Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 10/20/2002 7:37:57 AM EDT
Watching LaPierre v. Schumer on Meet The Press and Wayne turned in his usual pathetic performance. He is not doing us any good and needs to be replaced immediately. Not only does he sound like he does not believe what he is saying, his presentation is so bad that a high school debate team could whip his ass. He also used the term "sniper" over and over to refer to the recent type of criminal activity in the D.C. area. He needs to go before he does any more damage.
Link Posted: 10/20/2002 7:43:53 AM EDT
What's wrong with the use of the word 'sniper?' From Webster; Main Entry: snipe Function: intransitive verb Inflected Form(s): sniped; snip·ing Date: 1832 1 : to shoot at exposed individuals (as of an enemy's forces) from a usually concealed point of vantage 2 : to aim a carping or snide attack - snip·er noun
Link Posted: 10/20/2002 7:50:44 AM EDT
Link Posted: 10/20/2002 7:59:32 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/20/2002 11:01:33 AM EDT by Shishapangma]
Originally Posted By Hawkeye: Being a Sniper involves MUCH more than what websters gives.
View Quote
Like WHAT? No, he is not a sharpshooter nor a marksman. He is opportunistic when it comes to target selection but not with location settings. 'Gunman' and 'shooter' are overly broad definitions that could be applied to ANY crime committed with a firearm. Look, this nutjob has nine 'confirmed kills' using such stealth that there are NO reliable descriptions of him, his weapon, his vehicle, his escape route nor his sick rationale. Some term needs to be used to convey to the public at large what this perp has done and what he is doing. Knowing that a 'sniper' is on the loose requires a different defensive awareness of one's surroundings than other types of gunmen. According to the army's "Sniper Training and Employment Manual, June 1989," one of the many tasks of the military sniper is to take out indiscriminate enemy personnel for the purpose of lowering enemy troop morale. With cancelled homecomings, Halloween functions and some normal, everyday activities in the DC/Va/Md area, one could certainly say that morale has been affected. This whacko IS PLAYING 'SNIPER!' And because of his 'success'thus far, he deserves to be labeled a domestic enemy of this free nation.
Link Posted: 10/20/2002 8:16:45 AM EDT
Pierre was absolutely terrible, Schumer ate him alive. As bad as it was "no comment" was better than this. Heston and LaPierre make a terrible combination. Schumer actually in the space of five minutes claimed that the ballistic database would only be linked to serial numbers and not named - and then five minutes later claimed that it would contain who purchased the gun! And Pierre didn't even bring that up! What the hell??!! Don't anybody here dare criticize those of us who refuse to join the NRA.
Link Posted: 10/20/2002 8:27:04 AM EDT
LaPierre did need to be more aggressive. That Big Mouth Schummer wouldn't shut up when Wayne was speaking, yet When Schummer was babbling LaPierre just kept quiet.
Link Posted: 10/20/2002 8:49:47 AM EDT
It was too funny when schumer listed his ballistic experts in favor of fingerprinting; BLA BLA .......JOHN WALSH!!!! Maybe Troy and Tatjana could get him as a mod in the ammo forum. [grenade] What an asswipe. I agree, it was a pathetic performance by LaPierre.....
Link Posted: 10/20/2002 8:52:08 AM EDT
Schumer is a bully. I didn't see the show, but maybe LaPierre figured he wasn't going to win the debate so it would just be useful to show the world what a belligerent asshole Schumer is. Typical New Yorker.
Link Posted: 10/20/2002 8:54:40 AM EDT
Wayne is not a debater this is true , but what the hell would you do and or feel seated next to the fuck from New York ? HE MAKES MY SKIN CRAWL !!!!!!!
Link Posted: 10/20/2002 8:58:53 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/20/2002 9:01:39 AM EDT by Benjamin0001]
This fight can be won!!!! It can be won in two years, but we need a Republican SENATE and HOUSE. That is totally necessary for this WIN to come to fruition. You say BUT THE REPUBLICANS ARE JUST LIKE THE DEMOCRATS. YES AND NO. VOTE REPUBLICAN IF YOU WANT TO WIN!!!
Link Posted: 10/20/2002 9:03:44 AM EDT
Originally Posted By sniper1az: Wayne is not a debater this is true , but what the hell would you do and or feel seated next to the fuck from New York ? HE MAKES MY SKIN CRAWL !!!!!!!
View Quote
I would counter Schumer's lies and rhetoric with facts, even if I had to "interrupt" him to do it. I would actually do the job that NRA members elected me and pay me to do. Apparently, that's a foreign concept to LaPierre. I didn't see the show, but it doesn't sound like he lived up to the expectations of the job.
