User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 12/28/2011 11:05:21 AM EDT
[#1]
In for this!
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2011 11:39:56 AM EDT
[#2]
IN.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2011 11:43:20 AM EDT
[#3]
Hasn't Stephen Colbert made a mockery out of pacs and super pacs on his tv show? He went before a congerssional committe withthe intent of forming the most ludicrous PAC he could by taking the rules for being a PAC and stretching them as far as possible. He even last time I saw the show runs a ticker on the bottom of the screen with the names of those who have donated. Called hero's. Publicly states who he is supporting and why and also tells everyone on air how awesome it is that he can spend it anyway he wants. It seems he was trying to show that pacs are free to do what they want. So telling people that he can not disclose info on proponents is bullshit. I know Hard_Rock and trust him. You will get the straight shit from him whether you like it or not. Is Dudley willing to go toe to toe with some of the biggest psycho fucks the BATF has. Hard_Rock has and will.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2011 12:08:24 PM EDT
[#4]
I'm prepared to be a fan of Hard Rock, assuming he's done what he says he has. I have no way of verifying when the only thing I know about him is he's from Minn.
And yes, I'm new to registering with AR15.com. I've searched the forums a lot but never had a need to post –– until someone called my name into question. Unless his first name is "Cleta" (if you work in conservative, pro-gun politics, you'll know who I mean), I don't think he has a lot more real-life federal PAC experience than me. Our attorneys are worried about things like DISCLOSE, new efforts to circumvent Citizens United (I've known David Bossie –– of that case –– for 20+ years), and want us to be able to call as many people members as humanly possible, thus being able to talk to them about politicians, regardless of new attempts to curtail that speech. You are correct if you say my letter doesn't quite explain it that way. Mea culpa. I find it ironic that NRA cheerleaders could whine about ANYONE'S fundraising attempt. That's funny. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2011 12:12:18 PM EDT
[#5]
Originally Posted By Dudley_Brown:
I'm prepared to be a fan of Hard Rock, assuming he's done what he says he has. I have no way of verifying when the only thing I know about him is he's from Minn. And yes, I'm new to registering with AR15.com. I've searched the forums a lot but never had a need to post –– until someone called my name into question. Unless his first name is "Cleta" (if you work in conservative, pro-gun politics, you'll know who I mean), I don't think he has a lot more real-life federal PAC experience than me. Our attorneys are worried about things like DISCLOSE, new efforts to circumvent Citizens United (I've known David Bossie –– of that case –– for 20+ years), and want us to be able to call as many people members as humanly possible, thus being able to talk to them about politicians, regardless of new attempts to curtail that speech. You are correct if you say my letter doesn't quite explain it that way. Mea culpa. I find it ironic that NRA cheerleaders could whine about ANYONE'S fundraising attempt. That's funny. - claims to be passionately concerned about communicating with gun owners, olny posts when BS is called. Check. - carefully tap dances around issue at hand. Check. - non too subtle jab at the NRA. Check. Yup, Larry Pratt has lost his edge. The torch has been passed to a new generations of people seeking to profit off of the disenchanted gun owners crowd, and maybe help spur some of the disenchantment. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2011 12:13:06 PM EDT
[#6]
Hard_Rock does not reside in Minn. And is most defiantly not an NRA cheerleader. You also have yet to explain why you claimed the Feds restricted your message.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2011 12:30:53 PM EDT
[#7]
Trashing Larry Pratt is a good way to get me fired up.
