Name any CHRISTIAN denomination, orthodox or not, that does NOT believe in Jesus CHRIST.
2
2Awarrior
Guest
Sadly, I cannot argue with you, Dunewolf. Ole Wayne turns my face a bit red sometimes too.
I just read Nicki Fellenzer's article on the NRA.
Her compulsion to protect God-given unalienable rights seems sincere enough - but then I tried to find evidence that rather than being simplistic, she was simply using hyperbole. I was unsuccessful.
For instance, early on in her thesis she lambastes the NRA for their support of laws designed to keep firearms away from convicted violent felons and provide for NICS checks in order to endeavor to do so. Such a law violates the unalienable right mentioned in 2A, she says. She further implies that the amendment provides that any human who is able to grasp any weapon in any category has an unalienable right to do so - that'd be violent felons, toddlers, Adam Lanza, etc. Using this reasoning, imprisoning anyone for committing any crime would violate their unalienable right to liberty. Stopping a rapist would violate their unalienable right to the pursuit of happiness.
I re-read her not-so-mini novel a couple of times, hoping to find evidence that she was merely using exaggeration for the purpose of making her point; this is a common tool with writers and activists, but one that usually ends with a punch line followed by a return to reason.
No punch line here.
This woman is clearly NOT stupid, and so I am forced to assume I'm missing something.
But for now - I suppose her tolerance for violent felons is humanitarian enough; and what makes America great is that she's free to endorse her simplistic views with childlike exuberance, and I'm free to move to another country should her principles become the law of the land.
Believe me, I've had my own gripes with the NRA, some she didn't even touch on. But I'll stick with 'em, as they are the current "force to be reckoned with" in Washington's eyes. I like to think that's what we all are.
On a side note - I mentioned JPFO earlier. They seem to really have their act together, and who can argue with a people who truly know the value of firearms in the hands of the free? I am also a member. But I used to wonder why they don't get any real press, until it occurred to me - the press wants an easier target. They won't publicize them because they don't want to mess with them. The NRA is kinda like me, capable of just enough buffoonery to make a good story.
In closing, I would like to honor a great man.
As many of you know, a newspaper here in NY's Hudson Valley published an interactive map showing the names and addresses of all pistol permit holders in two adjoining counties, Westchester and Rockland, to much outrage. The county clerks gave them the needed lists as directed under the Freedom of Information Act (if I've got that right). The paper had also requested the makes and models of the legally owned weapons, but at least that request was denied.
When the paper approached the Putnam County Clerk, he denied their request. He said he knew the law allowed them to request the information, but he added that he also knew "right from wrong, and this is wrong."
His name is Dennis J. Sant, and I intend to visit him in person tomorrow and thank him for taking his most honorable stance.
I envy him, too. I'd give anything for the chance to tell the Journal-News to kiss my butt.
Oh not what she said - but some things ive seen.
btw last I checked.. felons loose their rights to vote, to carry guns, etc by the very fact they are "convicted" of a felony.. Which I dont care about them.. So long as its a true felony and not one of the ******** felony laws on the books..
Like for instance.. I was recently accused of something, to which would have been a felony - I didn't believe it at first, took the officers words of "its nothing people get accused of lots of things" and went my merry way.. but more I thought about it, more I considered the outcomes.. more concerned I got..
Granted It turned out to be nothing, and all - but from October 2011 until February 2012 I was disarmed and under scrutiny for something I didn't do. So yeh I had a problem with that situation and no I dont blame the police, However I do find fault with the fact they didn't arrest the other person for filing false police report, or anything..
Just wish I had the money for a fancy lawyer to sue that person for false statements, etc etc etc.. but eh..
Long and short is - NRA as an organization seems fractured - if they allow such crap to be said - after waiting several days, there statement is Violent video games/movies..
My friends father is a life member to NRA - I read the magazines and stuff - seems what they say in there, and then in public are different things..
More so the anti obama stuff.. before elections - now after, its like ok forgive/forget?
idk..
btw last I checked.. felons loose their rights to vote, to carry guns, etc by the very fact they are "convicted" of a felony.. Which I dont care about them.. So long as its a true felony and not one of the ******** felony laws on the books..
Like for instance.. I was recently accused of something, to which would have been a felony - I didn't believe it at first, took the officers words of "its nothing people get accused of lots of things" and went my merry way.. but more I thought about it, more I considered the outcomes.. more concerned I got..
