NRA Collapsing Under Scandal, Criminal Investigation
MSNBC Rachel Maddow - Dec 25, 2019
-- https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/...on-75674181937

On 12/27/2019 11:49 AM, wrote:
NRA Collapsing Under Scandal, Criminal Investigation
MSNBC Rachel Maddow - Dec 25, 2019
-- https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/...on-75674181937


Â* If you believe a single word Madcow says you need to be referred for
psychiatric evaluation . Her total breakdown on election night was
priceless !

--
Snag
Yes , I'm old
and crochety - and armed .
Get outta my woods !

On 12/27/2019 12:49 PM, wrote:
NRA Collapsing Under Scandal, Criminal Investigation
MSNBC Rachel Maddow - Dec 25, 2019
-- https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/...on-75674181937



It takes two seconds and virtually zero effort to make a false accusation.Â* It takes months and lots of effort to disprove it.

It looks like the ****ing lying demoncrats are doing to the NRA what they've been doing to President Trump for the last 3 years.

On Friday, December 27, 2019 at 3:52:54 PM UTC-5, Oko tillo wrote in alt.atheism:
On Friday, December 27, 2019 at 1:30:04 PM UTC-7, Davej wrote:
On Friday, December 27, 2019 at 11:47:20 AM UTC-6, wrote:
NRA Collapsing Under Scandal

==
Yeah and how many times has she interviewed Chuck Schumer and yet
failed to get him to discuss his public statements before the
Clinton impeachment? She was always interviewing Anthony Weiner
and never detected that he was a kook. Now she claims the NRA is
on the rocks? I bet they will do fine. Her judgement is crap.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/27/polit...ile/index.html

Perhaps -- if it were just her. But these stories have been all over for the last
few months, and it's not about attacks from outsiders; it's dissent within
the NRA itself.

https://www.latimes.com/nation/natio...627-story.html

https://adage.com/article/agency-new...-group/2174471

https://www.vox.com/2019/4/30/185109...ons-corruption

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nra-dea...rm-2019-08-06/

https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/23/polit...oil/index.html

https://www.axios.com/nra-turmoil-mo...80ff87b97.html

Etc etc etc...

Do you not like Trump news?

On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 14:36:40 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Friday, December 27, 2019 at 3:52:54 PM UTC-5, Oko tillo wrote in alt.atheism:
On Friday, December 27, 2019 at 1:30:04 PM UTC-7, Davej wrote:
On Friday, December 27, 2019 at 11:47:20 AM UTC-6, wrote:
NRA Collapsing Under Scandal

==
Yeah and how many times has she interviewed Chuck Schumer and yet
failed to get him to discuss his public statements before the
Clinton impeachment? She was always interviewing Anthony Weiner
and never detected that he was a kook. Now she claims the NRA is
on the rocks? I bet they will do fine. Her judgement is crap.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/27/polit...ile/index.html

Perhaps -- if it were just her. But these stories have been all over for the last
few months, and it's not about attacks from outsiders; it's dissent within
the NRA itself.

https://www.latimes.com/nation/natio...627-story.html

https://adage.com/article/agency-new...-group/2174471

https://www.vox.com/2019/4/30/185109...ons-corruption

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nra-dea...rm-2019-08-06/

https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/23/polit...oil/index.html

https://www.axios.com/nra-turmoil-mo...80ff87b97.html

Etc etc etc...

Do you not like Trump news?

The NRA has record high membership and they manage to spend close to a
half billion a year on causes and candidates so rumors of their demise
by people like Madcow are greatly exaggerated, grounded in wishful
thinking.

On 12/27/2019 05:30 PM, wrote:
The NRA has record high membership and they manage to spend close to a
half billion a year on causes and candidates so rumors of their demise
by people like Madcow are greatly exaggerated, grounded in wishful
thinking.

Don't pick on Madcow:

https://timesofsandiego.com/business...famation-suit/

Her defence was when she says something is literally true it's only
hyperbole and isn't necessarily true. She's even turned stomachs at the
WaPo, which takes a lot of doing

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...it-fell-apart/

On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 19:50:13 -0700, rbowman
wrote:

On 12/27/2019 05:30 PM, wrote:
The NRA has record high membership and they manage to spend close to a
half billion a year on causes and candidates so rumors of their demise
by people like Madcow are greatly exaggerated, grounded in wishful
thinking.