Link Posted: 10/20/2002 9:05:24 AM EDT
I remember reading an interview of Carlos Hathcock once in which he stated that making the shot was not all that hard. It was escpaing that was the challenging part of being a sniper. I don't think the shooters shots so far are impressive at all. But he sure seems to have the "challenging" part, escaping, figured out pretty good.
Link Posted: 10/20/2002 9:13:12 AM EDT
Wayne looked anxious and confused, he knew who he was going up against you would think he and his staff would have been better prepared him, terrible performance.
Link Posted: 10/20/2002 9:15:59 AM EDT
Originally Posted By trickshot: what a belligerent asshole Schumer is. Typical New Yorker.
View Quote
Please - I was born in NY, lived in NY and worked in the same. It is not typical behaviour of a New Yorker. 934
Link Posted: 10/20/2002 9:16:55 AM EDT
Wayne LaPierre IS on our side no argument there but having him speak for us is like the cliche "Bringing a knife to a gun fight" you need to have a voice in there that not only will win an argument but leave a mental battlescar on the opponent that will absolutely BURY them... ...Now if you bring someone who will spew VENOM such as .... oh I dont know, how 'bout Ted Nugent, Now THAT is bringing "An M1 TANK to the gun fight"...get my drift? I have NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER EVER seen Ted Nugent back down in an argument and VOCALIZES what we think. Wayne LaPierre and Charleton Heston are PC and watch what they say and how they say it. The Liberals dont...why should we?
Link Posted: 10/20/2002 9:26:13 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/20/2002 9:27:31 AM EDT by Benjamin0001]
Charlton Heston isn't PC, nor is Waynne LaPierre. Its just they have Class. Charlton Heston is OLD SCHOOL, He still has Respect for People, even if he is not shown any respect in return. Old School , Class. The people they are debating are Liberal Arts Educated(read Socialist) Lunatics while CH and WL are not. Ben
Link Posted: 10/20/2002 9:29:43 AM EDT
Liberals can say anything that they want to and it will get corrected by the news media. Pro-gun people have to be careful as anything that they say can and will be misquoted.
Link Posted: 10/20/2002 9:33:13 AM EDT
BEAUTIFULLY SAID:
Originally Posted By gunham: Liberals can say anything that they want to and it will get corrected by the news media. Pro-gun people have to be careful as anything that they say can and will be misquoted.
View Quote
[b]***BANG!***[/b] Know what that sound was?? It was you hitting the nail right on the head.
Link Posted: 10/20/2002 9:35:49 AM EDT
Hmmmm, Ted Nugent as President of NRA... what a concept!
Link Posted: 10/20/2002 9:43:14 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Benjamin0001: Charlton Heston isn't PC, nor is Waynne LaPierre. Its just they have Class. Charlton Heston is OLD SCHOOL, He still has Respect for People, even if he is not shown any respect in return. Old School , Class. The people they are debating are Liberal Arts Educated(read Socialist) Lunatics while CH and WL are not. Ben
View Quote
I am not arguing that they dont have class... by all means they do and I respect their opinions. HOWEVER what I am saying is that the liberal-socialists are doing is they are winning a war not with facts but with sensationalism. The sheeple are eating that up! You cant win a war with these Socialist idiots. Believe me, I know that when push comes to shove, and people retrospect, they will say that CH and WLP have class. However, We need a spokesman that in a debate have Chuck Schumer leave the debate saying "Holy Sh*t I just had my clock cleaned" and be too embarassed to show his face again. Chucky KNOWS that he got the upper hand so he comes back again and again and again. BUT if one day on "MEET THE PRESS" they tell Chucky that Wayne has the flu so to stand in his place you have someone with "venom" (aka Nugent or GOA's Pratt) That sensationalism will be more even. Although that is just my two cents worth. Once again let me reitterate that I feel.. Better yet I KNOW that HEston and LaPierre have class... I wont deny that.
Link Posted: 10/20/2002 9:46:18 AM EDT
Originally Posted By A_Free_Man: Hmmmm, Ted Nugent as President of NRA... what a concept!
View Quote
As much as I like Terrible Ted and agree 100% with his views, it would be very difficult for non-2ndA people to take him seriously. I will agree that LaPierre needs some schooling in debating and positioning the NRA's and our side, but I don't think that coming at the Libs like Ted would (or may) is beneficial to our cause. I would like to see more of the Libs (Shumer, Donahue, etc) really expose themselves as rabid dogs that need to be put down and would not like to see our side stoop to their level. Granted, I am not saying Ted would do that but I think the image Ted projects does not shine us in the best light for those who may be on the fence wrt gun rights. 934
Link Posted: 10/20/2002 9:52:55 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/20/2002 9:55:33 AM EDT by Yankee1911]
Originally Posted By DrFrige: Wayne LaPierre IS on our side no argument there but having him speak for us is like the cliche "Bringing a knife to a gun fight" you need to have a voice in there that not only will win an argument but leave a mental battlescar on the opponent that will absolutely BURY them...