He's done more in one day to fight against gun control –– on a large scale –– than any human I know. Unlike the institutional gun lobby, he hasn't cut deals in smoke-filled rooms on items like the Hughes Amendment (alluded to earlier), Lautenberg, Brady, etc. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2011 12:33:10 PM EDT
[#8]
...and still ducks the original complaint about his fund raising. The overt lies.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2011 12:34:30 PM EDT
[#9]
Why would you remove their name and contact information?
|
|
|
|
VA, USA
|
Posted: 12/28/2011 12:39:41 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Spade]
[#10]
Originally Posted By Dudley_Brown:
Unlike the institutional gun lobby, he hasn't cut deals in smoke-filled rooms on items like the Hughes Amendment (alluded to earlier), Lautenberg, Brady, etc. That's because he really hasn't done anything. Name one piece of federal gun legislation that GOA has actually driven. What's their presence on the hill? What legislators worry about their GOA rating? I like GOA. I like their principled stand a lot. But nobody on the Hill gives a damn. Notice when the anti-gunners talk about the "evil gun lobby" they reference the NRA. ETA: And you still don't "get" it. Nobody has a problem with you doing fundraising to support gun rights. Fuck, everybody here would support it. The problem is that you didn't say "hey, donate some money to help the cause." You could've done that. Instead you decided to lie. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2011 12:42:44 PM EDT
[#11]
Originally Posted By Dudley_Brown:
Trashing Larry Pratt is a good way to get me fired up. He's done more in one day to fight against gun control –– on a large scale –– than any human I know. Unlike the institutional gun lobby, he hasn't cut deals in smoke-filled rooms on items like the Hughes Amendment (alluded to earlier), Lautenberg, Brady, etc. Two peas in a pod. Keep going, this is entertaining. Larry Pratt has made a good living for himself at this schtick. I can see why you would look up to him. Why actually do anything of any consequence on the Hill, when all you have to do is attack the "institutional gun lobby" and the money flows in? It's an ingenious scheme, I admit. Then again, so it telling fortunes to old ladies. Its the ethics of it that bug me. If you like Pratt so much, why not join GOA? Why the new org? Was his not doing enough? Can't feather your own nest if you just send him money? Are there just more than enough suckers to go around? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2011 12:44:12 PM EDT
[Last Edit: FredMan]
[#12]
Our attorneys are worried about things like DISCLOSE, new efforts to circumvent Citizens United (I've known David Bossie –– of that case –– for 20+ years), and want us to be able to call as many people members as humanly possible, thus being able to talk to them about politicians, regardless of new attempts to curtail that speech. You are correct if you say my letter doesn't quite explain it that way. Mea culpa.
If you want to call as many people members as possible, then just come on out and say it in your literature. But telling people that it's illegal for you to tell them who you endorse unless they kick in $5, is very disingenuous and some might say bordering on fraud. Your letter not only doesn't "quite explain it that way", your letter explicitly tells people it's ILLEGAL for you to tell them your picks unless they pay up. If you really want to mea culpa, send out a retraction explaining the specific error of your ways and asking for forgiveness. If you want to put the cherry on top, send out your list of candidates along with it. We pretty much hate the 2A supporters who sow FUD in trying to get their message across. It cheapens the movement and gives everyone a black eye. ETA, your explanation also seems to hinge on your desire to not violate rules and regs that aren't even written yet, but that MIGHT be. Unless and until it is illegal, it's for damn sure legal, and your screeching otherwise smacks of shenanigans, and we ALL hate shenanigans. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2011 12:54:55 PM EDT
[#13]
Oooo, this thread really took off.
IN for the Epic Butthurt and Eventual Ban. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2011 12:55:35 PM EDT
[#14]
SonofabitchStolemyIdea!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2011 12:56:23 PM EDT
[#15]
See last post about the letter.
Now someone here's an expert on the Hill? Please, elaborate. Two peas in a pod with Larry? I'll take the compliment. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2011 1:01:15 PM EDT
[#16]
Tagaroonie! Cue slapfight.gif!
