 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeArticlesDiving DestinationsLearning Scuba DivingMarine LifeMiscellaneousDiscussion GroupsGeneralScuba EquipmentScuba LocationsAustralian ScubaUK ScubaDirectoryScuba Clubs |
Scuba Forum / General / December 2007An interesting take on NRA fundraising
The view of a former NRA insider of the NRA agenda... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/14/AR2007121401328. html?hpid=opinionsbox1 gc >The view of a former NRA insider of the NRA agenda... > >http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/14/AR2007121401328. html?hpid=opinionsbox1 Oops. Hard to believe that Ben Hur would stand still for that kind of thing. JF > >The view of a former NRA insider of the NRA agenda... > >http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/14/AR2007121401328. html?hpid=opinionsbox1 > > Oops. Hard to believe that Ben Hur would stand still for that kind of > thing. f.ck you are stupid. Both you old sots. ************************ INSTITUTE FOR LEGISLATIVE ACTION NRA Office of the Executive Director CHRIS W.COX The Honorable Alberto R. Gonzales Attorney General of the United States United States Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530-0001 Dear Mr. Attorney General: April 30, 2007 On behalf of the millions of members of the National Rifle Association of America, I am writing about the Department of Justice's legislative proposal, now introduced by Senator Frank Lautenberg as S. 1237, that would allow arbitrary denial of Second Amendment rights based on mere "suspicions" of a terrorist threat. NRA members stand second to no one in our support of the global war on terrorism and our condemnation of terrorists. Thousands of our members have fought our common enemies in Afghanistan and Iraq. Thousands more protect our country as federal, state and local law enforcement officers, firefighters, and other emergency personnel. We are equally committed to defending and protecting freedom in America. That's why NRA members oppose depriving law-abiding Americans of their constitutional rights without due process of law. Yet that is precisely what this bill would do, by allowing any Attorney General to deny firearm purchases, licenses and permits based only on secret "suspicions," no matter how derived or spelled out. As Doll's letter in support of the draft bill makes clear, federal agents may want to allow some firearm sales to go forward, in order to place a suspect under close surveillance without tipping him or her off. We have no problem with that legitimate investigative tactic. But where the prospective buyer poses such a danger that a firearm sale should be denied, that person should be arrested, prosecuted and, if found guilty, imprisoned. The bill's only nod to due process is that it allows an appeal. Yet even that process is deeply flawed; denied buyers would have to appeal a denial based on "summaries or redacted versions of documents." That may be enough information to tip off a real terrorist about the government's suspicions, and it is not enough information for a wrongfully denied, innocent American citizen seeking to clear his or her name. In the past, congressional sponsors of similar legislation have claimed it is akin to the government's "no-fly" list, to laws that screen visa applicants, or to laws that allow detention of suspected terrorists. The similarities are not reassuring, as those systems have many errors. Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.), Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), and then-House Transportation Committee chairman Don Young (R-Alaska), for example, have all been shocked to find themselves on the Transportation Security Administration's "no fly" list. And there are critical differences, which are no less troubling. When we block a suspected terrorist from flying on a commercial plane, or from entering the U.S. on a visa, we are not restricting a constitutional right. Most importantly, when suspected terrorists are detained, they are taken out of circulation and put in places where they cannot harm innocent Americans. This legislation fails to address the fact that terrorist "suspects" denied a legal firearm purchase would simply be turned away, and allowed to roam the streets undeterred. As many of our friends in law enforcement have rightly pointed out, the word "suspect" has no legal meaning, particularly when it comes to denying constitutional liberties. The American people have no idea how many individuals are currently on terrorism "watch lists", nor the circumstances under which a person is added to or removed from these lists. Denying rights without legal justification, based on little more than "suspicions" and "secret evidence", is an affront to our Constitution and Bill of Rights. We urge you to reconsider and oppose this proposal, and we urge Congress to reject it. We stand ready to work together on ways to keep America safe while at the same time protecting the constitutional freedoms of law-abiding Americans. Sincerely, Chris W. Cox Executive Director cc: The Honorable Richard B. Cheney The Honorable Harry Reid The Honorable Mitch McConnell The Honorable Nancy Pelosi The Honorable John Boehner The Honorable Patrick Leahy The Honorable Arlen Specter The Honorable John Conyers The Honorable Lamar Smith The Honorable Frank Lautenberg > > <george.cathc...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 107 lines] > The Honorable Lamar Smith > The Honorable Frank Lautenberg That's old news, Scott, and just how does it address the points raised in the Washington Post piece? gc > > > <george.cathc...@gmail.com> wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 110 lines] > That's old news, Scott, and just how does it address the points > raised in the Washington Post piece? Real simple. Now, to treat you all in kind, why don't you tell Us what your take on the Washington Post piece was? > > > "JOF" <jofran...