View Poll Results: Which one best chacterizes the NRA and there action on the Disclose Act?

Voters
14. You may not vote on this poll
  • caucasian

    11 78.57%
  • black

    3 21.43%
  • hispanic

    0 0%
  • asian

    0 0%
Results 1 to 24 of 24

Thread: Poll

  1. #1
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524

    Post imported post

    There were four guys, one caucasian, one black, one hispanic and one asian.All hadthe same interest or hobby or whatever. Let's call it snowboarding. I mean they all had a passion for it. They are not necessarily friends but are acquainted and are cordial to one another when they meet.

    Congress decides to ban snowboarding because too many people were getting hurt. All 4 guys go and protest. Now, the caucasian guy has 4.5 million friends that are on his side and will protest with him. The black guy has about 400,000, the hispanic has about 200,000, and the asian has somewhere around 100,000.

    Congress, upon seeing that the caucasian fellow has a lot of friends, decides to exempt all white people from the snowboarding ban. At the same time not concerned with the other 3 because together they don't even have a million.

    The white guy says, "While I do not support the ban, I'm exempt nowand will no longer actively protest it."

    How much character did the caucasian fellow exhibit?

    Howfriendly can he expect the other 3 guys to be when they meet?

    Now answer the poll if you like.
    The thing about common sense is....it ain't too common.
    Will Rogers

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    2,247

    Post imported post

    While your analogy is similar this is how our present system works. But all is not lost in that the ones that actually protest usually wind up getting their desire whether they are the majority or not. Back in the 60's the blacks were the minority and they actually got our and activelyprotested accomplishing something. The whites sat back and said that since it doesn't apply to me and I am happy with the status quo I am not going to bother with it. Congress notices active protesting and acts upon it. So even if the NRA does not protestit does not mean that they are working for the law.

    The same way with OC protests pr demonstrations. I expect that any OC rally would involve less than 1% of any local population and the NRA may just stand back and do nothing but that .05% of the population will get noticed. A small group can make a change if they are the only ones trying to accomplish it. As long as you are protesting an no one is protesting on the other side you have power. The problem with such things as abortion or gay rights is that you have groups on both sides protesting. What I am seeing here is that the NRA was granted an exemption to stay out of the fray. If you want something accomplished it would be nice to have the NRA help you but don't expect them to do your work for you which is what I am getting out of all of this. As long as the NRA doesn't work against you then it doesn't matter.

    In the case of the snowboarding it would help the other three groups if the whites joined in but don't expect them to do it for you. You can call it the moral ground but that is the way things work in the US. "As long as I have mine then you are on your own". Just like the fellow when asked why they kept sending a certain crook back to the Stste House term after term. He said, "Look, I know he's a crook, you know he's a crook, everybody knows he's a crook, but he's our crook".

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Post imported post

    I had no understanding of the situation until I read your analogy. Now my eyes are wide open!

    Seriously, you are implying that the NRA actively stopped opposing DISCLOSE when they became exempt. Can you cite something the NRA said or did to justify that conclusion?

  4. #4
    Regular Member AL Ranger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Huntsville, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    238

    Post imported post

    Eye, here's the story from Roll Call. http://www.rollcall.com/news/47348-1.html
    Check out my home page @ www.alabamaopencarry.com and Carry On!

  5. #5
    Regular Member AL Ranger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Huntsville, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    238

    Post imported post


    Check out my home page @ www.alabamaopencarry.com and Carry On!

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Post imported post

    [That did not work at all. Let me try again.}

  7. #7
    Regular Member AL Ranger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Huntsville, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    238

    Post imported post

    It's just as the NRA stated. They fought the Discloser bill until they got their exemption. Once they got theirs, they quit. They are a single issue organization. They are not there to support other pro-gun groups. They will fight anything if it works against the NRA but they don't care how it affects other organizations. There efforts are for the NRA and its members...period.
    Check out my home page @ www.alabamaopencarry.com and Carry On!

