It's now or never

Status
Not open for further replies.
"What has the NRA done? The NRA-ILA, sure, but the NRA?"

The NRA set up the NRA-ILA. The NRA is not allowed to do any lobbying directly.

Tim
 
NRA now offers lifetime membership at $25 now, 25 per quarter until the 750 is paid. This is a much less painful way to get a life membership.

GOA offers the same type of thing, but it's $500 and $50 per quarter.
 
What has the NRA done? The NRA-ILA, sure, but the NRA?

I'll take that answer to mean you haven't done anything yourself...other than b***h about the NRA, of course.

What you obviously don't understand is the NRA is basically a single issue organization devoted to education/training in the area of gun safety.

NRA-ILA is the lobbying arm of the NRA. The NRA-ILA is the organization that lobbies not only on the national level, but on state and local levels as well regarding all types of gun issues.

The NRA-ILA is directly supported by the 4 million NRA members. Imagine how much stronger it would be if people, like you, understood how important it was to be a member of the "parent" organization...the NRA.
 
I wonder who Pelosi will blame things on in two years? It really bugs me how she plays the political game and than says she tries to be bipartisan.
 
Atta boy 12131, don't let them pesky facts get in the way of support for your argument.
 
Who gives a crap if you don't like the NRA?

Just do something, anything, as long as you point your momentum in the right direction. Wasting energy arguing with pro-gun people is counterproductive.

Join the NRA, SAF, GOA or whatever. Write letters. Donate.

Just do it.
 
Izaak, keep on topic and temporally in order, your clip was what kicked off the paranoia and we now have Holder getting politically bi**hslapped by both the White House and the Hill.

Did you even read what you posted? The Nile isn't just a river in Egypt.

Pelosi may be one of Obama's handlers but she is not the President. She is only one member among 535. She's Speaker of the House, not the Press Secretary.

Reading is fundamental:
Attorney General Eric Holder raised the prospect Wednesday that the administration would push to bring back the ban. But Pelosi (D-Calif.) indicated on Thursday that he never talked to her. The Speaker gave a flat “no” when asked if she had talked to administration officials about the ban.
Where does it say in there that there isn't one coming or that she opposes one. She merely said that she has not personally spoke to the AG or the WH about it. At most it can only be seen as her unwillingness to discuss a future AWB publicly at the moment. That's some "bitchslapping".:rolleyes:

She most certainly is an advocate of one and so is the WH. Their entire political careers proves it. Obama has never said that he opposes a new AWB. He only promised(during the campaign) that he doesn't want "to take away your pistol, rifle, or shotgun" which can be upheld by only allowing "sporting arms" to be kept at sanctioned shooting clubs since you'll still "have them".

Thanks for voting for Obama and thanks again for excusing for his administration's actions.:(

Keep in order, he says. Apparently we're not allowed to even disagree with what his beloved administration publicly announces. An agent of your administration publicly announcing that the administration is seeking to further violate our Second Amendment right is very much on topic for this forum.
 
RevolvingCylinder

Lets see, since 1994 we have had the AWB die and never get any traction on re-introduction, we have CCW in 48 states, we have Heller, we have cases in multiple jurisdictions to get 2A incorporated etc etc etc.

My God it's a plot I tell you, they're just lulling us into a sense of false security.

Get out of your paranoid denial

Since you were obviously asleep at the back of the class during basic Civics, heres a link to what the Speaker of the House has power over

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speaker_of_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives

If the White House and the Speaker disown statements of the AG then, and I know it attacks your closely held and fondled prejudices, it MEANS that they have no intention of losing power by supporting bills or laws that will cost them.

The words used are the same as when a diplomat says they have had "full and frank discussions" usually a prelude to airstrikes.


An agent of your administration publicly announcing that the administration is seeking to further violate our Second Amendment right is very much on topic for this forum.

A partial truth without factual rebuttal is very much off topic for this forum.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top