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 150 lines] > Now, to treat you all in kind, why don't you tell Us what your take on the > Washington Post piece was? Not sure what your answer was to my question, but I'll give this a shot, in all seriousness. First, the author is not anti-gun. He's a former NRA insider who still lobbies for second amendment rights, so this is not an attack on guns or gun owners. On the contrary, his concern is that the NRA is less interested in actually solidifying its hard and fast interpretation of the Second Amendment than it is in promoting the notion that the Second Amendment is under threat. By doing so, the NRA raises a lot of money and pays its staff very well to write letters and have parties for Congressmen and all the other things lobbyists do. But in the end, it doesn't want to eliminate the threat, because that would eliminate the NRA's reason for being. This is identical to the notion advanced by people on both the left and the right several years ago that the Republican party does not want to "solve" the issues that social conservatives worry so much about: abortion, immigration, prayer in schools, and RKBA. They don't want to overturn Roe v. Wade, they just want to keep people pissed off about it. They promise to do something about it, but if they really do, the anti-abortion folks will suddenly realize they have little or nothing in common with the GOP leadership. The GOP was clever enough to seize on the social conservative's agenda during the 90s, and they built a pretty strong base by doing so. But if they were now able to outlaw abortion, send all the illegal immigrants home, mandate school prayer, outlaw the teaching of evolution and do away with all gun restrictions, what would be left? This line of thinking came up a lot when Bush was putting people on the Supreme Court. Regardless of anything else, the last thing he wants is a court that will overturn Roe v. Wade or throw out all the gun laws. The GOP does this for votes. The author of the Post piece is saying the NRA is doing the same thing for money. Is it true? Well, let's see how the DC gun case turns out. I'll bet it's a 5-4 decision, and it could go either way, depending on how the justices feel about established precedent. So, seriously, I'm interested in the reaction of those who pay NRA dues and maybe make additional contributions. Do the suggestions in this piece disturb you at all? gc >>>>"JOF" <jofran...@gmail.com> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 251 lines] > > gc Yes, they do, and it is a good point that can be taken for anything. Democrats and 'entitlements" ,helping the "poor", etc. I made similar statements about the folks who promote the concept of man made global warming, for the same reasons. Having said that, there is no other organization that has the power and influence that the NRA does. There are other gun rights advocacy groups, but none with the influence of the NRA that can make the senators and congressmen listen. While they are, at best, an imperfect guardian, they are the best guardian we have. IMO, they are too willing to compromise. Wayne LaPierre is not the best leader for that organization, but he is the leader that they have. Nearly every advocacy group has issues of this sort at one time or another during their existence.  Signature“TANSTAAFL” ____________________________________________________________________________ America: Ironically, the safest place to be anti-American. ____________________________________________________________________________ "A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them; the simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences." - Proverbs 22:3 <el snippo> > So, seriously, I'm interested in the reaction of those who pay NRA > dues and maybe make additional contributions. Do the suggestions in > this piece disturb you at all? The NRA has never gotten a dime of my money. The NRA isnt the political party that turned this into a partisan debate, the party that at every opportunity tries to use lies and obvious projection and fabrication into a partisan podium, the Democrats have. Far left shitbags and socialists have kidnapped the Democrats. While the far left socialists seek to re-define the very constitution that made and keeps them free to run their ignorant, ungrateful mouths about the surly realities of life on Earth, there has to be an opposite. You know, the basic freedoms literally millions of young men fought, killed and died to provide for all humans. Not just Americans. All people. Including Canadians, who couldn't defend their border without American youth. You know, the same American youth they so willingly toss under the Islamic bus. You f.cking a.sholes want to toss all that under the socialist bus because you think it makes you sound cool when you're at the various social functions that have replaced reality and sacrifice for the freedom you all would toss in a heartbeat, as long as those at the table with you at Starbucks suck your wang and assuage your socialist ego. Your freedom and all the freedom of those who post here *owe* their freedom to those who served, those who fought and died in Europe, the South Pacific, and everywhere there lives free people. America did that. Not Italy. Not Germany. Not France. Not Belgium. Not Austria. Not Viet Nam. Not Cambodia. Not Korea. Not Canada. All you parasites live free as you do because of American youth and their belief in freedom. And We go so far as to fight, kill and die so you f.cking shitbags can run your mouths. The reverse would not be true. You all should be ashamed, but We all know why you aren't. You are the little ones We have to look after. > <el snippo> > [quoted text clipped - 63 lines] > > You are the little ones We have to look after. If you're addressing this to me, please keep in mind that I was one of those who fought for this country. Volunteered to go, in fact. And my view of the world today is quite different from yours, clearly. But since my question was addressed to people who have supported the NRA, I'm still waiting for an answer. gc "George Cathcart" <george.cathcart@gmail.com> wrote in message news:2f6ebe65-1055-4d94-896e-> > If you're addressing this to me, No sh.t. > please keep in mind that I was one of > those who fought for this country. Volunteered to go, in fact. And my > view of the world today is quite different from yours, clearly. I volunteered too. Not that it matters to you wise old pelicans. Somehow you old sold-outs think you are cut from a better cloth. > But since my question was addressed to people who have supported the > NRA, I'm still waiting for an answer. I don't support the NRA, as I indicated, in spite of your projection. Francis brags about Shawn being reasonable and lucid so I provided an *old* letter from the NRA which was totally reasonable, at least if you let Francis define "reasonable" for you, which I do not. You are a punk George. A f.cking punk. I'll say it to your face if I ever get the chance, and you cant do sh.t about it, here or there. You sold out your nation, your constitution and your "brothers in arms" to suck up to a f.cking pussy socialist that hasn't the self respect, balls, mud, or character to back 1/1000th of the sh.t he has spewed. You back him, you share his rack. But hey, don't worry, this is all entertainment and by your rules I can just deny and obfuscate what I meant. So, in that light; You're a punk. Any time you wanna do something about that you just let me and everyone here know. You make me sick. > > please keep in mind that I was one of > > those who fought for