NRA wimps cowering and backpedaling in N.O again!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Status
Not open for further replies.

hillbilly

Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2003
Messages
3,165
Location
Iowa
The NRA sucks!

What do they think they're going to accomplish by looking for people who had their guns confiscated in New Orleans???

Do they actually think they might file a big lawsuit based on facts and evidence and testimony????

:rolleyes:

It's too bad the NRA isn't more like the GOA.

I mean when somebody tries to confiscate guns, the GOA issues angry press releases immediately!!!!

The GOA doesn't waste time assessing the situation, gathering facts and evidence, or formulating a plan!!!!!!!! They DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT by issuing angry press releases right then and there!!!!!

Everybody knows how much legislation the GOA has gotten passed or killed off lately.

That's why the GOA can afford to not waste any time and just hammer the bejeezus out of gun-grabbers with those 230 grain, full-metal-jacket press releases!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Because the GOA is a juggernaut!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

See this link and article for proof of what a bunch of cowering, sniveling, worthless, idiots the NRA is!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



http://www.nraila.org/currentlegislation/read.aspx?ID=1741

NRA ON THE GROUND IN LOUISIANA


Friday, September 16, 2005

As was reported last week, in the wake of unspeakable crimes perpetrated by roving, armed gangs and individuals, authorities in New Orleans seized legal firearms from lawful residents, effectively disarming the very citizenry they are sworn to protect.

On Monday, NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre, and NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris W. Cox slammed New Orleans authorities for this incredible action.

“What we’ve seen in Louisiana-the breakdown of law and order in the aftermath of disaster-is exactly the kind of situation where the Second Amendment was intended to allow citizens to protect themselves, ” LaPierre said. “For state, local, or federal government to disarm these good people in their own homes using the threat of imminent deadly force, is unthinkable.”

“The NRA will not stand by while guns are confiscated from law-abiding people who’re trying to defend themselves,” Cox said. “We’re exploring every legal option available to protect the rights of lawful people in New Orleans.”

To that end, NRA has put professional investigators to work on the ground in New Orleans and surrounding areas. News stories and members’ detailed accounts have been followed up on, but we need more information. Some of our best leads have come from rank and file law enforcement, but we need to hear from all directly affected citizens.

If you have personally had a gun confiscated in Louisiana since Hurricane Katrina hit, please call (888) 414-6333. Be prepared to leave only your name and immediate contact information so we can get back to you. Once again, we are seeking contact information from actual victims of gun confiscation in Louisiana only.
 
Anybody know what the blissninnies (aka Brady bunch, Feinstein and company) have been saying about this?

They seem wonderfully quiet so far.
 
Spot77
Anybody know what the blissninnies (aka Brady bunch, Feinstein and company) have been saying about this?
-----------------------------------------------------------------

They don't have to say anything.
They are just sitting back laughing while gun owners do their work for them, whining and complaining about the NRA.

If half of the whiners would join, support and direct the NRA the organization would have enough clout to push through legislation instead of having to compromise most of the time.

But it's so much easier to sit on the side lines whining how an organization, that they are too cheap and lazy to support, is letting them down. :mad:
 
I wonder what you wanted the NRA to do? Or for that matter, the GOA.

Somehow I think getting a quick preliminary injunction would have been impossible, so legal action was foreclosed.

You then have the political and PR means of action. Both of those paths need to be embarked on with care. The NRA appears to be doing so, let's see what comes of this.
 
chill out

Man Hillbilly your are realy devoting a lot of energy to hateing someone. If you and others like you were to dedicate that much energy to solving the problem we could have ccw in every state in the U.S. :what:
 
Reading messages here and elsewhere from G.O.A. members like that has been very useful to me. What I see from those messages is that Gun Owners of America is a loose cannon that attracts loose cannons. G.O.A. evidently is interested more in destroying the National Rifle Association than in accomplishing any lasting goals for gun owners. G.O.A. is divisive.

Until I saw messages like the one that began this thread--and others of a similar nature--I would not have believed that there were many people who actually believed that irrational behavior and uncontrolled rage could be a desirable strategy for achieving a goal. It is irresponsible to advocate wild overreactions based on gossip, rumors, and ignorance. I've seen enough of these messages by G.O.A. zealots to realize that they are the kinds of people to whom G.O.A. appeals.

These people evidently prefer to act emotionally without bothering to learn what really happened and seem unable to distinguish between what is real and what is little more than rumor based on other people's over-reactions. They don't even care. They like to react without thinking, following the lead of an organization that seems to advocate immediate responses to shadowy situations. A strategy that values ignorance and advocates unrestrained emotional tantrums is irresponsible and does great harm to everyone. I understand better why the anti-gun people think so badly of us all and don't believe we can control ourselves or think we can be trusted with firearms.

Never count me or my family as members of Gun Owners of America. That kind of organization does not represent us and never will.

---------

I've looked at other messages posted by "Hillbilly" in this forum and now I wonder if the message he posted to start this thread is supposed to be satire. If so, what I wrote above might be tribute to its success.
 
attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • sarcasm.gif
    sarcasm.gif
    341 bytes · Views: 1,175
Hillbilly:

Sarcasm appears to be lost on some. So much for subtle.

Matt
NRA member (and soon, certified instructor!)
 