View Quote
I'm not sure that LaPierre is on our side. Don't misunderstand, I'm not saying that he's a mole planted by the other side, but I think he has forgotten who and what he is [i]supposed[/i] to represent. Winning the debate is crucial, but "burying and leaving a mental scar" is going to do nothing but convince those who are on the fence about this issue that the antis are right; gunowners are all mean and evil and should be disarmed.
...Now if you bring someone who will spew VENOM such as .... oh I dont know, how 'bout Ted Nugent, Now THAT is bringing "An M1 TANK to the gun fight"...get my drift? I have NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER EVER seen Ted Nugent back down in an argument and VOCALIZES what we think.
View Quote
Again, spewing venom is NOT in our best interest. Ted Nugent is great, and I do enjoy watching him have it out with idiots, but as a spokesman for the cause, it would surely backfire. Yeah, SCOTUS is important, control of Congress is important, but face it; in the world of politics lately, public opinion is king.
Wayne LaPierre and Charleton Heston are PC and watch what they say and how they say it. The Liberals dont...why should we?
View Quote
I agree. We've got to play the game on the same field. But to resort to a Jerry Springer-like style of debate that seems to appeal to Sally Soccermom in an attempt to reach the unreachable means risking the support of those who can be reached with with a proper dose of the truth. We need a spokesman who can sway people with the truth, not bludgeon them with it, or sit there like an idiot and hope that people are impressed with his quiet and lackluster attitude. IMHO, neither Nugent nor LaPierre are qualified for the job at hand.
Link Posted: 10/20/2002 9:54:00 AM EDT
The NRA is mainly concerned with staying in the circle of power in washington. If they ever stood up and said no more laws until the ones on the books are enforced or repeled, they would gain the support of all gun owners but lose their great restaurant seats and guest spots on the news shows. So they will continue to toss us evil rifle owners under the bus to keep that power.
Link Posted: 10/20/2002 10:02:19 AM EDT
Wayne LaPierre is an idiot. He and the NRA have done nothing to stop anything. McClure-Volkmer act of 1986 Bush Sr. AW ban in 1989 Brady Bill AW ban of 1994 The NRA is nothing to me but a shitty magazine. If you are a duck hunter,deer hunter,turkey hunter, ect. the NRA will stand behind you. If you are an assault rifle owner the NRA could care less about you or your Second Ammendment Rights.
Link Posted: 10/20/2002 10:05:14 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/20/2002 10:06:59 AM EDT by AKsRule]
As a New Yorker I would like to take this opportunity to suggest that our two Fine Senators, Mr. Schumer,and Ms. Clinton , should take a trip south to study this horrible crime ridden area, so that they may report back to us on how the problem can be solved. [rolleyes] If you would like to make a contribution towards their travel and incidental expenses,feel free to contact me. I have already set aside two gift certificates to Ponderosa for them. [:D]
Link Posted: 10/20/2002 10:08:31 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/20/2002 10:21:51 AM EDT by Benjamin0001]
but face it; in the world of politics lately, public opinion is king.
View Quote
NOT TO SCOTUS. And that is the only thing Standing between Americans and some sort of socialist government with widespread poverty, no property rights (as evidenced back during the 80's and 90's when they had court injunctions against people building on their own lands because of the Spotted OWL, and the Endangered Insect), and a path that would if the democrats are allowed to carry out lead to the Destruction of These United States, even if in General Americans are not aware of it for lack of education. SCOTUS is the only chance this country has, until Republicans are not afraid to be Conservative anymore. Especially Now. Because the only thing that is going to keep this country free of Tyranny throughout this War is SCOTUS and our Judicial system. You could make the argument that the Democrats are working against the best interests of the Nation in a time of war by holding up Judicial nominations which will ensure that In the persuit of this War to a successful conclusion, it will be by the Narrowest of margins that the country doesn't slide into a police state or worse. These nominations are crucial for our future. EDITED TO ADD: I hate to say this but the kids I see graduating from Highschool and well into college are more concerned about Baggy Jeans and the latest Hip-hop music and speaking like animals then they are looking to their future responsibilties as future parents,and protectors of America. Pardon my french but many of them are raised like shit and act like shit and will raise their children the same way. A country cannot survive like that. And a country like America will definately not survive like that. And then you get further up there and you send your children into a professors class room and when they come out you have to correct all the shit the professor has put into their heads. This country is in trouble. And it isn't going to be easy for it to come through.
Link Posted: 10/20/2002 10:31:43 AM EDT
That was the first time that I had seen LaPierre debate, and to be honest with you, he did a better job than I expected. He was respectful to Schumer, and let him speak his BS...and then he calmly laid out the facts, and blew Schumer out of the water. By acting in this manner he is appealing to the people on an intellectual level, rather than getting in a yelling match on national TV.(which is [u]always[/u] bad) Schumer made himself look like a rabid, disrespectful ass.