Don't pick on Madcow:

https://timesofsandiego.com/business...famation-suit/

Her defence was when she says something is literally true it's only
hyperbole and isn't necessarily true. She's even turned stomachs at the
WaPo, which takes a lot of doing

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...it-fell-apart/

So her defense is everyone should "literally" understand she is full
of **** and not take what she says seriously. I think that may be a
win for her.

On Saturday, December 28, 2019 at 11:03:23 AM UTC-6, wrote:
On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 19:50:13 -0700, rbowman wrote:
On 12/27/2019 05:30 PM, gfretwell wrote:
The NRA has record high membership and they manage to spend close to a
half billion a year on causes and candidates so rumors of their demise
by people like Madcow are greatly exaggerated, grounded in wishful
thinking.

Don't pick on Madcow:

https://timesofsandiego.com/business...famation-suit/

Her defence was when she says something is literally true it's only
hyperbole and isn't necessarily true. She's even turned stomachs at the
WaPo, which takes a lot of doing

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...it-fell-apart/

So her defense is everyone should "literally" understand she is full
of **** and not take what she says seriously. I think that may be a
win for her.

Hey, that's what Rush Limbaugh always claims. "I'm just an entertainer," he says.

On 12/28/2019 10:02 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 19:50:13 -0700, rbowman
wrote:

On 12/27/2019 05:30 PM, wrote:
The NRA has record high membership and they manage to spend close to a
half billion a year on causes and candidates so rumors of their demise
by people like Madcow are greatly exaggerated, grounded in wishful
thinking.

Don't pick on Madcow:

https://timesofsandiego.com/business...famation-suit/

Her defence was when she says something is literally true it's only
hyperbole and isn't necessarily true. She's even turned stomachs at the
WaPo, which takes a lot of doing

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...it-fell-apart/

So her defense is everyone should "literally" understand she is full
of **** and not take what she says seriously. I think that may be a
win for her.


Just another demagogue...

On Friday, December 27, 2019 at 7:31:26 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 14:36:40 -0800 (PST), wrote:

The NRA has record high membership and they manage to spend close to a
half billion a year on causes and candidates so rumors of their demise
by people like Madcow are greatly exaggerated, grounded in wishful
thinking.

Really? As far as I've been able to determine, they've been claiming
"five million" or "nearly five million" or "5.5 million" for about
eight years. Analysis of their IRS filings suggests that much of
their income (and income growth) nowadays is from donations rather
than dues.

My husband used to be a member, but dropped his membership because
the organization was getting "crazy". He still shoots fairly often.

I suspect the NRA will eventually succumb to demographic changes,
despite the jump in membership they get every time there's a
mass shooting and folks start talking about gun control.

Cindy Hamilton

On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 09:13:39 -0800 (PST), Davej
wrote:

On Saturday, December 28, 2019 at 11:03:23 AM UTC-6, wrote:
On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 19:50:13 -0700, rbowman wrote:
On 12/27/2019 05:30 PM, gfretwell wrote:
The NRA has record high membership and they manage to spend close to a
half billion a year on causes and candidates so rumors of their demise
by people like Madcow are greatly exaggerated, grounded in wishful
thinking.

Don't pick on Madcow:

https://timesofsandiego.com/business...famation-suit/

Her defence was when she says something is literally true it's only
hyperbole and isn't necessarily true. She's even turned stomachs at the
WaPo, which takes a lot of doing

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...it-fell-apart/

So her defense is everyone should "literally" understand she is full
of **** and not take what she says seriously. I think that may be a
win for her.

Hey, that's what Rush Limbaugh always claims. "I'm just an entertainer," he says.

Exactly, both are clowns but people believe them. The difference is
Madcow is on in prime time on a TV network with "News" in the name.
Limbaugh is on in daytime radio, on a syndicated vanity show,
competing with "Days of Our Lives", "The Bold and the Beautiful" and
"People's Court".

On 12/28/2019 1:45 PM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
On Friday, December 27, 2019 at 7:31:26 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 14:36:40 -0800 (PST), wrote:

The NRA has record high membership and they manage to spend close to a
half billion a year on causes and candidates so rumors of their demise
by people like Madcow are greatly exaggerated, grounded in wishful
thinking.

Really? As far as I've been able to determine, they've been claiming
"five million" or "nearly five million" or "5.5 million" for about
eight years. Analysis of their IRS filings suggests that much of
their income (and income growth) nowadays is from donations rather
than dues.

My husband used to be a member, but dropped his membership because
the organization was getting "crazy". He still shoots fairly often.

I suspect the NRA will eventually succumb to demographic changes,
despite the jump in membership they get every time there's a
mass shooting and folks start talking about gun control.