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2011 1:06:58 PM EDT
[#17]
Originally Posted By Dudley_Brown:
See last post about the letter. Now someone here's an expert on the Hill? Please, elaborate. Two peas in a pod with Larry? I'll take the compliment. The problem with that (red) is we know of Pratt and his GOA scam of crying wolf and lying about the NRA. You obviously ARE a second pea in the pod of fraud against naive gun owners. The fact you refuse to address the actual meat of this thread speaks volumes. Puffing up over your "credentials" is laughable. GTFO. 
|
|
|
|
VA, USA
|
Posted: 12/28/2011 1:12:42 PM EDT
[#18]
Originally Posted By Dudley_Brown:
Now someone here's an expert on the Hill? Please, elaborate. . You don't have a lobbyist registered. In 2010 you put out 6k to federal candidates. GOA put out $58,680. The NRA put out $1,278,550. The Ohio Gun Collectors Association put out $18,000. I don't know who they are. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2011 1:15:22 PM EDT
[#19]
Originally Posted By thebeekeeper1:
Originally Posted By Dudley_Brown:
See last post about the letter. Now someone here's an expert on the Hill? Please, elaborate. Two peas in a pod with Larry? I'll take the compliment. The problem with that (red) is we know of Pratt and his GOA scam of crying wolf and lying about the NRA. You obviously ARE a second pea in the pod of fraud against naive gun owners. The fact you refuse to address the actual meat of this thread speaks volumes. Puffing up over your "credentials" is laughable. GTFO. OOPS........ Shit is about to get real. How long till this is in the pit? Or till EdSR. voices his oppinion? |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 12/28/2011 1:18:34 PM EDT
[#20]
Guys, for what it's worth, RMGO has been a pretty good group for Colorado gun owners.
Frankly, their fund-raising bullshit is not any worse than the NRA's fund-raising bullshit. I'm not big on the scare campaigns, but my mailbox is full of it from every possible source. A number of years ago, all the liberal newspapers in Colorado (and even a few of the advertising circular rags) banded together and decided to cut/end their guns for sale sections in their classifieds. Even though person to person private sales are still perfectly legal. RMGO stepped up and put up a gun market for sale board online. I've bought a number of guns from folks on there and it works real great. Its worth the cost of membership just to post on that board if you need to sell a gun. Just my two cents. |
|
|
OH, USA
|
Posted: 12/28/2011 1:18:58 PM EDT
[#21]
Originally Posted By thebeekeeper1:
Originally Posted By Dudley_Brown:
See last post about the letter. Now someone here's an expert on the Hill? Please, elaborate. Two peas in a pod with Larry? I'll take the compliment. The problem with that (red) is we know of Pratt and his GOA scam of crying wolf and lying about the NRA. You obviously ARE a second pea in the pod of fraud against naive gun owners. The fact you refuse to address the actual meat of this thread speaks volumes. Puffing up over your "credentials" is laughable. GTFO. His attitude and tone isn't wining him any supporters, either. Dudley, some free advice: Try making a coherent argument and explain your positions clearly without being insulting and you might get some traction. Your current approach is only going to be met with well-earned hostility. It's counter-productive. Chopping on the NRA is downright stupid and is worse than counter-productive. It makes you look petty. That isn't going to win you any support, either. |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 12/28/2011 1:20:47 PM EDT
[#22]
Originally Posted By tep0583:
Originally Posted By thebeekeeper1:
Originally Posted By Dudley_Brown:
