Thanks NRA et al - Page 3
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 25 of 25

Thread: Thanks NRA et al

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,422
    Quote Originally Posted by jcreek View Post
    The GOA is a gun lobby group.
    Really? Who'd of thunk it?

    Quote Originally Posted by jcreek View Post
    They should not factor into the equation their opinions of other issues such as abortion especially for the grades they claim are based on the voting records for 2A issues.
    Well, the point I was making is that maybe the GOA practices a more strict adherence to the Constitution and BoR as written than the N R A. I know for a fact that they are more adherent to the 2A than the N R A is. It's total conjecture on my part as to their motives, but I, as a constitutional originalist, don't give a pass to people or organizations that might be right in line with my beliefs concerning the 1A, 2A, 5A or 10A, but regularly and blatantly support legislation that violates the 4A. If GOA takes such things into consideration, more power to 'em. If they don't, meh, they are still much better 2A supporters than the N R A is.

    Quote Originally Posted by jcreek View Post
    If they want to lobby for other issues too, they can start a separate lobby group or PAC.
    Or you could start your own PAC to b!tch and moan about the GOA when you have no earthly idea if they take into consideration the example I used (abortion) or not. Two can play that ridiculous game.

    Quote Originally Posted by jcreek View Post
    That's one of the reasons I'm not a member of the GOA.
    That's utter BS. You perceive them to be too conservative for your tastes, that's all. Before I suggested that they might take into consideration strict adherence to the Constitution, you never thought about their views on abortion. Neither did I. It was just a hypothetical example to illustrate a point, and I don't claim to know their views one way or the other on that specific issue, but if their fealty to the whole Constitution is as solid as it is to the 2A, then that's a plus in my estimation, and obviously a minus in yours.

    Quote Originally Posted by jcreek View Post
    If I'm going to join a lobby group I want I know what they are lobbying for and whether I agree with their stances on those issues.
    Riiiiiiiiiight. And your only evidence that they don't conduct their ratings exactly as you would want them to is that no Dems got a higher rating from them than a C. Like I said, you're just biased against the more obviously conservative gun lobby group. That's your right, but it's still a ridiculous standard to go by.

    Blues

  2.   
  3. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by jcreek View Post
    The GOA is a gun lobby group.
    Really? Who'd of thunk it?

    Quote Originally Posted by jcreek View Post
    They should not factor into the equation their opinions of other issues such as abortion especially for the grades they claim are based on the voting records for 2A issues.
    Well, the point I was making is that maybe the GOA practices a more strict adherence to the Constitution and BoR as written than the N R A. I know for a fact that they are more adherent to the 2A than the N R A is. It's total conjecture on my part as to their motives, but I, as a constitutional originalist, don't give a pass to people or organizations that might be right in line with my beliefs concerning the 1A, 2A, 5A or 10A, but regularly and blatantly support legislation that violates the 4A. If GOA takes such things into consideration, more power to 'em. If they don't, meh, they are still much better 2A supporters than the N R A is.

    Quote Originally Posted by jcreek View Post
    If they want to lobby for other issues too, they can start a separate lobby group or PAC.
    Or you could start your own PAC to b!tch and moan about the GOA when you have no earthly idea if they take into consideration the example I used (abortion) or not. Two can play that ridiculous game.

    Quote Originally Posted by jcreek View Post
    That's one of the reasons I'm not a member of the GOA.
    That's utter BS. You perceive them to be too conservative for your tastes, that's all. Before I suggested that they might take into consideration strict adherence to the Constitution, you never thought about their views on abortion. Neither did I. It was just a hypothetical example to illustrate a point, and I don't claim to know their views one way or the other on that specific issue, but if their fealty to the whole Constitution is as solid as it is to the 2A, then that's a plus in my estimation, and obviously a minus in yours.

    Quote Originally Posted by jcreek View Post
    If I'm going to join a lobby group I want I know what they are lobbying for and whether I agree with their stances on those issues.
    Riiiiiiiiiight. And your only evidence that they don't conduct their ratings exactly as you would want them to is that no Dems got a higher rating from them than a C. Like I said, you're just biased against the more obviously conservative gun lobby group. That's your right, but it's still a ridiculous standard to go by.

    Blues
    Andd you're back to being a douche. Some people say they learn a lot from you on here. All I've learned is to not waste my time with you. The only thing you ever do on here is dissect other's opinions and attack them. There are other ways to disagree with people and get your point across without having to be a prick. I'll let other people waste their time with you from now on.
    (Don't worry I fully expect some ridiculous long winded retort to this.)

  4. #23
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,422
    Quote Originally Posted by jcreek View Post
    Andd you're back to being a douche. Some people say they learn a lot from you on here. All I've learned is to not waste my time with you. The only thing you ever do on here is dissect other's opinions and attack them. There are other ways to disagree with people and get your point across without having to be a prick. I'll let other people waste their time with you from now on.
    (Don't worry I fully expect some ridiculous long winded retort to this.)
    You call it "dissecting." I call it replying directly to what people say. Even replying the way I do, I still get accused of "putting words in people's mouths." Kind of hard to promulgate such a myth if the words I'm replying to are right there for all to see, but there it is, such is the depth of thought that goes into some folks' posts around here. Welcome to that group. I hope y'all will be very happy together. I take sentences or excerpts or whole paragraphs one at a time as a way to protect myself from accusations of being non-responsive or putting words in others' mouths. I really don't care if you or anyone else likes it, but at least now you have the opportunity to understand it. Thank me. I'm welcome.

    As far as being long-winded, guilty as charged. Then again, it doesn't take a lot of thought or effort to just respond by calling people "douche" or "prick" while whining about being "attacked" because I directly challenge the verbatim words you yourself typed in here. I try to refrain from name-calling, and the overwhelming majority of the time I am successful at that effort. Most threads I participate in are about subjects that require thought, effort and analysis to really address. If people say they learn things from me, it's because I try to apply thought, effort and valid analysis in what I say. For the most part, those like you who boldly proclaim that they won't "waste their time" with me anymore are more attuned to short, mostly-thoughtless, though sometimes funny and witty, "analysis" of subjects that don't lend themselves well to such a shallow approach. Again, welcome to the group that you either didn't realize you were joining, or don't care.

    Blues

  5. #24
    This give's use more time to grow the membership numbers ,We need a hole lot more !!!!

  6. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by Crazy bird View Post
    This give's use more time to grow the membership numbers ,We need a hole lot more !!!!
    Sure does- I sponsored two memberships a few weeks ago. Will do some more next month.

    The fight in California was lost a long time ago, and frankly, the rest of the US is not far behind if we don't get our collective acts together. So to the fight we must- There is still hope at the National level.

    -178S

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Posting Permissions

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