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Post imported post

    wrightme wrote:
    eye95 wrote:
    I'll put the question to the general board populace:

    Did the NRA express support, remove their disapproval, or not react (leaving their disapproval in place) after the change in the bill that exempted them from its provisions?

    (Please note: I am not looking for NRA-bashing, just a simple answer to a simple question. I am interested in the facts only. I'll make my own judgment.)
    Such information is readily available. Have you not seen it?


    http://www.nraila.org/

    NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris W. Cox's Message on H.R. 5175

    I appreciate the concerns that some NRA members have raised regarding the NRA's position on H.R. 5175, the "DISCLOSE Act". Regrettably, our position has been misstated by some and intentionally misrepresented by others. I hope you'll allow me to provide the proper context.

    The U.S. Supreme Court's Citizens United decision was a significant victory for free speech and the Constitution. The NRA filed a strong brief in that case, which the Court specifically cited several times in its opinion. The DISCLOSE Act is an attempt to reverse that victory and that's why we told Congress we oppose it.
    The NRA has never supported--nor would we ever support -- any version of this bill. Those who suggest otherwise are wrong.

    The restrictions in this bill should not apply to anyone or to any organization. My job is to ensure they don't apply to the NRA and our members. Without the NRA, the Second Amendment will be lost and I will do everything in my power to prevent that.
    We believe that any restriction on political speech is repugnant. But some of our critics believe we should put the Second Amendment at risk over a First Amendment principle to protect other organizations. That's easy to say--unless you have a sworn duty to protect the Second Amendment above all else, as I do.

    The NRA is a single-issue organization made up of millions of individual members dedicated to protecting the Second Amendment. We do not represent the interests of other organizations. Nor do all groups fight all issues together. For example, we didn't support the U.S. Chamber of Commerce when it backed amnesty for tens of millions of illegal aliens and we did not join the Chamber in its support of President Obama's stimulus bill. And we've been in direct opposition when the Chamber has tried to restrict Second Amendment rights in publicly accessible parking lots.

    Rather than focusing on opposing this bill, some have encouraged people to blame the NRA for this Congress's unconstitutional attack on free speech. That's a shame. If you oppose this bill, I hope you will contact your Member of Congress and Senators so they can hear from you.
    Something's gotta give. Either the NRA did or did not stop objecting to the bill after they were exempted. Can someone shed some light on this seeming contradiction?

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Believe nothing that you read or hear without verifying it yourself unless it fits your preexisting worldview. The latter clause excuses the invincibly ignorant.

    If one knows who originated "invincibly ignorant" then you might guess my thoughts on the topic.

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Post imported post

    Does someone have a useful response to my question?

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Brentwood, Tennessee
    Posts
    1,956

    Post imported post

    "Without the NRA, the Second Amendment will be lost..."

    Taken from the statement from the NRA.





  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    pahrump nv, British Columbia, Canada
    Posts
    175

    Post imported post

    i did some reading on the nra wayne la piere make almost a million $ a year

    thats absurd and some people here bash unions for giving tradesmen a decent wage

    i will not give the nra my money untill thet stop paying bank ceo wages

  13. #13
    Regular Member Jack House's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    I80, USA
    Posts
    2,661

    Post imported post

    eye95 wrote:
    Does someone have a useful response to my question?
    AFAIK, they're not supporting the bill, they're just not opposing it either.

  14. #14
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524

    Post imported post

    eye95 wrote:
    I had no understanding of the situation until I read your analogy. Now my eyes are wide open!

    Seriously, you are implying that the NRA actively stopped opposing DISCLOSE when they became exempt. Can you cite something the NRA said or did to justify that conclusion?
    Heard it right out of the mouth of Wayne LaPierre himself on Cam & Company. He said that they will not actively oppose it.
    The thing about common sense is....it ain't too common.
    Will Rogers

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Post imported post

    rodbender wrote:
    eye95 wrote:
    I had no understanding of the situation until I read your analogy. Now my eyes are wide open!