See last post about the letter. Now someone here's an expert on the Hill? Please, elaborate. Two peas in a pod with Larry? I'll take the compliment. The problem with that (red) is we know of Pratt and his GOA scam of crying wolf and lying about the NRA. You obviously ARE a second pea in the pod of fraud against naive gun owners. The fact you refuse to address the actual meat of this thread speaks volumes. Puffing up over your "credentials" is laughable. GTFO. His attitude and tone isn't wining him any supporters, either. Dudley, some free advice: Try making a coherent argument and explain your positions clearly without being insulting and you might get some traction. Your current approach is only going to be met with well-earned hostility. It's counter-productive. Chopping on the NRA is downright stupid and is worse than counter-productive. It makes you look petty. That isn't going to win you any support, either. Were you a member of this site when the NRA announced it would oppose efforts to get the US SCOTUS to grant cert in the Heller case? Because there was a little tearing down of the NRA on here, I assure you. |
|
|
NV, USA
|
Posted: 12/28/2011 1:24:05 PM EDT
[#23]
Originally Posted By Old_Painless:
Originally Posted By Hard_Rock:
Okay, I'm disgusted by the NRA ........ Why? The NRA is the voice of American gun owners and is the big player in the halls of Congress. Support the NRA. (Life and Benefactor NRA member.) Exactly this. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2011 1:25:52 PM EDT
[#24]
Originally Posted By NagOrzo15-1:
Originally Posted By tep0583:
Originally Posted By thebeekeeper1:
Originally Posted By Dudley_Brown:
See last post about the letter. Now someone here's an expert on the Hill? Please, elaborate. Two peas in a pod with Larry? I'll take the compliment. The problem with that (red) is we know of Pratt and his GOA scam of crying wolf and lying about the NRA. You obviously ARE a second pea in the pod of fraud against naive gun owners. The fact you refuse to address the actual meat of this thread speaks volumes. Puffing up over your "credentials" is laughable. GTFO. His attitude and tone isn't wining him any supporters, either. Dudley, some free advice: Try making a coherent argument and explain your positions clearly without being insulting and you might get some traction. Your current approach is only going to be met with well-earned hostility. It's counter-productive. Chopping on the NRA is downright stupid and is worse than counter-productive. It makes you look petty. That isn't going to win you any support, either. Were you a member of this site when the NRA announced it would oppose efforts to get the US SCOTUS to grant cert in the Heller case? Because there was a little tearing down of the NRA on here, I assure you. Do you really want to make your argument with that bit of nonsense? 
We won Heller with a 5-4 vote, and that was WITH Alito and Roberts. What would have happened without them on the court? Figure that out and get back with us. 
Are you next going to claim the NRA is "a covert gun control organization who wrote the AWB in 1994"?
|
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 12/28/2011 1:28:48 PM EDT
[#25]
Originally Posted By thebeekeeper1:
Originally Posted By NagOrzo15-1:
Originally Posted By tep0583:
Originally Posted By thebeekeeper1:
Originally Posted By Dudley_Brown:
See last post about the letter. Now someone here's an expert on the Hill? Please, elaborate. Two peas in a pod with Larry? I'll take the compliment. The problem with that (red) is we know of Pratt and his GOA scam of crying wolf and lying about the NRA. You obviously ARE a second pea in the pod of fraud against naive gun owners. The fact you refuse to address the actual meat of this thread speaks volumes. Puffing up over your "credentials" is laughable. GTFO. His attitude and tone isn't wining him any supporters, either. Dudley, some free advice: Try making a coherent argument and explain your positions clearly without being insulting and you might get some traction. Your current approach is only going to be met with well-earned hostility. It's counter-productive. Chopping on the NRA is downright stupid and is worse than counter-productive. It makes you look petty. That isn't going to win you any support, either. Were you a member of this site when the NRA announced it would oppose efforts to get the US SCOTUS to grant cert in the Heller case? Because there was a little tearing down of the NRA on here, I assure you. Do you really want to make your argument with that bit of nonsense?
We won Heller with a 5-4 vote, and that was WITH Alito and Roberts. What would have happened without them on the court? Figure that out and get back with us.
Are you next going to claim the NRA is "a covert gun control organization who wrote the AWB in 1994"?