Link Posted: 10/20/2002 10:34:24 AM EDT
I watched Meet The Depressed with my father this morning. We both thought Wayne Lapierre's attempt at debating sucked. He doesn't have what it takes to be a master- debater[:D]. The NRA needs a restructuring from the top down. They are constantly asking me for money in the mail every week with little to show for it. I'm waiting anciously to see who the next President will be to replace Heston. Hopefully we'll get someone who will be able to debate and give those Damn liberals the smackdown. Also di you guys see schumer give the host of the show that signed football?? My father and I both felt like that was some kind of bribe to the host.(A small gift from one liberal to another) The whole situation has me discusted, but my Father and I are both NRA members and will continue to be. It beats the alternative.
Link Posted: 10/20/2002 10:45:16 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Benjamin0001: Charlton Heston isn't PC, nor is Waynne LaPierre. Its just they have Class. Charlton Heston is OLD SCHOOL, He still has Respect for People, even if he is not shown any respect in return. Old School , Class. The people they are debating are Liberal Arts Educated(read Socialist) Lunatics while CH and WL are not. Ben
View Quote
Liberal Arts Educated doesn't equal socialist. A liberal arts school is one that provides a traditional education--- history, philosophy, mathematics, science, languages, etc. as opposed to a professional or vocational school where you learn things that apply directly to some job. Now, if you want to say that most liberal arts colleges and big universities are infested with socialist nutjob professors, you'll get no argument from me. 1_152_370(graduated from a small liberal arts college)_271_407
Link Posted: 10/20/2002 10:46:18 AM EDT
Originally Posted By scottfn308: Wayne LaPierre is an idiot. He and the NRA have done nothing to stop anything. McClure-Volkmer act of 1986 Bush Sr. AW ban in 1989 Brady Bill AW ban of 1994 The NRA is nothing to me but a shitty magazine. If you are a duck hunter,deer hunter,turkey hunter, ect. the NRA will stand behind you. If you are an assault rifle owner the NRA could care less about you or your Second Ammendment Rights.
View Quote
You're behind the time and consequently off base with that coment. The NRA has changed its stance on black rifles. They are currently the highest visibility firearm in the NRA. How many times in the past twelve months has the cover of American Rifleman featured a black rifle... at least three and maybe four including this month's issue. And there's the NRA magazine Shooting Sports USA that has AR15's all through it. I realize this is a change but let's give the NRA credit where it's due. They seem to be upfront these days about their support for our rifles.
Link Posted: 10/20/2002 11:00:49 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Arock: You're behind the time and consequently off base with that coment. The NRA has changed its stance on black rifles. They are currently the highest visibility firearm in the NRA.
View Quote
This will change when the NRA execs realize that support of such weapons particularly suited to criminal misuse, will only drive away members (i.e. $$$$$) and their jobs will be at risk.
Link Posted: 10/20/2002 11:16:07 AM EDT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally Posted By Benjamin0001: Charlton Heston isn't PC, nor is Waynne LaPierre. Its just they have Class. Charlton Heston is OLD SCHOOL, He still has Respect for People, even if he is not shown any respect in return. Old School , Class. The people they are debating are Liberal Arts Educated(read Socialist) Lunatics while CH and WL are not. Ben -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Liberal Arts Educated doesn't equal socialist. A liberal arts school is one that provides a traditional education--- history, philosophy, mathematics, science, languages, etc. as opposed to a professional or vocational school where you learn things that apply directly to some job. Now, if you want to say that most liberal arts colleges and big universities are infested with socialist nutjob professors, you'll get no argument from me.
View Quote
You are right, I stand corrected. Ben
Link Posted: 10/20/2002 11:16:07 AM EDT
Thanks Imbro... I think... Arock
Link Posted: 10/20/2002 11:19:13 AM EDT
Benjamin0001, I agree with everything in your reply, [b]except[/b] the SCOTUS not being, at least in part, swayed by public opinion. Their refusal to hear several 2nd amendment cases should give you pause to think. No matter who is "in charge" of SCOTUS at any one time (dems or repubs), to believe that they will hear all cases with merit, and rule without political bias is naive. This should be evident in the refusal of the dems in congress to confirm judicial nominations. Supreme court judges rarely forget their "roots". And since the the politicians that helped them get the appointments live or die based on public opinion in these times, you're wrong to believe that SCOTUS is immune from this.
Link Posted: 10/20/2002 11:32:49 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/20/2002 11:41:24 AM EDT by Benjamin0001]
Yankee 1911.