this country. Volunteered to go, in fact. And my [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Not that it matters to you wise old pelicans. It doesn't matter. There wasn't a war going on and you're volunteering was only to get out of something worse. You're a pussy and a coward. Your entire existence doesn't equal the courage found in one of George's fingernail clippings. A disrespectful scumbag like you would have been "put down" in the old America. Too bad people like George fought for the right for an a.shole idiot like you to run your mouth. I bet he regrets it at times. > Somehow you old sold-outs think you are cut from a better cloth. No, we know we are. It's pretty obvious. > > But since my question was addressed to people who have supported the > > NRA, I'm still waiting for an answer. > > I don't support the NRA, as I indicated, in spite of your projection. You answered when George was asking a question of NRA supporters and then you call it projection that George wants answers from NRA supporters? Surely you can't be that stupid, can you? Maybe it's syphilitic brain decay? That I could believe. > You are a punk George. A f.cking punk. Is there a big whoosh going on here? Something going over Scott's pointly little head? What a surprise. > I'll say it to your face if I ever get the chance, and you cant do sh.t > about it, here or there. What a tough guy. I'll say it to your face too, fat boy. You can't do sh.t about it either since you're a big pussy. > You sold out your nation, your constitution and your "brothers in arms" to > suck up to a f.cking pussy socialist that hasn't the self respect, balls, > mud, or character to back 1/1000th of the sh.t he has spewed. George fought for our country. You sure didn't. I'll stick with George. > Any time you wanna do something about that you just let me and everyone here > know. > You make me sick. And here I thought it was all the booze. > > > please keep in mind that I was one of > > > those who fought for this country. Volunteered to go, in fact. And my [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > > And here I thought it was all the booze. Thanks Greg. You put a lot more time and energy into that than I thought it deserved, but I appreciate your comments about me. Scott, seriously, I feel very sorry for you. I hope some day you will understand why. gc > Thanks Greg. You put a lot more time and energy into that than I > thought it deserved, but I appreciate your comments about me. > > Scott, seriously, I feel very sorry for you. I hope some day you will > understand why. I don't need sympathy from you or your towel boy. Save it for yourselves. > Thanks Greg. You put a lot more time and energy into that than I > thought it deserved, but I appreciate your comments about me. Sometimes you have to get your hands dirty when dealing with a nasty mess and there's no nastier mess than Scott. I hate wearing gloves. > Scott, seriously, I feel very sorry for you. I hope some day you will > understand why. I bow to your empathy. >> <el snippo> >> [quoted text clipped - 70 lines] >But since my question was addressed to people who have supported the >NRA, I'm still waiting for an answer. I'm not a member of the NRA, but I have a bit of lobbying experience with a pretty powerful body. It's important for a strong lobby to have good leadership, and these days good people don't come cheap. Perhaps a million bucks a year isn't too much to pay for a quality lobbyist or organizer? It's arguable you'd never get anyone for say $100K who'd be able to handle the reins of something this big. JF >>><el snippo> >>> [quoted text clipped - 79 lines] > > JF I agree. There was some controversy about the Red Cross a few years ago, and their upper management's pay rates. They said the same thing as you just did. Few people are willing to go and work at that level without being well compensated for their time. To a certain extent, you get what you pay for. Signature“TANSTAAFL” ____________________________________________________________________________ America: Ironically, the safest place to be anti-American. ____________________________________________________________________________ "A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them; the simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences." - Proverbs 22:3 > I agree. There was some controversy about the Red Cross a few years ago, > and their upper management's pay rates. They said the same thing as you [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > To a certain extent, you get what you pay for. He's just trying to obfuscate all the bigotry and insanity he has been *Busted* preaching from the socialist podium. As usual, John doesn't want to pay the price, he is happy to let someone else foot the bill, and then blame them for being stupid enough to defend sh.t like him. > I'm not a member of the NRA, but I have a bit of lobbying experience > with a pretty powerful body. It's important for a strong lobby to have > good leadership, and these days good people don't come cheap. Perhaps a > million bucks a year isn't too much to pay for a quality lobbyist or > organizer? It's arguable you'd never get anyone for say $100K who'd be > able to handle the reins of something this big. But at a million bucks a year, it's not in the person's self interest to be completely successful... He would like to be able to milk this job for as long as possible, so he might decide that all he really needs to do is get enough accomplished (or make people believe that he's accomplished) so that they don't find someone else for the job... In this example, if he was to get them to repeal every 'law' that came after the only truly constitutional law (i.e. the 2nd Amendment), then he would be out of a job... We can't expect someone like this to do that sort of thing... Only the lower level people in business get to do things like this (e.g. training their outsourcing replacements)... >> I'm not a member of the NRA, but I have a bit of lobbying experience >> with a pretty powerful body. It's important for a strong lobby to have [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >the lower level people in business get to do things like this (e.g. >training their outsourcing replacements)... That's the point the writer is trying to make. It's a catch 22. JF "George Cathcart" <george.cathcart@gmail.com> wrote in message news:2f6ebe65-1055-4d94-896e- > If you're addressing this to me, please keep in mind that I was one of > those who fought for this country. Since you repeatedly mention this, I'd like to respectfully ask for some form of verification. Others here have made the claim, and used it as leverage on their arguments (as you do), and have been found to be frauds. I respect -any- military service, even from a scumbag like you, but I'd have to see it to believe it. Signature"It's not like my life is filled with threatening situations and I wonder how often the assurance of a gun in a pocket incites some guys to go places that are just a little bit dangerous. Me, I'm a coward and avoid scary places to the best of my ability. To you that may be cowardice. To me it's discretion and commonsense. 