Man Hillbilly your are realy devoting a lot of energy to hateing someone. If you and others like you were to dedicate that much energy to solving the problem we could have ccw in every state in the U.S.

Well said.
 
Hillbilly:

Sarcasm appears to be lost on some. So much for subtle.

Matt
NRA member (and soon, certified instructor!)

There are quite a few similar messages posted in this forum. I wonder now if I've missed their subtle sarcasm too?

I suppose that I don't need to point out that my message was satirical too. :cool:
 
Some of you people genuinely scare me with your lack of sense of humor and understanding of the English language.


Hillbilly, I'm cracking up watching what you've started here.... too funny :D
 
Well, blistering press releases have their place, but the slow, patient work of documenting and taking testimony to provide ironclad political ammunition is precisely in the NRA's sweet spot.

I have no doubt that this political ammunition will be used for maximum effect.

Or perhaps we expected Wayne & Co to put on cammo facepaint, grab an AR, and skydive into NOLA?
 
In my senior year of college I wrote a (what I thought was very, very sarcastic) satirical piece about how "great" the Clinton administration was. None of the students got it. Pretty freightening.
 
The NRA sucks!

What do they think they're going to accomplish by looking for people who had their guns confiscated in New Orleans???

Do they actually think they might file a big lawsuit based on facts and evidence and testimony????

It's too bad the NRA isn't more like the GOA.

I mean when somebody tries to confiscate guns, the GOA issues angry press releases immediately!!!!
Before the NRA can act on behalf of confiscation victms, they have to have names, places, dates, weapons seized, etc. of people who have been harmed by the confiscation policies of the city of New Orleans.

Angry press releases sound impressive, but they are essentially ignored by the city officials who have bigger fish to fry. City officials only respond to claims for damages, or service of civil process in a Tort action.

Pilgrim
 
In every reallY Witty piece of sarcasmmm there is either intonation (when verbal) or use of certain catch :cool: phrases (when written) to make it appear somewhat :uhoh: sarcastic. The original post in this thread just seemed like another ranting :fire: gunatic just shooting off his wad. No offense meant, but if it was mmmeant as sarcasm it was hard to tell for someone who: did not know the author, did not know the writing style and did not see any evidence of the subtle sarcasm like reference to how much legilation HAs gotten paSSed by GOA lately and SOooo on. LOL.

Now honestly, I imagine them slamming back with a few good lawsuits is just what is needed in today's world.
 
Robert Hairless- So your sarcasm was satirical? ...Are you being sarcastic?

My grasp of the English language is so tenuous that I don't know if I'm being sarcastic. It's even hard for me to know when I'm being satirical. I read and learn but my reading skills are so evidently weak and I am well aware that my learning therefore must be small and unreliable. That is why I come to sit at the feet of those who know much. But now I wonder what of my reading is meant to be taken literally, what is masterful satire, and what is merely showing off without regard for the effect it might have on innocents and lamers like me. Those are the consequences of an ineffective education and for them I hope to be pardoned by people with generous spirits. I am committed to learning. And I feel the love.
 
Sadly, I am not surprised at all that this went right over so many people's heads. I just got "reprimanded" for sending out a somewhat similar (not the same subject) email at work that "offended several people"--irony, satire, etc are just lost on most people these days. Just one of many reasons I prefer my dog...
 
Robert Hairless- My grasp of the English language is so tenuous that I don't know if I'm being sarcastic. It's even hard for me to know when I'm being satirical.

Ok, Now I gotta put on my waders...
Getting a LEEETle deep :evil:
 
Hillbilly is serious. He expects more from them. Although the NRA gets down to the root of the gun politics they do dilly dally too much, and constantly ask for contributions they haven't shown they're worthy of receiving. If you want my hard earned $$$, I'm not going to give it to you for nothing. This makes no sense! No, if you're going to make promises, commit to them! If you're in the business of protecting the rights of others, commit to that! Attack and be swift about it! "Ho Ho Ho ... Let them eat cake!", coming from the mouths of the NRA fat cats, while they stuff their mouths with surf & turf, has never sat well with the hard working, generous, middle class.
 
No he's highly sarcastic, clearly (pro-NRA). But actually, both the NRA and GOA 'suck' on this issue, as they BOTH should have filed lawsuits the SAME DAY that this stuff happened. But particularly the NRA, with their abundant resources and lawyers. So, Hillbilly, they do suck; only slightly more than GOA. At least GOA shot out said angry press releases faster, which is *something*.

You don't need all the facts gathered up in order to get an injunction when you have the friggin mayor of the town stating on video that "only police will be allowed to have guns" - that is an order of complete disarmament contrary to the 2A. And people will be DYING as a result of that disarmament, in all likelihood, so immediate, URGENT action is called for - not gathering of facts and evidence. THAT video is plenty enough evidence, along with the anecdotal evidence, to form the basis of an ATTEMPT at an injuction against further disarmament/confiscation. The burden of proof in a TRO (injuction) is that severe irrevocable harm will accrue if the injunction is not granted, and the burden of the liklihood of the harm is not beyond all doubt, beyond reasonable doubt, or anything of the sort - it's by a preponderance of the evidence. We *certainly* had enough to *attempt* to get an injuction from a court prohibiting authorities from attempting, starting, or continuing to disarmament (and it could be followed up with the phrase "if they are in fact so disarming"). Yet the gun groups did NOTHING (virtually). It's shameful, really.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top