Benjamin0001, I agree with everything in your reply, except the SCOTUS not being, at least in part, swayed by public opinion. Their refusal to hear several 2nd amendment cases should give you pause to think. No matter who is "in charge" of SCOTUS at any one time (dems or repubs), to believe that they will hear all cases with merit, and rule without political bias is naive. This should be evident in the refusal of the dems in congress to confirm judicial nominations. Supreme court judges rarely forget their "roots". And since the the politicians that helped them get the appointments live or die based on public opinion in these times, you're wrong to believe that SCOTUS is immune from this.
View Quote
Okay well I am not saying your wrong, but here is my view of a Judge Sitting on the Supreme Court having seen several on CSPAN giving lectures at Universities. I am trying to remember if it was Breyer or Stevens,who was on TV, the man was Erudite to say the least. His answers were of the highest intellectual caliber and not once , not once did any term come forth from his mouth without some sort of legal definition attached to it. He would not speak of any current cases before the Supreme Court but would speak about some issues indirectly linked to a case. I found his thoughtful and articulate use of the language to be ,well quite frankly it was like in listening to him a person was drinking water from a fresh spring. No sir, I wouldn't go so far as to compare a politician to a judge. Not even close!! The Judges at least the ones I have seen have a higher caliber or bearing , way higher.
Link Posted: 10/20/2002 11:52:18 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Benjamin0001: Charlton Heston isn't PC, nor is Waynne LaPierre. Its just they have Class. Charlton Heston is OLD SCHOOL, He still has Respect for People, even if he is not shown any respect in return. Old School , Class. The people they are debating are Liberal Arts Educated(read Socialist) Lunatics while CH and WL are not. Ben
View Quote
Bwaaahaahaaahaahaaa, It's "Old School", and "Respect", for the enemies of our Republic, that GOT us where we are now....
Link Posted: 10/20/2002 11:54:45 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Arock:
Originally Posted By scottfn308: Wayne LaPierre is an idiot. He and the NRA have done nothing to stop anything. McClure-Volkmer act of 1986 Bush Sr. AW ban in 1989 Brady Bill AW ban of 1994 The NRA is nothing to me but a shitty magazine. If you are a duck hunter,deer hunter,turkey hunter, ect. the NRA will stand behind you. If you are an assault rifle owner the NRA could care less about you or your Second Ammendment Rights.
View Quote
You're behind the time and consequently off base with that coment. The NRA has changed its stance on black rifles. They are currently the highest visibility firearm in the NRA. How many times in the past twelve months has the cover of American Rifleman featured a black rifle... at least three and maybe four including this month's issue. And there's the NRA magazine Shooting Sports USA that has AR15's all through it. I realize this is a change but let's give the NRA credit where it's due. They seem to be upfront these days about their support for our rifles.
View Quote
The NRA is only supportive of "The Black Rifle" when it suits their needs. I agree that the AR-15 was on the cover of The American Rifleman but on of those was a law enforcement issue. If the NRA grows some balls I will join, untill then...... no money from me.
Link Posted: 10/20/2002 11:57:58 AM EDT
i would just like to ask how anyone who didn't watch the "debate" this morning can form an opinion on it. for those who think mr. lapierre screwed, might i remind you that the true fence-sitters are actually the ones listening to what is being said. we pro-2nd firearms owners don't even listen to the other side as we know it's all dribble. and people like schumer and hitlery don't listen to our side because they think we're being irrational when we stand against mindless gun control legislation. only those people who have to yet to form a concrete opinion are the ones listening to the words being said. far from losing the debate, mr. lapierre spoke with respect and dignity, something which will not be missed by people trying to form an opinion. and something else that i'm surprised no one brought up: despite the anti/pro undercurrents that ran through the debate, the actual topic was on the ballistic fingerprinting. and mr. lapierre stood his ground against that very well...with the facts. were i a fencesitter, it would give me cause to pause when i heard him say that every time a firearm is fired, the barrel characteristics change. now, i know that one shot makes miniscule changes and wouldn't prevent anyone from matching a bullet to my gun if that's all i had done. but 1000 rounds or a pad of steel wool, or even a new barrel makes the legislation pointless, worthless and damned expensive. i think people out there realized that. people as groups are pretty stupid; we know that. but individuals can be pretty smart sometimes. and if someone decided to listen today, they can't help but come to the conclusion that a bill that fingerprints every firearm is going to be useless if that "fingerprint" is as easily changed as mr. lapierre said.
Link Posted: 10/20/2002 12:00:18 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/20/2002 12:02:22 PM EDT by Yankee1911]
Originally Posted By Benjamin0001: No sir, I wouldn't go so far as to compare a politician to a judge. Not even close!! The Judges at least the ones I have seen have a higher caliber or bearing , way higher. I thank God those men are there because by comparison some politicians act like 2-bit whores. Sorry.