8) " -JOF Popeye/ www.finalprotectivefire.com On Dec 21, 12:24 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: > "George Cathcart" <george.cathc...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Popeye/www.finalprotectivefire.com What do you want to see? And I would expect you to reciprocate. gc "George Cathcart" <george.cathcart@gmail.com> wrote in message news:721ce9af-8634-43b9-9c8d- > What do you want to see? And I would expect you to reciprocate. I've seen his and he mine. However, neither of us are using our service as a podium to impose legitimacy, proof of superiority or correctness. >"George Cathcart" <george.cathcart@gmail.com> wrote in message >news:721ce9af-8634-43b9-9c8d- > >> What do you want to see? And I would expect you to reciprocate. > >I've seen his and he mine. TMI TMI TMI >However, neither of us are using our service as a podium to impose >legitimacy, proof of superiority or correctness. At the moment, but you've sure blown that horn enough for all Marines, hell, for your entire military. JF >>"George Cathcart" <george.cathcart@gmail.com> wrote in message >>news:721ce9af-8634-43b9-9c8d- [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > TMI TMI TMI That's more of a reflection on you than Scott. Sorry. >>However, neither of us are using our service as a podium to impose >>legitimacy, proof of superiority or correctness. > > At the moment, but you've sure blown that horn enough for all Marines, > hell, for your entire military. Not in regard to gun laws. > JF Signature"It's not like my life is filled with threatening situations and I wonder how often the assurance of a gun in a pocket incites some guys to go places that are just a little bit dangerous. Me, I'm a coward and avoid scary places to the best of my ability. To you that may be cowardice. To me it's discretion and commonsense. 8) " -JOF Popeye/ www.finalprotectivefire.com > Not in regard to gun laws. You know how it is. The cherry on the top of Futiles banana split of inadequacies. On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 14:01:29 -0500, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Popeye@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: >>>"George Cathcart" <george.cathcart@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>news:721ce9af-8634-43b9-9c8d- [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > That's more of a reflection on you than Scott. Sorry. I know. It's sad. I have a gutter sense of humour. >>>However, neither of us are using our service as a podium to impose >>>legitimacy, proof of superiority or correctness. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Not in regard to gun laws. Weren't we talking about the Military just now? Seems the germane bits got snipped. JF > On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 14:01:29 -0500, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" > <Popeye@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > Weren't we talking about the Military just now? Seems the germane bits > got snipped. Then I'm sure you'll provide them. Signature"It's not like my life is filled with threatening situations and I wonder how often the assurance of a gun in a pocket incites some guys to go places that are just a little bit dangerous. Me, I'm a coward and avoid scary places to the best of my ability. To you that may be cowardice. To me it's discretion and commonsense. 8) " -JOF Popeye/ www.finalprotectivefire.com > > Weren't we talking about the Military just now? Seems the germane bits > > got snipped. > Then I'm sure you'll provide them. Is it just me or does the header read: Re: An interesting take on NRA fundraising >> > Weren't we talking about the Military just now? Seems the germane bits >> > got snipped. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Is it just me or does the header read: Re: An interesting take on NRA > fundraising It's that vice-like readi... Never mind. Signature"It's not like my life is filled with threatening situations and I wonder how often the assurance of a gun in a pocket incites some guys to go places that are just a little bit dangerous. Me, I'm a coward and avoid scary places to the best of my ability. To you that may be cowardice. To me it's discretion and commonsense. 8) " -JOF Popeye/ www.finalprotectivefire.com > "George Cathcart" <george.cathc...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > However, neither of us are using our service as a podium to impose > legitimacy, proof of superiority or correctness. What you and he have seen of each other is irrelevant to this. As for your second comment, I have mentioned my military service far less often than either you or Doug, and only to make the point that you do not speak for all veterans. gc > > "George Cathcart" <george.cathc...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > less often than either you or Doug, and only to make the point that > you do not speak for all veterans. Since neither of us ever claimed to speak for all veterans your point is bullshit. >> > "George Cathcart" <george.cathc...@gmail.com> wrote in message >> > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Since neither of us ever claimed to speak for all veterans your point is > bullshit. And that is certainly a point. Signature"It's not like my life is filled with threatening situations and I wonder how often the assurance of a gun in a pocket incites some guys to go places that are just a little bit dangerous. Me, I'm a coward and avoid scary places to the best of my ability. To you that may be cowardice. To me it's discretion and commonsense. 8) " -JOF Popeye/ www.finalprotectivefire.com > > Since neither of us ever claimed to speak for all veterans your point is > > bullshit. > And that is certainly a point. They come looking for a fight, and when they get one, and get the floor mopped with their a.s, they have to try and make it look like the other guy took the first swing, and that it was a Sunday punch. > > > Since neither of us ever claimed to speak for all veterans your point is > > > bullshit. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > mopped with their a.s, they have to try and make it look like the other guy > took the first swing, and that it was a Sunday punch. You got me in stitches with this one, Scott. Thanks for the holiday mirth. You are probably the funniest guy on rec.scuba. gc >> > > Since neither of us ever claimed to speak for all veterans your point is >> > > bullshit. