"I'll consider rejoining if the Ted Nugent faction of the NRA takes over at the next board election."
And I'll be getting my two kids life memberships.
Posted on 04/24/2005 6:35:03 PM PDT by llevrok
Conservative Radio is reporting that groups like the NRA are not supporting breaking the so-called senate "filabuster" so as not to upset democratic senators who have supported the NRA in the past.
Nice work!
Dwar Kok
I appreciate your reposnse but not your tone.
FYI - This is not a Christian issue. This is a constitutional issue, Troll.
That's for sure. One former NRA member, current GOA and LEAA member here.
Examples? Carson in Oklahoma, of course, at the expense of Tom Coburn, and don't forget our friend Howard Dean who got an A rating from the NRA despite his later to be revealed liberal psychosis. The aforementioned situation in New Jersey is another example, along with the Republican primary for the US Senate where the NRA supported the incumbent sleaze Arlen Specter over his more principled and conservative challenger, (I forget his name, someone help me out here) who lost by a few hundred votes.
In Coburn's case, there are SOME who believe the NRA witheld their support from him because he's unpopular in Washington. (In other words, religious, principled and disinclined to "play ball".)
And it's a shame, because they have done so much for the gunowners of america at times.
I'll consider rejoining if the Ted Nugent faction of the NRA takes over at the next board election.
---there is something known as political reality---the NRA has to operate in that sphere--not the dream world of the "no compromise" GOA or the JPFO, neither of which can get more than one vote in the House and none in the Senate without the NRA doing the work---
"I'll consider rejoining if the Ted Nugent faction of the NRA takes over at the next board election."
And I'll be getting my two kids life memberships.
I've got your "Political Reality" right here - half of my expired NRA card, the other half of which went in the chimenea.
And I know others here in Oklahoma who would tell you the same thing.
Here at a time when we could be getting good Constitutionalist judges confirmed, the NRA is opting to not rock the boat. I suppose they're just waiting for the next President so they can play ball with her too.
Thanks for the ping.
--we in the NRA -all four million of us out of a hundred million or so gun owners-will continue to carry you--
I join such organizations, and then I beat on them from the inside to make them work according to my wishes. Mostly the NRA does that for me.
I'm also a member of the GOA, SAF, and other RKBA organizations. I feel that since we are being attacked on multiple fronts, we need to make sure we have enough different agendas in the pro-RKBA fight there to defend and counter on same.
It's one thing for a lay observer not to grasp the fundamental distinction between a legislative filibuster-intended to stall a specific bill wending its way through Congress-and the tactics being used by Chuck Schumer et. al. to stall President Bush's judicial nominees, and by extension, completely negate the U.S. Senate's traditional "advise and consent" function.
However, when I pick up the Sunday edition of the NYT and see an op-ed penned by Ian Duncan Smith-who presumably, should know better-decrying the very notion of this minor legislative reform using the same skewed and inaccurate interpretation, it really makes you start to wonder what's wrong with the way our news media frames issues.
It's one thing for a lay observer not to grasp the fundamental distinction between a legislative filibuster-intended to stall a specific bill wending its way through Congress-and the tactics being used by Chuck Schumer et. al. to stall President Bush's judicial nominees, and by extension, completely negate the U.S. Senate's traditional "advise and consent" function.
However, when I pick up the Sunday edition of the NYT and see an op-ed penned by Ian Duncan Smith-who presumably, should know better-decrying the very notion of this minor legislative reform using the same skewed and inaccurate interpretation, it really makes you start to wonder what's wrong with the way our news media frames issues.
Frames issues? Y'mean, the way they're all partisan shills? ;')
:)
Why I don't believe anything in the media about firearms or explosives --or anything else--
That statement is a LIE. The Republicans did not filibuster any of clinton's nominees. Some of them never got out of committee -- a far cry from a filibuster -- where they can't even get a majority on the committee, let alone on the senate floor. btw, when the GOP MAJORITY blocked certain nominees in the committee, the dems went ballistic insisting that these losers be given a vote on the floor of the senate. Now they have changed their tune and are standing for blocking nominees that they would not have the balls to oppose in an actual vote on the floor. If a vote on the floor were allowed, each of these nominees would enjoy a substantial bi-partisan approval. But the dems obstruct.
Finally, the 10 out of 235 is a misleading statisitical factoid made to keep ignorant folks like you confused. Yes, many lower court nominees have been confirmed. However, these are important positions on the federal circuit courts and each vacancy is considered a judicial crisis, which makes this democrat grandstanding and obstruction even more egregious.
My comment there might have been unnecessarily harsh. It is possible that I misinterpreted your reply to "kotaku" in which it appeared to me that you were agreeing with his nonsense. If my inference from your post was incorrect, please accept my apology for lumping you in with those who are either grossly ignorant or disgusting liars on the issue of the blocked judges and filibusters.
I hope you/we get a reply from the NRA on this rather quickly!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.