View Quote
No need for apologies in a gentlemanly debate. [:)] I admit to a disadvantage, not having seen the same television broadcasts as you did of a SCOTUS judge giving a lecture at a university. I would, however, guess that any judge who had reached that level would be considered erudite, regardless of party affiliation. Republican or democrat; morons need not apply. Regardless of politics, it takes a learned man (or woman) to reach that level in life. I wasn't comparing judges to politicians, at least not directly. But is there [b]really[/b] that much difference between the two? They both run upon a party platform. Judges have been charged with corruption; same as other politicians. I guess I don't understand how judges have evolved past the level of the rest of us. All that aside, it still doesn't address the idea that SCOTUS is influenced in one way or another by public opinion. I still say that it is naive to think otherwise. Unfortunately.
Link Posted: 10/20/2002 12:04:10 PM EDT
Liberty86 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally Posted By Benjamin0001: Charlton Heston isn't PC, nor is Waynne LaPierre. Its just they have Class. Charlton Heston is OLD SCHOOL, He still has Respect for People, even if he is not shown any respect in return. Old School , Class. The people they are debating are Liberal Arts Educated(read Socialist) Lunatics while CH and WL are not. Ben -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bwaaahaahaaahaahaaa, It's "Old School", and "Respect", for the enemies of our Republic, that GOT us where we are now
View Quote
I think our definitions are a little different. I say "Respect", in that a person Repects themselves and acts with the highest bearing they know. Old School, didn't gut us here. Old School is Heston on the podium talking, no-one has changed his mind about anything for a long time. I have a hard time blaming these people for the actions of those they oppose. However, having said that it is also true that Evil spreads where Good men do naught. So there is a thin line there.
Link Posted: 10/20/2002 12:04:11 PM EDT
Originally Posted By scottfn308: The NRA is only supportive of "The Black Rifle" when it suits their needs. I agree that the AR-15 was on the cover of The American Rifleman but on of those was a law enforcement issue. If the NRA grows some balls I will join, untill then...... no money from me.
View Quote
typical backwards logic. start spending your money and then you can dictate what they do with it. otherwise, you're just a bystander waiting for someone else to save your guns. yeah, you might be a member of other pro-2nd organizations. but NONE of them have the clout the NRA has. not to mention name-recognition. the true lobbying power on a national level is with the NRA. if you don't want to be a member, that's fine. but it's like not voting. you don't vote, you don't get to bitch about the actions of the candidate that won. likewise, you're not a member of the NRA, you have little leg to stand on when it comes to criticizing them. when you start having a vested interest in something, your opinion takes on a little more meaning. otherwise, you're just someone who likes to bitch.
Link Posted: 10/20/2002 12:18:30 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/20/2002 12:20:40 PM EDT by Benjamin0001]
I wasn't comparing judges to politicians, at least not directly. But is there really that much difference between the two? They both run upon a party platform. Judges have been charged with corruption; same as other politicians. I guess I don't understand how judges have evolved past the level of the rest of us.
View Quote
I think there is, see Judges don't run on party platform, they may be on the ballot but the only way that I have ever seen them listed is this:
Do you wish to retain xxxx xxxxx in the position of Judge in xxxx xxxxx district? Yes[] No[]
View Quote
I have never seen a mention of party affiliation. However , they become known as to their views by their written opinion. Some people call this their politics, I don't. I merely see it as their philosophy on the role of law in a state or country. There is a difference, and I think that if termed properly people begin to see the extreme importance of this group of people. They havn't evolved past us. But if you look at the level of learning as some sort of evolution , an evolution of ideas and thoughts, supported by and with the ideas and thoughts written down by some of the most learned people in history, from Plato's Republic to Josephus in the old testament then you begin to see the roots of the law as we currently know it as passed down through the generations that have passed before us. It is important to get the history of law and lawmaking among a great many other things. I am not saying that Judges have evolved past the rest of us, but if you think that what a person knows influences his actions then you begin to see that although they havn't evolved they are certainly acting and thinking in a manner that is not displayed by the mainstream press or the people who sit in front of the camera as "Experts". There is a level there that a person can assign. The Judges are not outside Humanity, in fact in most cases they have the greatest interests of Humanity in Mind, hence the great importance of laws or nationstates. They are not above you or I for given the proper education both of us could fill those shoes, but those are not the same shoes most people must fill in their daily lives. Just my .2 cents Ben
Link Posted: 10/20/2002 12:19:05 PM EDT
Originally Posted By scottfn308:
Originally Posted By Arock:
Originally Posted By scottfn308: Wayne LaPierre is an idiot. He and the NRA have done nothing to stop anything. McClure-Volkmer act of 1986 Bush Sr. AW ban in 1989 Brady Bill AW ban of 1994 The NRA is nothing to me but a shitty magazine. If you are a duck hunter,deer hunter,turkey hunter, ect. the NRA will stand behind you. If you are an assault rifle owner the NRA could care less about you or your Second Ammendment Rights.