Whoah, dude... chill a bit. Its me. <<<<______ I'm not the object of your angst. I just remember what this place was like when the NRA was not sure about reviewing Heller. There were a lot of nasty things posted here. Whether they were right or wrong, there was a lot of angst about it. Sheesh. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2011 1:29:49 PM EDT
[#26]
Yes there was––but the truth was quickly put forth and the nonsense was shouted down corrected.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2011 1:31:31 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Cottonbaler]
[#27]
Originally Posted By Wespe: So what organizations that fight for gun rights are okay to join? NRA and GOA. If you want an NRA Life Membership for $300 (normally $1000) go to THIS THREAD and snag one of the slots that fellow ARFCOMers are sponsoring. I've got 5 spoken for and one more available...just IM me. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 12/28/2011 1:32:00 PM EDT
[#28]
Originally Posted By thebeekeeper1:
Yes there was––but the truth was quickly put forth and the nonsense was shouted down corrected. LOL. I guess the beatings will continue until morale improves, eh? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2011 1:36:38 PM EDT
[#29]
At least with the pounds of begging letters I get from the NRA they at least try to be open about there campaign,Dud here just will not own up to his original fuck up. As others have said just print a retraction/correction and try to regain some sense of credibility. Hell blame the letter on a staffer who has since been sacked. What's another lie at this point.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2011 2:26:04 PM EDT
[Last Edit: HeavyMetal]
[#30]
Mr. Brown, it is not that we are opposed in concept to what you are trying to accomplish, it is we are fatigued of hysterical fundraising letters after decades of recieving them. Seriously, we zone out and ignore them, human beings can only deal with so much overload. I quit reading your organization's emails some time ago, I simply never open them because I know what they are going to say. You are going to have to distinguish yourself if you want to get your signal out of the noise.
Be upfront and honest, tell us we are making gains but we still have a long ways to go. Tell us much hard work remains and our support is essential. Don't tell us the world is about to end. Don't tell us the NRA is teh debil! Do this next time you do a fundraising email: Do half of the the world is ending way. Do the other half the way I suggested. See which approach generates the biggest return. Put it to the test. |
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 12/28/2011 2:42:09 PM EDT
[#31]
Originally Posted By Dudley_Brown:
Our attorneys are worried about things like DISCLOSE, new efforts to circumvent Citizens United (I've known David Bossie –– of that case –– for 20+ years), and want us to be able to call as many people members as humanly possible, thus being able to talk to them about politicians, regardless of new attempts to curtail that speech. You are correct if you say my letter doesn't quite explain it that way. Mea culpa. The letter doesn't explain it that way? Kind of an understatement don't you think? The letter says: It’s illegal for me to tell you which candidates the National Association for Gun Rights PAC supports. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the Federal Election Commission (FEC) expressly forbid me from telling you which candidates are so solid on gun rights that I want you to help us help them.
It sounds crazy, I know. But the anti-gun Obamacrats who run the federal government don’t want gun owners and activists like you and me to be organized going into the 2012 election. That’s why the IRS/FEC will only let me tell “a restricted class” of “legal members” of the National Association for Gun Rights who they should –– and shouldn’t –– support in the election. The good news is, I’ve found a loophole around their legal gag, and frankly it’s pretty easy. All you need to do is chip in at least $5 (or more), and take a positive pro-gun action, and you can then be counted as part of our “legal membership.” As you apparently already know, the letter is misleading because it states that this is CURRENTLY illegal. It goes on to name two agencies as being responsible. You say "It sounds crazy. I know." You even go one to describe a "loophole around their legal gag" - a legal gag that apparently doesn't actually exist. What's more when you were originally confronted about it, you tried to dance around the obvious lies in your statement and claim it was about state law. From my perspective: 1. You are apparently OK with lying to your supporters in order to generate money for your organization. 2. You are in a forum full of people who support the Second Amendment. People who like black rifles and have little tolerance for compromise. Yet, even in this environment, with several people who know you personally and support you posting, both your initial pitch and your follow up response leave people here feeling angry towards you and your organization, despite the common cause. Even if I was OK with the appalling lack of ethics, why would I want to support a 2A organization that can't hold its own in ARFCOM GD? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2011 2:51:25 PM EDT
[#32]
WEll, I live in the same area as Mr Dudley. I have been around the RMGO website and he seems to have done some lobbying in the state of CO.
I guess what I want to see is this... If I send you... Mr Dudley $5... What percentage of the $5 goes to actually do something to advance gun rights, etc. vs what percentage goes to buy you a new Jet Ski? That is the info I can get from the NRA. Let us know where the money goes, who gets it and maybe, just maybe, we will trust you. Oh, and if you stop lying to us. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2011 2:56:17 PM EDT
[#33]
In!
