It has always seemed incongruous to me that so many gun-owners in jurisdictions where their rights are all but denied by the state, seem to think that the N R A is effective at protecting their rights. If they were effective, then how would their rights get so thoroughly trampled upon like they are in NJ, CT, NY, MD, CA, DC, IL, and several other highly-restrictive states, as well as somewhat lesser ways of trampling in all but maybe three or four states in the nation?
You posted this on 2/10/14. The lawsuit
[from CA] was filed in something like Feb 2010. So where was the NRA? They were in court
[in CA].
I've already told you that I'm not going to allow you to pull this off-topic into a discussion about the 9th Circuit ruling. If you want to continue to make a fool of yourself on that score,
go here. I will not discuss it here.
And are you going to stop ignoring this?
Here's a list of cases in New Jersey that the NRA is helping fund:
Civil Rights Legal Defense Fund - Current Litigation
I have not ignored it. I read every single word of it the day he posted, but the fact is, it doesn't really address or counter anything I've said in this thread. Look at the words I put in bold of my own words that you're supposedly replying to. It was
effectiveness that I was addressing, not just simple
activity that never gets states like NJ out of the tyrannical morass they've been stuck in for decades. I'm not criticizing rt48 for posting it. As far as I can tell, he was trying to reply on-topic to my concerns in good faith (unlike you, Warbirds). But as many questions are raised by that list as are answered. It demonstrates activity to be sure (which I have never claimed the N R A was devoid of), but for a list of cases where your (members') money is going, there is exactly
zero accounting of what monies come from the N R A in those cases, how much comes from the complainants or aggrieved parties, how much came from defense funds and local .orgs - literally not a word about how much influence the N R A's involvement in those cases mattered at all,
if at all. Also, many of the cases resulted in a loss, which only buttresses my point that the N R A is ineffective.
So I didn't ignore the post, I simply refrained from replying to it because it didn't provide any information about the N R A's
effectiveness, which was quite clearly the only criticism I raised, and which you have so obsessed over and exaggerated beyond any semblance of honest discourse. What I said about the .org that you're such a quisling sycophant of is that they are
ineffective. Show me a state (or the whole country) whose laws have significantly changed for the better
because of the activities of the N R A. With all of those cases at the link you say I ignored, and which you claim represent huge contributions to winning rights back for NJ, what has changed in NJ as a result of those cases? If the answer is either nothing, or it's actually gotten worse for gun-owners there, then my criticism of
ineffectiveness is completely validated.
On the other hand, I also said that I support the Second Amendment Foundation, both financially and whenever talking about the most
effective gun-rights .orgs. In less than only six years, SAF has taken
three cases all the way to the Supreme Court. They've
won both that have been heard, and Drake is pending. N R A
fought against bringing Heller, and has
never gotten a case anywhere near the Supreme Court, much less ever had a record of two-for-two wins. Those wins positively effect
every single gun-owner's rights in the entire country. That's called
effectiveness.
The question posed in the OP is "Where is the N R A..."
in New Jersey? If nothing's changed for the gun-owners there, then that list of unaccounted-for expenditures does absolutely nothing to answer the question. Telling the questioner the truth, that N R A is notoriously
ineffective, does answer the question.
You're not very good at this thing called "discussion" Warbirds.
I also said that I've heard too much "reasonable gun control" speak from the N R A. Please, without going on another rant, do you deny that they have used that (and similar phrases) line many times when "negotiating" with lawmakers? Please do a little research before knee-jerking the (honest) answer to that question. I really feel sorry for you that you can't seem to avoid making such a fool of yourself while manifesting your sycophancy.
Next.
Blues