View Quote
You're behind the time and consequently off base with that coment. The NRA has changed its stance on black rifles. They are currently the highest visibility firearm in the NRA. How many times in the past twelve months has the cover of American Rifleman featured a black rifle... at least three and maybe four including this month's issue. And there's the NRA magazine Shooting Sports USA that has AR15's all through it. I realize this is a change but let's give the NRA credit where it's due. They seem to be upfront these days about their support for our rifles.
View Quote
The NRA is only supportive of "The Black Rifle" when it suits their needs. I agree that the AR-15 was on the cover of The American Rifleman but on of those was a law enforcement issue. If the NRA grows some balls I will join, untill then...... no money from me.
View Quote
Make sure before you die you send your name to NRA headquarters for pallbearers. We've carried your ass this far for free we may as well finish the job.
Link Posted: 10/20/2002 12:20:32 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ARLady:
Originally Posted By scottfn308: The NRA is only supportive of "The Black Rifle" when it suits their needs. I agree that the AR-15 was on the cover of The American Rifleman but on of those was a law enforcement issue. If the NRA grows some balls I will join, untill then...... no money from me.
View Quote
typical backwards logic. start spending your money and then you can dictate what they do with it. otherwise, you're just a bystander waiting for someone else to save your guns. yeah, you might be a member of other pro-2nd organizations. but NONE of them have the clout the NRA has. not to mention name-recognition. the true lobbying power on a national level is with the NRA. if you don't want to be a member, that's fine. but it's like not voting. you don't vote, you don't get to bitch about the actions of the candidate that won. likewise, you're not a member of the NRA, you have little leg to stand on when it comes to criticizing them. when you start having a vested interest in something, your opinion takes on a little more meaning. otherwise, you're just someone who likes to bitch.
View Quote
I WAS a member of the NRA for about 10 years, My wife IS a member. I did not renew my membership when they virtually did nothing to stop the 1994 AW ban. Or the Brady Bill for that matter. All they do is call constantly wanting money "to continue the fight". If and when the AW ban sunsets in 2004 (and we are all doing our part to see that this happens) I will RE-join the NRA. Maybe then they will start fighting and not compromising.
Link Posted: 10/20/2002 12:30:11 PM EDT
Originally Posted By scottfn308: I WAS a member of the NRA for about 10 years, My wife IS a member. I did not renew my membership when they virtually did nothing to stop the 1994 AW ban. Or the Brady Bill for that matter. All they do is call constantly wanting money "to continue the fight". If and when the AW ban sunsets in 2004 (and we are all doing our part to see that this happens) I will RE-join the NRA. Maybe then they will start fighting and not compromising.
View Quote
i suggest a re-read of Arock's most recent post. asking for money isn't all they do, genius. but it is generally the most effective means of exacting change. of all the people in america who believe in something and are members of an organization devoted to that something, how many of them actually get off their asses and [i]DO[/i] something? conversely, how many would rather pull out the check book and send some cash instead? there's a reason the NRA does what it does. i guarantee you that if more people actually [i]DID[/i] something, they wouldn't have a need for money all the time. but like i said, no vote, no voice. you can whine that you're not spending money on an organization that doesn't do what you want. i can respect that. but to start demanding certain actions from said organization and you haven't done diddly in return? sad, just sad. not to mention selfish.
Link Posted: 10/20/2002 12:31:23 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ARLady: for those who think mr. lapierre screwed, might i remind you that the true fence-sitters are actually the ones listening to what is being said. we pro-2nd firearms owners don't even listen to the other side as we know it's all dribble. and people like schumer and hitlery don't listen to our side because they think we're being irrational when we stand against mindless gun control legislation. only those people who have to yet to form a concrete opinion are the ones listening to the words being said. far from losing the debate, mr. lapierre spoke with respect and dignity, something which will not be missed by people trying to form an opinion. people as groups are pretty stupid; we know that. but individuals can be pretty smart sometimes. and if someone decided to listen today, they can't help but come to the conclusion that a bill that fingerprints every firearm is going to be useless if that "fingerprint" is as easily changed as mr. lapierre said.
View Quote
ARLady, The problem with Wayne is that he doesn't come across as being very sincere. He stumbles and mumbles and repeats himself over and over, as if he is presenting a canned speech---which is usually the case. If his opponent deviates from where Wayne thinks he is going, he gets flustered and just repeats the same lines again. The problem is not in the message--it is in the delivery. This isn't just a war of facts or common sense; it is a PR battle and Wayne LaPierre is going to die on that hill. The NRA needs a polished, professional spokesperson who can engage the professional politicins that LaPierre constantly faces. He just is not up to the task and comes across badly. The same stupid people who need to be convinced are also prone to pay attention tot he slick package. That is why commercial advertising budgets are so big and that is why the NRA needs to keep Wayne chained to his desk.