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2011 2:56:19 PM EDT
[#34]
As the contents of said letter have been posted, let's be fair to Mr. Dudley Brown by asking him to post the cite for his claims of this "illegality." Mr. Brown––the ball is in your court.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2011 3:11:43 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Lumpy03]
[#35]
Originally Posted By thebeekeeper1:
As the contents of said letter have been posted, let's be fair to Mr. Dudley Brown by asking him to post the cite for his claims of this "illegality." Mr. Brown––the ball is in your court. ****crickets*** |
|
|
|
VA, USA
|
Posted: 12/28/2011 3:21:56 PM EDT
[#36]
Originally Posted By Dravur:
WEll, I live in the same area as Mr Dudley. I have been around the RMGO website and he seems to have done some lobbying in the state of CO. I guess what I want to see is this... If I send you... Mr Dudley $5... What percentage of the $5 goes to actually do something to advance gun rights, etc. vs what percentage goes to buy you a new Jet Ski? That is the info I can get from the NRA. Let us know where the money goes, who gets it and maybe, just maybe, we will trust you. Oh, and if you stop lying to us. Here you go: http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00481200 As of June 30, 2011 they had $30,369 on hand with nothing going out. For the 2010 election cycle they had total receipts of $47,040. $16,496 of that was spent with $6,000 going to federal candidates. Of the $10,496 left of that $6,406 went to "Spectrum Marketing", $2,090 went to "Print Mail Communication", and $2,000 went to "Iowans for Lower Taxes". |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2011 3:44:40 PM EDT
[#37]
I've made all my points. Yes, the letter could have spelled out why we want to be able to list someone as a member, since it allows us to talk to them about politics without fear of lawsuits (mostly from the Democrat Party).
If you're an NRA-do-or-die guy, then be happy with your money going to Harry Reid and 14 of Pelosi's 20 Most Endangered House Democrats. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/39591.html I joined this site because, frankly, I like the information about AR-15's, and use it frequently but hadn't contributed. My name popping up on a google alert as being trashed on this forum reminded me that I wanted to support it. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2011 3:49:15 PM EDT
[#38]
Originally Posted By Dudley_Brown:
I've made all my points. Yes, the letter could have spelled out why we want to be able to list someone as a member, since it allows us to talk to them about politics without fear of lawsuits (mostly from the Democrat Party). If you're an NRA-do-or-die guy, then be happy with your money going to Harry Reid and 14 of Pelosi's 20 Most Endangered House Democrats. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/39591.html I joined this site because, frankly, I like the information about AR-15's, and use it frequently but hadn't contributed. My name popping up on a google alert as being trashed on this forum reminded me that I wanted to support it. Sir, no one has "trashed your name"––you have simply been exposed. Your lack of a cite speaks volumes of your character and that of your organization. That link is nothing but hyperbole and nonsense. "Considered an endorsement of Harry Reid"––um, no. The NRA does not endorse in primaries and "considered" no such thing. Again––GTFO, as you had your chance to redeem yourself.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2011 3:54:23 PM EDT
[#39]
NAGR, please.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2011 4:00:13 PM EDT
[#40]
<puts the $5 back into the wallet>
|
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 12/28/2011 4:01:42 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Bartholomew_Roberts]
[#41]
Originally Posted By Dudley_Brown:
I've made all my points. Yes, the letter could have spelled out why we want to be able to list someone as a member, since it allows us to talk to them about politics without fear of lawsuits (mostly from the Democrat Party). You're dissembling Mr. Brown. Your letter didn't say "I can't talk to you without fear of lawsuits." It said "It’s illegal for me to tell you which candidates the National Association for Gun Rights PAC supports. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the Federal Election Commission (FEC) expressly forbid me from telling you which candidates are so solid on gun rights that I want you to help us help them." If you've forgotten what your letter said, it is posted in the original post and several times throughout the thread. That isn't a case of your letter not being precise about vague future threats or being a little outlandish in its interpretation of the law. It isn't a case of state law or civil suits either. It is a case of your letter being flat out untruthful. Do you not understand that or do you simply not wish to acknowledge it? Do you understand why people would be reluctant to give money to an organization that they perceive will lie to them in order to gain money? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2011 4:08:07 PM EDT
[#42]
It wasn't a primary, Beekeeper. It was a general election, where the leader of the left was being challenged.