Granted It turned out to be nothing, and all - but from October 2011 until February 2012 I was disarmed and under scrutiny for something I didn't do. So yeh I had a problem with that situation and no I dont blame the police, However I do find fault with the fact they didn't arrest the other person for filing false police report, or anything..
Just wish I had the money for a fancy lawyer to sue that person for false statements, etc etc etc.. but eh..
Long and short is - NRA as an organization seems fractured - if they allow such crap to be said - after waiting several days, there statement is Violent video games/movies..
My friends father is a life member to NRA - I read the magazines and stuff - seems what they say in there, and then in public are different things..
More so the anti obama stuff.. before elections - now after, its like ok forgive/forget?
idk..
2
2Awarrior
Guest
Dunewolf - I hear you. It is tough sometimes to tell where they are coming from. I know why they take the absolute, unbending hard line based on gun-grabbers past history, but it just comes off like they don't even want to discuss anything sometimes. How's that not going to turn people off?
Go to the meeting, wear a suit, show respect, present your case with irrefutable facts, listen, and yeah if that doesn't work, then roll out the big guns and the sand bags.
Go to the meeting, wear a suit, show respect, present your case with irrefutable facts, listen, and yeah if that doesn't work, then roll out the big guns and the sand bags.
2
2Awarrior
Guest
HA!! That is cool!! I can hear Chris Cox crying, "WAITAMINIT!!! Send ME that money!!"
richardlpalmer
New member
Just me? Under a half million, so not too bad. But if you wanted a full reckoning of our whole family (all of us are now out, except for one who just squelched on us for about $170,000 in debt to the "church" and cut ties with the entire family in the process) it's in terms of millions...
But the organization is not in it for control or money.
It is apparent that you didn't even read Blues' quote. Or maybe you didn't understand what you read... because what you wrote had absolutely nothing to do with what he wrote, and blatantly showed your lack of knowledge of the Bible and the Quran both.
Sorry about that, Bill, but he wouldn't shut up, so if you want to jump back on your horse... do a little trot towards the muslim.
BluesStringer
Les Brers
This is the same tired ol' BS as I spoke about in my last post. If you're not an NRA supporter, or a Romney voter, it is assumed by those who are that you're doing nothing for the cause of constitutional/2nd Amendment restoration. I'll put my record of activism and expenditures towards both up against anyone's, but I'll not justify myself to someone who thinks they are qualified to question me about it just because I choose to do it in a different way than they do. In other words, go pound sand.
And assuming we are, can we count on you to show up with us? Didn't think so. Gotta work, going on vacation, the new season of Home Defense starts that week and I can't miss that! Whatever, you'll find some excuse not to show up when it really counts, and it will likely boil down to sheeeut! I already sent in my NRA dues, and even threw in a little extra! I've done my part!
I've already posted where and how I "communicate" with my elected officials. I go to them, get in their faces, and tell 'em up close and personal what I expect of them. You flood their inboxes. Yippy kai ay! What a 2nd Amendment fighter you are!
One might wonder why I seem to have taken such extreme exception to this particular post. Let me explain. In the part I quoted from this person, he starts out addressing "you anti-NRA people." I went to great lengths to give valid reasons for why I refuse to support the NRA. I am not, however, anti NRA. I don't want them to go away. I want them to be honest and above board, and until they are, I don't send 'em money. Like I said in my first post in this thread, I don't go around badmouthing them at every opportunity. A question was raised here and I gave my answer, and I documented every single reason I gave for denying my support so that NRA sycophants, like the fool above, could understand. But they don't want to understand. They want to impugn the motives, the intelligence, even the patriotism of anyone who finds being betrayed by an organization who purports to be protecting your rights, to be the line in the sand whose crossing will not be tolerated. So those of us who have determined such have simply withdrawn our financial support. We don't start threads about how dishonest the NRA is, even though we'd certainly be able to document such dishonesty. We don't answer every NRA-related post or thread with a barrage of negative replies. We just choose our own allies and leave y'all to do whatever is right for you. Unless we're asked specifically, like in this thread, that's the extent of our "anti-NRA" personas on this site.
So stick it where the sun don't shine RabbitcreekOkie. You've already proven you're a sycophant, a tool of the globalist Republican establishment, anti-freedom, anti-life and a hack of the first order.
Blues
Wow, still bitter, I see. Resorting to name calling again. It is easy to make big talk on a internet forum about all you are doing to support the Second Amendment and do what you can to discredit those who are actually doing something.