Link Posted: 10/20/2002 12:35:48 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ARLady: typical backwards logic. start spending your money and then you can dictate what they do with it. otherwise, you're just a bystander waiting for someone else to save your guns.
View Quote
Well ARLady, I hope you don't mind me responding to your post. I'm a current NRA member, if that really makes a difference to you. I have spent my money on the NRA. I guess I'm not waiting for somebody else to save my guns, right? But let me tell you the same thing I told the NRA's best cheerleader on this site (who knows who he is): How arrogant to assume that because somebody doesn't "belong" to the NRA, that they're not doing other things to fight for our rights. Maybe scottfn308 writes 2 or 3 letters every day to members of congress. Maybe he visits his Senators and Representatives once a week. I don't know and neither do you. And speaking as a current NRA member, I say he has every right to express his opinion about the NRA.
yeah, you might be a member of other pro-2nd organizations. but NONE of them have the clout the NRA has. not to mention name-recognition. the true lobbying power on a national level is with the NRA.
View Quote
Maybe he is, maybe he isn't. So what? What difference does "clout" make when the organization is three weeks behind in countering the B.S. that the rest of the country is being spoon-fed? Name recognition...give me a break. Like those who hate us are really impressed by that? Lobbying power means squat in the face of public opinion on this issue right now. If lobbying power was [i]real[/i] power, we would wouldn't have the restrictions that we have today. Public opinion counts and the NRA is worthless in this area.
if you don't want to be a member, that's fine. but it's like not voting. you don't vote, you don't get to bitch about the actions of the candidate that won. likewise, you're not a member of the NRA, you have little leg to stand on when it comes to criticizing them. when you start having a vested interest in something, your opinion takes on a little more meaning. otherwise, you're just someone who likes to bitch.
View Quote
Now actually, I agree with you here, in part. Bitching about the leadership of an organization when you won't do what's necessary to vote them out is pointless. Become a member (five years worth if you want to vote), and vote the dead weight out. The only problem is, who controls the propaganda in the NRA? On the other hand, when the general public thinks that the NRA represents [b]all[/b] gunowners, he has every right to criticize the organization, whether he's a member or not.
Link Posted: 10/20/2002 12:36:32 PM EDT
My nominee for the next NRA president: Alan Keyes. 1. He is a Second Amendment absolutist. 2. He needs a job 3. He never loses debates.
Link Posted: 10/20/2002 12:44:35 PM EDT
AR lady, As I stted before I WAS in the NRA and decided not to renew when they didn't do what I thought was their part. I paid my dues yearly, and supported their shoots, so I don't think you are "carrying my ass for free". I do agree that as faulty the NRA may be they are our best hope for lobbying in Washington, however the other posters are right, MR. LaPierre is not the person for the job. And yes I do belong to other Second Ammendment orginizations and various gun clubs, and support them. I just got dissheartened with the NRA that is all. Nothing more.
Link Posted: 10/20/2002 12:45:04 PM EDT
All that aside, it still doesn't address the idea that SCOTUS is influenced in one way or another by public opinion. I still say that it is naive to think otherwise. Unfortunately
View Quote
Hmmm, I think that they are not influenced by public opinion. But it is entirely possible that public opinion may have some basis in fact and could possibly be supported by some existing idea. You are assigning a direct cause to their decisions. I am just stating that it could be that public conclusions stated by non-judges may just happen to agree with what judges state in their own writings, but I do firmly believe that their own writings are drawing on some deeper understanding of the law and interpretation of the law. For instance in our own endeavors as supporters of the 2nd Amend. We speak the second Amend word for word. We think it is an individual liberty and say so. While the Justice who speaks the same scentence has probably read volumes of thinking on the same subject and perhaps has even added to the existing body of knowledge and not only can he speak it word for word he also has an idea perhaps a very very very long list of reasons why that interpretation is in the best interest of mankind. Something most people do not hold and have not taken the time to form. Just a thought. It may seem like the Judge has been swayed, but it could just be agreement between those with the camera and those with the pen and perhaps the two reached the same conclusion through very different paths.
Link Posted: 10/20/2002 1:00:48 PM EDT
Originally Posted By CLP: My nominee for the next NRA president: Alan Keyes. 1. He is a Second Amendment absolutist. 2. He needs a job 3. He never loses debates.
View Quote
I'd rather see Mr. Keyes replace Wayne LaPierre. The NRA president is a figurehead position, best suited for Hollywood actors. Alan Keyes for vice-president Tom Selleck for president
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top