Cindy Hamilton


The NRA is a Us vs. Them situation. They want zero control. If they
took a stance and did something to keep lawful guns out of the hands of
bad guys they would be looked at much differently.

On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 10:45:18 -0800 (PST), Cindy Hamilton
wrote:

On Friday, December 27, 2019 at 7:31:26 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 14:36:40 -0800 (PST), wrote:

The NRA has record high membership and they manage to spend close to a
half billion a year on causes and candidates so rumors of their demise
by people like Madcow are greatly exaggerated, grounded in wishful
thinking.

Really? As far as I've been able to determine, they've been claiming
"five million" or "nearly five million" or "5.5 million" for about
eight years. Analysis of their IRS filings suggests that much of
their income (and income growth) nowadays is from donations rather
than dues.

My husband used to be a member, but dropped his membership because
the organization was getting "crazy". He still shoots fairly often.

I suspect the NRA will eventually succumb to demographic changes,
despite the jump in membership they get every time there's a
mass shooting and folks start talking about gun control.

Cindy Hamilton

ILA spent $430 million last year and in DC that is swinging a pretty
big dick. (Right up there with big medical, lawyers, bankers and
insurance companies). The rumors of their demise is simply wishful
thinking. I suspect that people who are not willing to sign up on the
list of members, still send them money.
In DC, money talks, bull**** walks.

On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 13:57:47 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 12/28/2019 1:45 PM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
On Friday, December 27, 2019 at 7:31:26 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 14:36:40 -0800 (PST), wrote:

The NRA has record high membership and they manage to spend close to a
half billion a year on causes and candidates so rumors of their demise
by people like Madcow are greatly exaggerated, grounded in wishful
thinking.

Really? As far as I've been able to determine, they've been claiming
"five million" or "nearly five million" or "5.5 million" for about
eight years. Analysis of their IRS filings suggests that much of
their income (and income growth) nowadays is from donations rather
than dues.

My husband used to be a member, but dropped his membership because
the organization was getting "crazy". He still shoots fairly often.

I suspect the NRA will eventually succumb to demographic changes,
despite the jump in membership they get every time there's a
mass shooting and folks start talking about gun control.

Cindy Hamilton


The NRA is a Us vs. Them situation. They want zero control. If they
took a stance and did something to keep lawful guns out of the hands of
bad guys they would be looked at much differently.

The NRA does support enforcing the laws that will do that. ATF, not so
much. How many street level dealers get caught? How many of those are
actually prosecuted? Usually what happens is, the gun charge gets
tossed in a plea bargain for another crime, even if the gun charge
might actually bring more time in a federal prison, where getting out
early is harder to do than in overcrowded, underfunded state prisons.

On 12/28/2019 11:45 AM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
Really? As far as I've been able to determine, they've been claiming
"five million" or "nearly five million" or "5.5 million" for about
eight years. Analysis of their IRS filings suggests that much of
their income (and income growth) nowadays is from donations rather
than dues.

If I says 'NRA' on the envelope I tend to file it in the garbage can
immediately. LaPierre is too greasy for my tastes and the endless 'the
sky is falling' messaging gets old.

otoh, leaving the playing field means Bloomberg and his minions win.

On 12/28/2019 11:57 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 12/28/2019 1:45 PM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
On Friday, December 27, 2019 at 7:31:26 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 14:36:40 -0800 (PST), wrote:

The NRA has record high membership and they manage to spend close to a
half billion a year on causes and candidates so rumors of their demise
by people like Madcow are greatly exaggerated, grounded in wishful
thinking.

Really? As far as I've been able to determine, they've been claiming
"five million" or "nearly five million" or "5.5 million" for about
eight years. Analysis of their IRS filings suggests that much of
their income (and income growth) nowadays is from donations rather
than dues.

My husband used to be a member, but dropped his membership because
the organization was getting "crazy". He still shoots fairly often.

I suspect the NRA will eventually succumb to demographic changes,
despite the jump in membership they get every time there's a
mass shooting and folks start talking about gun control.

Cindy Hamilton


The NRA is a Us vs. Them situation. They want zero control. If they
took a stance and did something to keep lawful guns out of the hands of
bad guys they would be looked at much differently.

otoh, given freedom of rein, the left would try to outlaw several of my
firearms. No, they're not tricked out M4geries with bump stocks -- they
are .22LR semiautomatics like those I've been shooting since I graduated
from a single shot .22 over 60 years ago.