All I see is you talking big about getting into politicians faces, but I wonder how you are going about that. Do they come to your house in Alabama so you can get into their faces? How many trips have you actually made to DC to talk to your reps? Apparently a lot, according to your rhetoric.
And I surely do think you are anti NRA, in spite of what you say. That is your privilege in our country. You have the freedom to voice your opinion about any topic, but apparently you don't allow others the save privilege, if they disagree with you or question your opinions.
Oh well, I never expected more.
Someone posed a question, even though it was in a rather heated manner. Someone else answered it truthfully, giving doggone good reason for their answer.
I often wonder what makes people so narrow-minded that they resort to dissing everyone who is not like them, or those who don't follow in their footsteps... Why can't you give someone the benefit of the doubt, and applaud people for what they are doing, instead of cutting them down when they honestly give an answer to a question.
How immature! I think you've had the wind knocked out of your sails, because the NRA isn't quite the upfront and honest organization you've thought, and like a child, you strike out blindly, because you don't know what else to do.
Seems to me like you could better spend your energy telling Wayne LaPierre why people aren't flocking to his organization like you think they should, instead of shooting the messenger that did the research.
I often wonder what makes people so narrow-minded that they resort to dissing everyone who is not like them, or those who don't follow in their footsteps... Why can't you give someone the benefit of the doubt, and applaud people for what they are doing, instead of cutting them down when they honestly give an answer to a question.
How immature! I think you've had the wind knocked out of your sails, because the NRA isn't quite the upfront and honest organization you've thought, and like a child, you strike out blindly, because you don't know what else to do.
Seems to me like you could better spend your energy telling Wayne LaPierre why people aren't flocking to his organization like you think they should, instead of shooting the messenger that did the research.
BluesStringer
Les Brers
Are you referring to this?
Are you aware that the above is a quote from the NRA's own website, and that Fellenzer included it in her piece to illustrate that, out of their own mouths, support for "many" gun control laws is verifiable? I don't see where she "lambastes" them in any way over felons' gun restrictions, she just included the whole quote of the piece that was on NRA's site and that was but a small part of it.
The only other reference that I found to criminals having guns is when she was talking about "Project Safe Neighborhoods" that the NRA helped produce, when she said this about it:
Is that the "lambasting" to which you refer? Come on man, I have no problem with you critiquing the piece, but as you decry what you think may have been intentional hyperbole on her part, you blow up any semblance of proportion concerning what she said about one-among-many subjects she commented on with hyperbole of your own. She neither lambasted them nor even criticized the laws concerning felons and guns, she simply quoted their own words in its entirety. Following her quote of that NRA posting from their site, she did criticize several aspects of it, but no mention of restrictions on felons was among those criticisms.
That said, since you brought up the subject, I will lambaste the brainless policy of restricting felons, no matter the nature of their crime, from having guns.
It could be that this year we will all have to choose between being felons or turning in some (or all?) of our guns. While many still inexplicably see that as a far-fetched case of paranoia, just for the sake of argument, let's assume it's not. What are you going to do, become an as-yet unconvicted felon, or turn 'em in? And either way, no matter what you decide, do you still have the right to defend yourself and your family? If you kept your weapons, would you expose yourself to felony charges in order to exercise that right? And once you do and subsequently become a convicted felon, are you any less entitled to defend yourself and your family once you get out?
See, the logic of accepting any excuse from government for denying any God-given, fundamental, natural rights of all people, falls apart at some point. A tax-evading felon who never held a gun in his life is certainly entitled to defend himself and his family after serving his debt to society as far as I'm concerned. But he won't be allowed to because We, The People, have accepted government's excuse to trample our natural rights by denying all felons access to guns.
As far as the violent felons, while I understand the propensity to think them undeserving of the same natural rights as all people are codified by our founding documents to have been born with, my question is this: If they are still so un-rehabilitated when they get released that they can't enjoy the same rights as everyone else, then why are we releasing them? Do we deny them any other rights? I guess for at least some period of time, they are on probation and subject to unannounced searches etc., but eventually their rights are all restored except one, and that's the only one which allows them to defend themselves against the same usurping government that denies them the right!
Whatever. So you scrutinized the Fellenzer piece and found it lacking. It was hardly the only link I gave to help you understand the answer(s) to your original question. Nor was denial of felons' rights the only rationale that Fellenzer used to support her conclusions, which I contend, she didn't use at all anyway.
What about the incestuous relationship between BATF and the NRA?