    Seriously, you are implying that the NRA actively stopped opposing DISCLOSE when they became exempt. Can you cite something the NRA said or did to justify that conclusion?
    Heard it right out of the mouth of Wayne LaPierre himself on Cam & Company. He said that they will not actively oppose it.
    But nothing that we can verify?

  16. #16
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524

    Post imported post

    eye95 wrote:
    rodbender wrote:
    eye95 wrote:
    I had no understanding of the situation until I read your analogy. Now my eyes are wide open!

    Seriously, you are implying that the NRA actively stopped opposing DISCLOSE when they became exempt. Can you cite something the NRA said or did to justify that conclusion?
    Heard it right out of the mouth of Wayne LaPierre himself on Cam & Company. He said that they will not actively oppose it.
    But nothing that we can verify?
    It may be archivedon the website www.nranews.com I'm banned so you will have to look it up yourself.
    The thing about common sense is....it ain't too common.
    Will Rogers

  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Post imported post

    rodbender wrote:
    eye95 wrote:
    rodbender wrote:
    eye95 wrote:
    I had no understanding of the situation until I read your analogy. Now my eyes are wide open!

    Seriously, you are implying that the NRA actively stopped opposing DISCLOSE when they became exempt. Can you cite something the NRA said or did to justify that conclusion?
    Heard it right out of the mouth of Wayne LaPierre himself on Cam & Company. He said that they will not actively oppose it.
    But nothing that we can verify?
    It may be archivedon the website http://www.nranews.com I'm banned so you will have to look it up yourself.
    Nah. I'm old-fashioned. I think that support should be provided by those who make the assertion, not chased down by those who ask for it.

  18. #18
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524

    Post imported post

    eye95 wrote:
    rodbender wrote:
    eye95 wrote:
    rodbender wrote:
    eye95 wrote:
    I had no understanding of the situation until I read your analogy. Now my eyes are wide open!

    Seriously, you are implying that the NRA actively stopped opposing DISCLOSE when they became exempt. Can you cite something the NRA said or did to justify that conclusion?
    Heard it right out of the mouth of Wayne LaPierre himself on Cam & Company. He said that they will not actively oppose it.
    But nothing that we can verify?
    It may be archivedon the website http://www.nranews.com I'm banned so you will have to look it up yourself.
    Nah. I'm old-fashioned. I think that support should be provided by those who make the assertion, not chased down by those who ask for it.
    I would be more than happy to supply the link directly to his statements on the show, but like I said, I'm banned from that part of the website,soyou caneither take my word or you cango back to sleep. If someone else wouldn't mind looking it up so eye95's brain won't overheat, I would appreciate it.
    The thing about common sense is....it ain't too common.
    Will Rogers

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    pahrump nv, British Columbia, Canada
    Posts
    175

    Post imported post

    rodbender wrote:
    eye95 wrote:
    rodbender wrote:
    eye95 wrote:
    rodbender wrote:
    eye95 wrote:
    I had no understanding of the situation until I read your analogy. Now my eyes are wide open!

    Seriously, you are implying that the NRA actively stopped opposing DISCLOSE when they became exempt. Can you cite something the NRA said or did to justify that conclusion?
    Heard it right out of the mouth of Wayne LaPierre himself on Cam & Company. He said that they will not actively oppose it.
    But nothing that we can verify?
    It may be archivedon the website http://www.nranews.com I'm banned so you will have to look it up yourself.
    Nah. I'm old-fashioned. I think that support should be provided by those who make the assertion, not chased down by those who ask for it.
    I would be more than happy to supply the link directly to his statements on the show, but like I said, I'm banned from that part of the website,soyou caneither take my word or you cango back to sleep. If someone else wouldn't mind looking it up so eye95's brain won't overheat, I would appreciate it.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RIXDkdYbCA



  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Post imported post

    rodbender wrote:
    eye95 wrote:
    rodbender wrote:
    eye95 wrote:
    rodbender wrote:
    eye95 wrote:
    I had no understanding of the situation until I read your analogy. Now my eyes are wide open!