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >You got me in stitches with this one, Scott. Thanks for the holiday >mirth. You are probably the funniest guy on rec.scuba. He is a hoot, isn't he? JF On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 14:11:43 -0500, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Popeye@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: >>> > "George Cathcart" <george.cathc...@gmail.com> wrote in message >>> > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > And that is certainly a point. Keep yer hat on and it won't show. JF >> > "George Cathcart" <george.cathc...@gmail.com> wrote in message >> > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >Since neither of us ever claimed to speak for all veterans your point is >bullshit. Not ever? JF >> "George Cathcart" <george.cathc...@gmail.com> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > less often than either you or Doug, and only to make the point that > you do not speak for all veterans. I've mentioned my service in political threads (rarely, a quick check on "Marines" and "Marine" shows about once a year), but not gun threads. You've mentioned your Vietnam service a minimum of three times in as many months, although that's a guess. I can't think of what bearing my service has on my personal defense philosophy. Besides the natural aggressive tendency of the U.S. Marine, most of my training came when I was in my mid to late 30's. Signature"It's not like my life is filled with threatening situations and I wonder how often the assurance of a gun in a pocket incites some guys to go places that are just a little bit dangerous. Me, I'm a coward and avoid scary places to the best of my ability. To you that may be cowardice. To me it's discretion and commonsense. 8) " -JOF Popeye/ www.finalprotectivefire.com On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 14:10:13 -0500, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Popeye@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: >>> "George Cathcart" <george.cathc...@gmail.com> wrote in message >>> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > Besides the natural aggressive tendency of the U.S. Marine, most of my >training came when I was in my mid to late 30's. Dance, dance, dance. JF > On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 14:10:13 -0500, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" > <Popeye@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > Dance, dance, dance. I checked, and commented. You're the one with the usual spineless and uncited accusation. What a piece of sh.t you are. Signature"It's not like my life is filled with threatening situations and I wonder how often the assurance of a gun in a pocket incites some guys to go places that are just a little bit dangerous. Me, I'm a coward and avoid scary places to the best of my ability. To you that may be cowardice. To me it's discretion and commonsense. 8) " -JOF Popeye/ www.finalprotectivefire.com > I checked, and commented. > > You're the one with the usual spineless and uncited accusation. > > What a piece of sh.t you are. Galactic understatement. > >> "George Cathcart" <george.cathc...@gmail.com> wrote in message > >> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > I can't think of what bearing my service has on my personal defense > philosophy. Well, in JOF's view, that should make you a trained professional, fully capable of volunteering to be an armed guard. > Besides the natural aggressive tendency of the U.S. Marine, most of my > training came when I was in my mid to late 30's. Dennis > Well, in JOF's view, that should make you a trained professional, fully > capable of volunteering to be an armed guard. He was an armed guard in uniform. A United States Marine. Now he is simply an American, having served his time. Being a US Marine doesn't trump the responsibility of being a US citizen, it only enhances. > > Well, in JOF's view, that should make you a trained professional, fully > > capable of volunteering to be an armed guard. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Being a US Marine doesn't trump the responsibility of being a US citizen, it > only enhances. Yep. Dennis > Being a US Marine doesn't trump the responsibility of being a US > citizen, it only enhances. I seem to remember a t-shirt that said something like, "US Citizen by birth, US Marine by grace of god"... > > Being a US Marine doesn't trump the responsibility of being a US > > citizen, it only enhances. > I seem to remember a t-shirt that said something like, "US Citizen by > birth, US Marine by grace of god"... Yeah, cute, but there was nothing graceful about it. Grace is not what comes to mind when one hears "FOALL OUT FOAH PHYSICAL TOARCHAAH!" followed shortly thereafter with "BENDS AND MU-A-FUCKAAHS, BEGIN!" >> >> "George Cathcart" <george.cathc...@gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > Well, in JOF's view, that should make you a trained professional, fully > capable of volunteering to be an armed guard. I already volunteer to be an armed guard. Most of us do. And your point is an excellent one. >> Besides the natural aggressive tendency of the U.S. Marine, most of my >> training came when I was in my mid to late 30's. > > Dennis Signature"It's not like my life is filled with threatening situations and I wonder how often the assurance of a gun in a pocket incites some guys to go places that are just a little bit dangerous. Me, I'm a coward and avoid scary places to the best of my ability. To you that may be cowardice. To me it's discretion and commonsense. 8) " -JOF Popeye/ www.finalprotectivefire.com > >> "George Cathcart" <george.cathcart@gmail.com> wrote in message news:26ca60e3-7513-431e-bc26-01c80358b6a5@p69g2000hsa.googlegroups.com... > >> >> "George Cathcart" <george.cathc...@gmail.com> wrote in message > >> >> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > I already volunteer to be an armed guard. But previously you were unorganized...your name wasn't on ....a......wait a second..... By having a carry permit....you're name is on a list maintained by the state.....which I'm sure could be considered a roster! Volunteering to serve anytime, anywhere (you happen to be) - surely that should be more impressive than doing so at just one designated area at a specific time.... :-) > Most of us do. > > And your point is an excellent one. Thanks! Dennis > in >> > message news:13mo3uc39pctv5e@news.supernews.com... [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > specific time.... > :-) You got it. >> Most of us do. