What the heck is the NRA doing for us in California?

[sbrady@Michel&Associates]

The NRA has abandoned Cali and NY. Since January 2013 NY has drowned in the SAFE act. Unfortunately, the NRA did nothing! There doing the same to you guys!!!

Are you a liar or just lazy and ignorant?

NRA supported a challenge to the SAFE Act: http://michellawyers.com/new-york-st...y-of-new-york/

As for California, read Noble Cause's post above (#16) and come back and explain how those actions by NRA is "abandonment."

Until you do that, you have zero credibility, and if you don't do it, you have zero integrity for making drive by baseless statements.

[wtm75]

Are you a liar or just lazy and ignorant?

NRA supported a challenge to the SAFE Act: http://michellawyers.com/new-york-st...y-of-new-york/

As for California, read Noble Cause's post above (#16) and come back and explain how those actions by NRA is "abandonment."

Until you do that, you have zero credibility, and if you don't do it, you have zero integrity for making drive by baseless statements.

See post 181

[sbrady@Michel&Associates]

You guys keep saying the same thing over and over. Yes I do. I know they have tried to combat these new AWB's I've said it more than once.

What I'm saying is that it's too late. They have had multiple chances post Heller and did not do so. Now SCOTUS won't even hear one giving today's climate.


And no. The SAF has not challenged AWB's but they have won some milestone cases and are worthy of a chance. Besides, they don't spam me for money.

I know what you're saying. I am not attacking you for your opinion on what you think the proper strategy was (even though I think you're wrong).

I am attacking your logic for saying you can't ever support NRA because it didn't take an AWB challenge to SCOTUS (even though it has) but you think SAF is "worthy of a chance" because it takes cases to SCOTUS (which NRA has to, as I explained above), but never an AWB case. So why does SAF get a pass on not bringing an AWB challenge and NRA does not? You see, logically, your position does not work.

Thanks again, though, for serving as an example for others who might have had similar inclinations that their feelings are wrong and should be ignored.

Oh, and thanks for revealing the new goal post move: spamming for money.

I was anxious to hear what it would be, and I honestly did not see that one coming after we had gotten this deep. Well done, sir, for pushing the bounds of absurdity. At least you're entertaining.

[wtm75]

Funny, I was posting in reference to SIGness, but you, with your
apparent superior intellect, blindly assumed it was directed at you.


Noble

No I did not. I just responded before he did. If you look at where he's from genius you'd know he's from another state and forum.

[sbrady@Michel&Associates]

See post 181

Ummmm, what part?

I was responding to his specific (and factually erroneous) claim that NRA did nothing in response to the SAFE Act. They did indeed, right?

Your post 181 says nothing about the SAFE Act.

[sbrady@Michel&Associates]

It's appropriate we thank him for contributing. By doing the online version of nothing more than "because, that's what I think" he's invited your office to post NRA positive information and reach a great many people, encouraged others to look up and post NRA court cases and politicing and in general allowed more folks to become educated on NRA efforts. Not to mention the RIA "matching donation" to which I've contributed.

Thanks for your responses and good information.

Indeed. Maybe we should get him an honorary NRA membership.

No need to thank me. These are serious times. We all need to do a little extra to fight back.

[wtm75]

I know what you're saying. I am not attacking you for your opinion on what you think the proper strategy was (even though I think you're wrong).

I am attacking your logic for saying you can't ever support NRA because it didn't take an AWB challenge to SCOTUS (even though it has) but you think SAF is "worthy of a chance" because it takes cases to SCOTUS (which NRA has to, as I explained above), but never an AWB case. So why does SAF get a pass on not bringing an AWB challenge and NRA does not? You see, logically, your position does not work.

Thanks again, though, for serving as an example for others who might have had similar inclinations that their feelings are wrong and should be ignored.

Oh, and thanks for revealing the new goal post move: spamming for money.

I was anxious to hear what it would be, and I honestly did not see that one coming after we had gotten this deep. Well done, sir, for pushing the bounds of absurdity. At least you're entertaining.

So new points are now post moves. Sorry. I didn't know we could only rehash the same topics and points over and over in a conversation without introducing new ones.

As far as the SAF, they are younger, not as bloated, and have an excellent track record giving their young age and limited funds.

And the last and final reason is just because. It's my right.

On our forum, there is a probably a 50/50 support of the NRA. We have our discussions with points but nobody calls the other incapable of learning, troll, or what have you.

Everyone is entitled to their opinions.

[sbrady@Michel&Associates]

It's my right.

I think this is my favorite goal post move of all so far.

[chris]

The NRA cant fix the stupid California voters.

that is the root of our problem right there.

[wtm75]

Ummmm, what part?

I was responding to his specific (and factually erroneous) claim that NRA did nothing in response to the SAFE Act. They did indeed, right?

Your post 181 says nothing about the SAFE Act.

Too little too late is what my point is. If I intervene after your second rape and not your first you wouldn't support me either.

And that's exactly how I feel. Raped.

[wtm75]

I think this is my favorite goal post move of all so far.

If you say so. I thought you were a reasonable person to debate with.

I didn't know a right exercised and spoken was a goal post move.

[Noble Cause]

So new points are now post moves. Sorry. I didn't know we could only rehash the same topics and points over and over in a conversation without introducing new ones.

As far as the SAF, they are younger, not as bloated, and have an excellent track record giving their young age and limited funds.

And the last and final reason is just because. It's my right.

On our forum, there is a probably a 50/50 support of the NRA. We have our discussions with points but nobody calls the other incapable of learning, troll, or what have you.

Everyone is entitled to their opinions.

Emphasis mine.




Noble

[Noble Cause]

Too little too late is what my point is. If I intervene after your second rape and not your first you wouldn't support me either.

And that's exactly how I feel. Raped.

And yet you blame the wrong entity.

You got raped by Democrat Politicians.


Noble

[wtm75]

And yet you blame the wrong entity.

You got raped by Democrat Politicians.


Noble

I got raped by Dems and those I paid to defend me. And don't go back to the Unsafe Act again. That was the second rape.

[Highdeserthunter]

Is speaking your mind about the NRA a taboo nowadays WTF with that?
I don't need a forum attorney to make me believe what I already know. I have internet and I can read the news Thanks!
Calling people names because 50% of people in California are tired of listening the same NRA excuse.
Today I don't care for the NRA I will let you know if I change my mind next time I read the news and I don't see another anti gun law passed again in Sacramento.