    Seriously, you are implying that the NRA actively stopped opposing DISCLOSE when they became exempt. Can you cite something the NRA said or did to justify that conclusion?
    Heard it right out of the mouth of Wayne LaPierre himself on Cam & Company. He said that they will not actively oppose it.
    But nothing that we can verify?
    It may be archivedon the website http://www.nranews.com I'm banned so you will have to look it up yourself.
    Nah. I'm old-fashioned. I think that support should be provided by those who make the assertion, not chased down by those who ask for it.
    I would be more than happy to supply the link directly to his statements on the show, but like I said, I'm banned from that part of the website,soyou caneither take my word or you cango back to sleep. If someone else wouldn't mind looking it up so eye95's brain won't overheat, I would appreciate it.
    Ah, ye olde insulte.

    Moving on.

    BTW, if it's there and you want it, you could get it. But, don't bother now. I am no longer interested.

  21. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Brentwood, Tennessee
    Posts
    1,956

    Post imported post

    eye95 wrote:
    Ah, ye olde insulte.

    Moving on.

    BTW, if it's there and you want it, you could get it. But, don't bother now. I am no longer interested.
    You've read and quoted what has already been re-posted here from the nra-ila.

    "The NRA is a single-issue organization made up of millions of individual members dedicated to protecting the Second Amendment. We do not represent the interests of other organizations."

    It is pretty clear what the position of the NRA is. They are a single issue organization. They do not represent other organizations. They got their exemption and got out.

  22. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Post imported post

    kwikrnu wrote:
    eye95 wrote:
    BTW, if it's there and you want it, you could get it. But, don't bother now. I am no longer interested.
    You've read and quoted what has already been re-posted here from the nra-ila.

    "The NRA is a single-issue organization made up of millions of individual members dedicated to protecting the Second Amendment. We do not represent the interests of other organizations."

    It is pretty clear what the position of the NRA is. They are a single issue organization. They do not represent other organizations. They got their exemption and got out.
    Those sentences does not say what you claim they do.

    Please either find evidence that the NRA specifically changed their action--or said they did or would.

    I am not defending the NRA. I ended my membership years ago. I just can't stand folks making assertions on either side of an issue, and then not backing them up. The statements that you choose to quote do not back up the assertion that the NRA stopped actively opposing the DISCLOSE Act.

    I am not saying they didn't stop. I don't know. I'd sure like to find out one way or the other, and, frankly, I have seen more and better support that they haven't stopped opposing the bill.

  23. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    eye95 wrote:
    Moving on. BTW, if it's there and you want it, you could get it. But, don't bother now. I am no longer interested.
    Please. Maybe to ARF or THR where birds of a feather fluck.

  24. #24
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524

    Post imported post

    eye95 wrote:
    kwikrnu wrote:
    eye95 wrote:
    BTW, if it's there and you want it, you could get it. But, don't bother now. I am no longer interested.
    You've read and quoted what has already been re-posted here from the nra-ila.

    "The NRA is a single-issue organization made up of millions of individual members dedicated to protecting the Second Amendment. We do not represent the interests of other organizations."

    It is pretty clear what the position of the NRA is. They are a single issue organization. They do not represent other organizations. They got their exemption and got out.
    Those sentences does not say what you claim they do.

    Please either find evidence that the NRA specifically changed their action--or said they did or would.

    I am not defending the NRA. I ended my membership years ago. I just can't stand folks making assertions on either side of an issue, and then not backing them up. The statements that you choose to quote do not back up the assertion that the NRA stopped actively opposing the DISCLOSE Act.

    I am not saying they didn't stop. I don't know. I'd sure like to find out one way or the other, and, frankly, I have seen more and better support that they haven't stopped opposing the bill.
    They DO still oppose it. They are just NOT TAKING AN ACTIVE ROLL in it.The last line of the analogy is: "The white guy says, "While I do not support the ban, I'm exempt nowand will no longer actively protest it."
    The thing about common sense is....it ain't too common.
    Will Rogers

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •