• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Poll

Which one best chacterizes the NRA and there action on the Disclose Act?

  • caucasian

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • black

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • hispanic

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • asian

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0

rodbender

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
2,519
Location
Navasota, Texas, USA
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.
 

PT111

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2007
Messages
2,243
Location
, South Carolina, USA
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".
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
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?
 

AL Ranger

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2010
Messages
238
Location
Huntsville, Alabama, USA
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.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
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?
 

erichonda30

Banned
Joined
May 27, 2010
Messages
434
Location
PAHRUMP, Nevada, USA
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
 

rodbender

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
2,519
Location
Navasota, Texas, USA
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.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
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?
 

rodbender

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
2,519
Location
Navasota, Texas, USA
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.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
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.
 

rodbender

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
2,519
Location
Navasota, Texas, USA
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.
 

erichonda30

Banned
Joined
May 27, 2010
Messages
434
Location
PAHRUMP, Nevada, USA
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
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
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.
 
Top