trying to point out the two faced tactic of the NRA.
GOA is focused upon gun rights. Often gets results in court.
You see the NRA is an ends justify the means organisation. Too bad they are not principled and forthright.
If you care about results, then consider this.
There are between 220 and 270 million guns in the United States. Far more than any country on earth. Even after decades of strong political pushes for severe regulation by the populus.
Those millions of guns didn't get here because of the GOA.
Last edited on Thu Oct 9th, 2008 09:35 pm by HankT
|
Thundar
Member
|
Posted: Thu Oct 9th, 2008 11:03 pm |
|
HankT wrote: Thundar wrote:
No JPFO spends a lot of energy trying to point out the two faced tactic of the NRA.
GOA is focused upon gun rights. Often gets results in court.
You see the NRA is an ends justify the means organisation. Too bad they are not principled and forthright.
If you care about results, then consider this.
There are between 220 and 270 million guns in the United States. Far more than any country on earth. Even after decades of strong political pushes for severe regulation by the populus.
Those millions of guns didn't get here because of the GOA.
You are right Hank, they got here because we are a free people. Those guns got here in spite of the NRA.
|
Current time is 01:03 am | Page: 1 2 3   |
|