And yes, their PAC does endorse. As does ours. http://www.redstate.com/erick/2010/07/13/nra-openly-floats-a-harry-reid-endorsement/ You might not consider giving almost $5,000 to Harry Reid an endorsement. That's convenient sophistry, the same thing of which you've accused me. When I give money to a candidate, what could that be called but an "endorsement"? If that's what you've chosen –– to side with the guys selling us out –– then ok. Have at it. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2011 4:11:46 PM EDT
[#43]
Originally Posted By swingset:
NAGR, please. GUFFAW !!!!!!! 
'03 |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2011 4:13:44 PM EDT
[Last Edit: swingset]
[#44]
Originally Posted By Dudley_Brown: It wasn't a primary, Beekeeper. It was a general election, where the leader of the left was being challenged. And yes, their PAC does endorse. As does ours. http://www.redstate.com/erick/2010/07/13/nra-openly-floats-a-harry-reid-endorsement/ You might not consider giving almost $5,000 to Harry Reid an endorsement. That's convenient sophistry, the same thing of which you've accused me. When I give money to a candidate, what could that be called but an "endorsement"? If that's what you've chosen –– to side with the guys selling us out –– then ok. Have at it. Answer the post above yours, please. You've continued to dodge addressing the flat out lies in your letter, which makes it seem even more bold and even more intentional. Or, and I do prefer this because I love it when people out themselves, keep on playing stupid and broadcasting your character so profoundly that you have no reputation to salvage. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2011 4:18:01 PM EDT
[#45]
Oh, this is gonna be good.
I DEMAND THUNDERDOME! |
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 12/28/2011 4:23:37 PM EDT
[#46]
Originally Posted By Dudley_Brown:
It wasn't a primary, Beekeeper. It was a general election, where the leader of the left was being challenged. And yes, their PAC does endorse. As does ours. Reid was never endorsed by the NRA in the 2010 Senate election. You might not consider giving almost $5,000 to Harry Reid an endorsement. That's convenient sophistry, the same thing of which you've accused me .
Sophistry is defined as "subtly deceptive reasoning or argument." Nothing about you or your organization is subtle, so I'd say any accusations of sophistry against you are unfounded. However, deceptive certainly seems to have found a place. We could argue the wisdom of trying to work with the Senate Majority Leader to block gun control in a time frame where both the House, White House and Senate are controlled by the Democratic Party; but it distracts from the original post here - which isn't about the best RKBA strategy; but rather whether you lied to your supporters in order to raise money. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2011 4:26:09 PM EDT
[#47]
Dravur -
You live in Colorado, but have never heard of RMGO? Call any of the top ten most pro-gun State legislators (like St. Rep. Chris Holbert and St. Sen. Greg Brophy, who run bills like Constitutional Carry). Ask them about me or RMGO. Or Senators Renfroe, Neville, Harvey, etc, etc. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2011 4:33:05 PM EDT
[#48]
Originally Posted By swingset:
NAGR, please. LOL 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2011 4:35:25 PM EDT
[#49]
Originally Posted By Dudley_Brown: Dravur - You live in Colorado, but have never heard of RMGO? Call any of the top ten most pro-gun State legislators (like St. Rep. Chris Holbert and St. Sen. Greg Brophy, who run bills like Constitutional Carry). Ask them about me or RMGO. Or Senators Renfroe, Neville, Harvey, etc, etc. Puffing your chest out is not a counter for what you're being accused of. Hole digging on your resume, too? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2011 4:40:01 PM EDT
[#50]
You don't think giving money to a candidate is protecting them?
If you're that naive, fella, I want to play poker with you. Bring lots of money. |
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