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Dennis Signature"It's not like my life is filled with threatening situations and I wonder how often the assurance of a gun in a pocket incites some guys to go places that are just a little bit dangerous. Me, I'm a coward and avoid scary places to the best of my ability. To you that may be cowardice. To me it's discretion and commonsense. 8) " -JOF Popeye/ www.finalprotectivefire.com > "George Cathcart" <george.cathcart@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:721ce9af-8634-43b9-9c8d- [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > However, neither of us are using our service as a podium to impose > legitimacy, proof of superiority or correctness. That is a point. Signature"It's not like my life is filled with threatening situations and I wonder how often the assurance of a gun in a pocket incites some guys to go places that are just a little bit dangerous. Me, I'm a coward and avoid scary places to the best of my ability. To you that may be cowardice. To me it's discretion and commonsense. 8) " -JOF Popeye/ www.finalprotectivefire.com > On Dec 21, 12:24 pm, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" > <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > What do you want to see? And I would expect you to reciprocate. Do you want me to? There's a picture of me in uniform at Lejuene on my website, my tattoo, and guys here have met my ex-Marine buddies. In a day or two, I can send my HD. Signature"It's not like my life is filled with threatening situations and I wonder how often the assurance of a gun in a pocket incites some guys to go places that are just a little bit dangerous. Me, I'm a coward and avoid scary places to the best of my ability. To you that may be cowardice. To me it's discretion and commonsense. 8) " -JOF Popeye/ www.finalprotectivefire.com >><el snippo> >> [quoted text clipped - 72 lines] > > gc George - thanks for your service I was once a member of the NRA, but haven't been a member for several years. I got pissed when I was suppose to get a hat - never got it - but they sure made sure that I got every request for money ><el snippo> > [quoted text clipped - 63 lines] > >You are the little ones We have to look after. But how 'bout that NRA? JF > The NRA has never gotten a dime of my money. Because you only have a nickel? > The NRA isnt the political party that turned this into a partisan debate, > the party that at every opportunity tries to use lies and obvious projection > and fabrication into a partisan podium, the Democrats have. Far left > shitbags and socialists have kidnapped the Democrats. If there's a kidnapping, why don't you press charges? Or is this more of your lies? > While the far left socialists seek to re-define the very constitution that > made and keeps them free to run their ignorant, ungrateful mouths about the > surly realities of life on Earth, there has to be an opposite. Someone not free, a slave to conservatism mindless propaganda like you? I guess so. > You know, the basic freedoms literally millions of young men fought, killed > and died to provide for all humans. Millions? > Not just Americans. All people. Including Canadians, who couldn't defend > their border without American youth. If you're saying "millions" you must be including all the other "freedom fighters" like nazis, facists, commies, etc. > You know, the same American youth they so willingly toss under the Islamic > bus. The Islamic bus? Can you explain that? Surely you're not suggesting that all Muslims are evil and anti-American, are you? Even you're not that ignorant. > You f.cking a.sholes want to toss all that under the socialist bus because > you think it makes you sound cool when you're at the various social > functions that have replaced reality and sacrifice for the freedom you all > would toss in a heartbeat, as long as those at the table with you at > Starbucks suck your wang and assuage your socialist ego. I thought it was the Islamic bus. Make up your mind. Besides, I go through the drive-thru at Starbucks. Never had my wang sucked there. Maybe the Starbucks in your area are more interesting. > Your freedom and all the freedom of those who post here *owe* their freedom > to those who served, those who fought and died in Europe, the South Pacific, > and everywhere there lives free people. And everywhere there lives free people. And dipshit illiterates too. George served. Unlike you, he actually served in a war rather than as an excuse to do something between high school and adult life besides becoming a criminal delinquent. How do you show your debt to him? > All you parasites live free as you do because of American youth and their > belief in freedom. > > And We go so far as to fight, kill and die so you f.cking shitbags can run > your mouths. We? Since when are you a youth, you old f.ck? It would be nice for you to die for us but we unfortunately know you're all talk. You didn't serve during any war. Your only risk was arm strain from having to do too many pushups and maybe friendly fire from some other grunt you pissed off. Get real. You're a coward and a pussy. In article <2a634e35-2a47-461c-a544- 13c3e6ed227e@l32g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, george.cathcart@gmail.com says... -> -> Now, to treat you all in kind, why don't you tell Us what your take on the -> Washington Post piece was? - -Not sure what your answer was to my question, but I'll give this a -shot, in all seriousness. - -First, the author is not anti-gun. He's a former NRA insider who still -lobbies for second amendment rights, so this is not an attack on guns -or gun owners. - -On the contrary, his concern is that the NRA is less interested in -actually solidifying its hard and fast interpretation of the Second -Amendment than it is in promoting the notion that the Second Amendment -is under threat. By doing so, the NRA raises a lot of money and pays -its staff very well to write letters and have parties for Congressmen -and all the other things lobbyists do. But in the end, it doesn't want -to eliminate the threat, because that would eliminate the NRA's reason -for being. and if this had come from HCI, and it succeeded in making the second amendment more vulnerable, in the illusion that it was more secure... interesting idea. ( of course we all understand that the second is secure, that no one, even kennedy would wish any changes to it, nor would HCI, Brady, feinstein, lautenberg...) Surely you jest. - -This is identical to the notion advanced by people on both the left -and the right several years ago that the Republican party does not -want to "solve" the issues that social conservatives worry so much -about: abortion, immigration, prayer in schools, and RKBA. They don't -want to overturn Roe v. Wade, they just want to keep people pissed off -about it. They promise to do something about it, but if they really -do, the