What about the NRA fighting against Heller and then elbowing their way into McDonald, only to argue a weaker 2nd Amendment stand than the winning arguments of Gura and his team?
What about the high-level NRA officers who have admitted proudly that they and their organization have always supported gun control?
What about the NRA's most egregious betrayal of gun owners when they supported the NFA of '34, as well as directly participating in authoring and supporting every major piece of gun control legislation since then, including even working with the Brady Campaign in some instances?
The support she offered was for the premise that God-given, fundamental, natural rights are inborn in all people.
My position is that everyone who will fight against tyranny is my ally, ex-felon or not. And everyone, regardless of their status regarding being a felon, has the God-given, fundamental, natural right to fight against tyranny. Being as that is the bottom-line rationale for the 2nd Amendment's inclusion in the Bill of Rights, then government has no authority to deny them that right. I think Ms. Fellenzer might agree, but I couldn't verify that from reading the piece I linked to, because she spent no time at all talking about the subject, and only included a single reference to the subject in a quote from the NRA's website, offering no further comment of her own on it.
I find your dissembling of only one aspect of Fellenzer's piece to be purposeful avoidance of the mountain of evidence you've been offered to answer your questions openly and honestly.
Quote her saying that. You can't, because she said no such thing.
Quote where she implies that. You can't, because she implied no such thought. You're just making stuff up now. She quoted the "Armed Females of America's" mission statement, in which was stated:
Perhaps that is where you got the "toddler" BS from. Perhaps that's where you rationalize that Fellenzer's piece was so focused on felons having access to guns that literally ignoring the whole rest of what she said was warranted, but whatever delusion prevented you from actually seeing, reading and comprehending what you were reading, the above quote is not comprised of Fellenzer's own words. They are a quotation of someone else's words.
The only thing Ms. Fellenzer said directly about the above quote was this:
So what about that do you disagree with? Have the actions of the NRA been antithetical to the mission statement of the AFA? Have the NRA constantly and consistently pandered to power-hungry politicians? Has the NRA's support for the NFA and many other gun control laws compromised away our God-given rights? Has the NRA sought and gained political clout in return for those compromises?
Last question: Is there ever a point at which you will agree with Ms. Fellenzer that enough is enough?
I guess not. Pffft....
Blues
BluesStringer
Les Brers
Doing what? It's easy to say you're doing something on an internet forum while you're dismissively taking note of how easy it is for someone else to say they're doing something on an internet forum. So what are you doing besides giving the NRA money to do things for you? Details man, details.
I said I go to them. I hope you shoot better than you read.
Be specific about the time period you're inquiring about, and I'll at least try to make an honest estimate. I'll say this, in the last 10 - 12 years it's been in the neighborhood of five trips to DC, not all on gun issues, but all as a part of my activist activities. I have linked to my review of one of those trips several times on these forums. If I recall correctly, one of those links was in reply to you as you, again, dismissively questioned the veracity of my statements about activism. At least you're consistent. I just wish your memory were better.
But you're not asking a serious question, are you? I could say whatever I wanted to say, and unless I provided you with hotel receipts, pictures etc., you could be as dismissive of my efforts as you're being here in this post. Your lack of reading comprehension skills is showing once again. I said in my last reply to you, "but I'll not justify myself to someone who thinks they are qualified to question me about it just because I choose to do it in a different way than they do. In other words, go pound sand."
So go pound sand.
Which proves the prescient nature of what I just said, no matter what I might say in reply to you, you will decide whether I am truthful or not.
So go pound sand.
Actually, that is my right. That's the problem with you globalist establishment Republican anti-freedom hacks, you don't know the difference between a right and a privilege.
So go pound sand.
I neither have the power nor the inclination to allow or disallow you to express your opinions, as brainless, offensive and anti-freedom as they may be. I simply have the ability to respond to them and expose them for what they are.
So go pound sand.
Nor did I. I never expect a hack to act as anything other than a hack, hack.
Blues
tricolordad
Banned
Watch the Muslim moonwalk
1911 Headbanger
Leave Me Alone!!!
Firefighterchen
OC for Tactical Advantage
Nice rebuttal..Oh wait...never mind that wasn't even close to an educated response, I sincerely hope blues doesn't waste any of his time on a response to you. You obviously have no valid argument against what he brought up, so we will just chalk it up to a minority of gun owners being part of different herd of sheep...Congratulations...
Rhino
New member
You can go on their web site and opt out of getting all that stuff in the mail. It doesn't eliminate absolutely all of it, but it does reduce it quite a bit.