anti-abortion folks will suddenly realize they have little or -nothing in common with the GOP leadership. The GOP was clever enough -to seize on the social conservative's agenda during the 90s, and they -built a pretty strong base by doing so. But if they were now able to -outlaw abortion, send all the illegal immigrants home, mandate school -prayer, outlaw the teaching of evolution and do away with all gun -restrictions, what would be left? This line of thinking came up a lot -when Bush was putting people on the Supreme Court. Regardless of -anything else, the last thing he wants is a court that will overturn -Roe v. Wade or throw out all the gun laws. - -The GOP does this for votes. The author of the Post piece is saying -the NRA is doing the same thing for money. Is it true? Well, let's see -how the DC gun case turns out. I'll bet it's a 5-4 decision, and it -could go either way, depending on how the justices feel about -established precedent. - -So, seriously, I'm interested in the reaction of those who pay NRA -dues and maybe make additional contributions. Do the suggestions in -this piece disturb you at all? - -gc - - SignatureBob Crownfield crownfield@verizon.net > In article <2a634e35-2a47-461c-a544- > 13c3e6ed2...@l32g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, george.cathc...@gmail.com > says... > -On the contrary, his concern is that the NRA is less interested in > -actually solidifying its hard and fast interpretation of the Second [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Surely you jest. Nobody is suggesting that a threat doesn't exist. Of course there are efforts to impose more restrictions on guns. The issue is whether the NRA seriously wants to remove all those threats. The author is suggesting that the NRA is better off if the threats remain in perpetuity, so there will always be something to fight about (and raise money to fight). He contends that the NRA's no compromise stance actually does more harm than good to gun owners in the long run. These are his contentions, not mine. In the same vain, many have argued that Republican politicians don't want to see Roe v. Wade overturned, because that would take away one of their best fund-raising and base holding tactics. If Roe v. Wade were reversed, what's to keep the pro-lifers voting Republican. gc > > In article <2a634e35-2a47-461c-a544- > > 13c3e6ed2...@l32g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, george.cathc...@gmail.com [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > gc The fact that the Democrats would try to get it reinstated? In article <eb1ed694-9cb3-4232-812b- 73bb4234c32b@l32g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, george.cathcart@gmail.com says... -On Dec 21, 9:21 am, crownfield <crownfi...@verizon.net> wrote: -> In article <2a634e35-2a47-461c-a544- -> 13c3e6ed2...@l32g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, george.cathc...@gmail.com -> says... - -> -On the contrary, his concern is that the NRA is less interested in -> -actually solidifying its hard and fast interpretation of the Second -> -Amendment than it is in promoting the notion that the Second Amendment -> -is under threat. By doing so, the NRA raises a lot of money and pays -> -its staff very well to write letters and have parties for Congressmen -> -and all the other things lobbyists do. But in the end, it doesn't want -> -to eliminate the threat, because that would eliminate the NRA's reason -> -for being. -> -> and if this had come from HCI, -> and it succeeded in making the second amendment more vulnerable, -> in the illusion that it was more secure... -> interesting idea. -> -> ( of course we all understand that the second is secure, -> that no one, even kennedy would wish any changes to it, -> nor would HCI, Brady, feinstein, lautenberg...) -> -> Surely you jest. -> - -Nobody is suggesting that a threat doesn't exist. Of course there are -efforts to impose more restrictions on guns. The issue is whether the -NRA seriously wants to remove all those threats. that is one view... - - SignatureBob Crownfield crownfield@verizon.net > He contends that the NRA's no compromise stance >actually does more harm than good to gun owners in the long run. That's the basic argument that got me in trouble here in the first place. The counter is that any show of compromise opens the door to more compromise. In other words, a lack of ethical trust. Nobody seems to understand the term Quid Pro Quo. They all want Quid Pro Zippum. >In the same vain, many have argued that Republican politicians don't >want to see Roe v. Wade overturned, because that would take away one >of their best fund-raising and base holding tactics. If Roe v. Wade >were reversed, what's to keep the pro-lifers voting Republican. I'm surprised no one has mentioned the Pentagon here. It's just a classic political strategem, not dissimilar to the critical office staffer who withholds just enough information to assure some degree of ongoing dependence on him or her? JF >> He contends that the NRA's no compromise stance >>actually does more harm than good to gun owners in the long run. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > more compromise. In other words, a lack of ethical trust. Nobody seems > to understand the term Quid Pro Quo. They all want Quid Pro Zippum. That's your usual lack of accuracy. We've shown you literally hundreds, and arguably thousands, of quids that we pro quo'd. You ignored them as an entirety. Signature"It's not like my life is filled with threatening situations and I wonder how often the assurance of a gun in a pocket incites some guys to go places that are just a little bit dangerous. Me, I'm a coward and avoid scary places to the best of my ability. To you that may be cowardice. To me it's discretion and commonsense. 8) " -JOF Popeye/ www.finalprotectivefire.com >>He contends that the NRA's no compromise stance >>actually does more harm than good to gun owners in the long run. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > more compromise. In other words, a lack of ethical trust. Nobody seems > to understand the term Quid Pro Quo. They all want Quid Pro Zippum. And you fail to realize (or perhaps "acknowledge" would be a better term) that there have been many concessions given to the anti folks, and they then come back a while later asking for more. There is no "give", only "take". But you already knew that, it was part of what I read today when I went over our email correspondence looking for "snarky". Signature“TANSTAAFL” ____________________________________________________________________________ America: Ironically, the safest place to be anti-American. ____________________________________________________________________________ "A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them; the simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences." - Proverbs 22:3 Somebody I obviously don't read directly asked: "So, seriously, I'm interested in the reaction of those who pay NRA dues and maybe make additional contributions. Do the suggestions in this piece disturb you at all?" It certainly disturbs me. It certainly disturbs many supporters of second amendment rights. It disturbs me most because of all the truth in the allegations. Disturbing as it is, however, there's not a lot of choice. The NRA is, by a substantial margin, the most effective agency working to protect our rights, even when they're not working as hard as they should be. It takes money to play politics and you have to play to be effective. Those that play for money, are influenced by it. That's sort of how life is. It's a shame, but we all have to deal with things as they are, not as we would wish them to be. Lee > Somebody I obviously don't read directly asked: > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > a shame, but we all have to deal with things as they are, not as we would > wish them to be. Bingo. A necessary evil one could say. I used to belong to the NRA but stopped when they rolled over on the AW Ban. In the end the AW Ban wasn't worth fighting, it was so useless it killed itself. Maybe I should re-up, they do have that nifty mind control beam... "George Cathcart" <george.cathcart@gmail.com> wrote in message news:2a634e35-2a47-461c-a544-> So, seriously, >I'm interested in the reaction of those who pay NRA > dues and maybe make additional contributions. Do the suggestions in > this piece disturb you at all? Not at all. You'll have to go through the education Futile John did. Not many here (possibly no one) is a _big_ fan of the NRA. They are a necessary evil. Created by---you. As far as their excesses, well, how are they different from DAN, UNICEF, or the Congress? What ever they're doing, they seem to be doing right, seeing the fear they generate from John Francis. The gains they've generated just since this argument began in Rec.scuba are legion, and when someone fights for me, I just want results. I don't care -how many- HCI guys the render and waterboard. If the means they fly first class and drive BMWs, that's the way it is. They are known and feared as possibly the most powerful lobby ever created. Is there some reason their compensation shouldn't be comparable? Signature"It's not like my life is filled with threatening situations and I wonder how often the assurance of a gun in a pocket incites some guys to go places that are just a little bit dangerous. Me, I'm a coward and avoid scary places to the best of my ability. To you that may be cowardice. To me it's discretion and commonsense. 8) " -JOF Popeye/ www.finalprotectivefire.com > "George Cathcart" <george.cathcart@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:2a634e35-2a47-461c-a544-> So, seriously, [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > Is there some reason their compensation shouldn't be comparable? Plus, there is the R&D costs on the mind control beam... Now *that* was slick, and it works international when they bounce it off the stratosphere. > "It's not like my life is filled with threatening situations and I wonder > how often the assurance of a gun in a pocket incites some guys [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Popeye/ www.finalprotectivefire.com On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 12:19:48 -0500, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" <Popeye@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: >"George Cathcart" <george.cathcart@gmail.com> wrote in message >news:2a634e35-2a47-461c-a544-> So, seriously, [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > The gains they've generated just since this argument began in Rec.scuba >are legion, and when someone fights for me, I just want results. I'm impressed that they got Ben Hur to play poster boy. > I don't care -how many- HCI guys the render and waterboard. St.Louiebonics again? > If the means they fly first class and drive BMWs, that's the way it is. > > They are known and feared as possibly the most powerful lobby ever >created. > > Is there some reason their compensation shouldn't be comparable? I already made that point but thanks for backing me up. JF > On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 12:19:48 -0500, "Douglas W. \"Popeye\" Frederick" > <Popeye@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > St.Louiebonics again? Vice-like reading comprehension again? >> If the means they fly first class and drive BMWs, that's the way it is. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > I already made that point but thanks for backing me up. You're welcome. I was addressing George's question. > JF Signature"It's not like my life is filled with threatening situations and I wonder how often the assurance of a gun in a pocket incites some guys to go places that are just a little bit dangerous. Me, I'm a coward and avoid scary places to the best of my ability. To you that may be cowardice. To me it's discretion and commonsense. 8) " -JOF Popeye/ www.finalprotectivefire.com > "George Cathcart" <george.cathcart@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:2a634e35-2a47-461c-a544-> So, seriously, [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > As far as their excesses, well, how are they different from DAN, UNICEF, > or the Congress? Or other civil rights organizations? ACLU? NAACP? Rainbow coalition? > What ever they're doing, they seem to be doing right, seeing the fear they > generate from John Francis. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Is there some reason their compensation shouldn't be comparable? Dennis > Or other civil rights organizations? > ACLU? NAACP? Rainbow coalition? Or that other left leaning civil rights organization -- the NRA... "Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick" <Popeye@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote in message news:... > "George Cathcart" <george.cathcart@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:2f6ebe65-1055-4d94-896e- [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > I respect -any- military service, even from a scumbag like you, but I'd > have to see it to believe it. George, thank you for verifying that for me. Signature"It's not like my life is filled with threatening situations and I wonder how often the assurance of a gun in a pocket incites some guys to go places that are just a little bit dangerous. Me, I'm a coward and avoid scary places to the best of my ability. To you that may be cowardice. To me it's discretion and commonsense. 8) " -JOF Popeye/ www.finalprotectivefire.com |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.