The problem with Them is most are pig ignorant about firearms. It's like
having a discussion about snakes with someone who is scared ****less by
snakes. Most snakes are beneficial. Even the poisonous ones have their
place in the ecology.

On Saturday, December 28, 2019 at 2:28:42 PM UTC-5, rbowman wrote:
On 12/28/2019 11:57 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 12/28/2019 1:45 PM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
On Friday, December 27, 2019 at 7:31:26 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 14:36:40 -0800 (PST), wrote:

The NRA has record high membership and they manage to spend close to a
half billion a year on causes and candidates so rumors of their demise
by people like Madcow are greatly exaggerated, grounded in wishful
thinking.

Really? As far as I've been able to determine, they've been claiming
"five million" or "nearly five million" or "5.5 million" for about
eight years. Analysis of their IRS filings suggests that much of
their income (and income growth) nowadays is from donations rather
than dues.

My husband used to be a member, but dropped his membership because
the organization was getting "crazy". He still shoots fairly often.

I suspect the NRA will eventually succumb to demographic changes,
despite the jump in membership they get every time there's a
mass shooting and folks start talking about gun control.

Cindy Hamilton


The NRA is a Us vs. Them situation. They want zero control. If they
took a stance and did something to keep lawful guns out of the hands of
bad guys they would be looked at much differently.

otoh, given freedom of rein, the left would try to outlaw several of my
firearms. No, they're not tricked out M4geries with bump stocks -- they
are .22LR semiautomatics like those I've been shooting since I graduated
from a single shot .22 over 60 years ago.

Several of our guns would be outlawed as well.

The problem with Them is most are pig ignorant about firearms. It's like
having a discussion about snakes with someone who is scared ****less by
snakes. Most snakes are beneficial. Even the poisonous ones have their
place in the ecology.

I know, I know. When they say "automatic weapon" I always ask "semi-auto
or full auto?" and they never can answer the question. Even after I
explain the difference, it's like talking to the dog.

Cindy Hamilton

On Saturday, December 28, 2019 at 1:48:40 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 09:13:39 -0800 (PST), Davej
wrote:

On Saturday, December 28, 2019 at 11:03:23 AM UTC-6, wrote:
On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 19:50:13 -0700, rbowman wrote:
On 12/27/2019 05:30 PM, gfretwell wrote:
The NRA has record high membership and they manage to spend close to a
half billion a year on causes and candidates so rumors of their demise
by people like Madcow are greatly exaggerated, grounded in wishful
thinking.

Don't pick on Madcow:

https://timesofsandiego.com/business...famation-suit/

Her defence was when she says something is literally true it's only
hyperbole and isn't necessarily true. She's even turned stomachs at the
WaPo, which takes a lot of doing

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...it-fell-apart/

So her defense is everyone should "literally" understand she is full
of **** and not take what she says seriously. I think that may be a
win for her.

Hey, that's what Rush Limbaugh always claims. "I'm just an entertainer," he says.

Exactly, both are clowns but people believe them. The difference is
Madcow is on in prime time on a TV network with "News" in the name.
Limbaugh is on in daytime radio, on a syndicated vanity show,
competing with "Days of Our Lives", "The Bold and the Beautiful" and
"People's Court".

Then substitute Tucker Carlson or Hannity, at Fox NEWS for Madcow.

On Saturday, December 28, 2019 at 1:45:22 PM UTC-5, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
On Friday, December 27, 2019 at 7:31:26 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 14:36:40 -0800 (PST), wrote:

The NRA has record high membership and they manage to spend close to a
half billion a year on causes and candidates so rumors of their demise
by people like Madcow are greatly exaggerated, grounded in wishful
thinking.

Really? As far as I've been able to determine, they've been claiming
"five million" or "nearly five million" or "5.5 million" for about
eight years. Analysis of their IRS filings suggests that much of
their income (and income growth) nowadays is from donations rather
than dues.

My husband used to be a member, but dropped his membership because
the organization was getting "crazy". He still shoots fairly often.

Same here, I left the NRA twenty years ago. One thing that annoyed
me was the non-stop mailings, every couple of weeks, with a moronic
letter with a plea for more money.

I still get those from the Republicans. Apparently they have not figured
out I left them yet. A couple weeks ago I got a letter from Melania.
It said "check enclosed" on the outside. The check was a copy of a check
for $45 that Melania had donated to the GOP. The letter asked me to do
the same. That's the kind of shystering that got me fed up with both
the NRA and GOP. Another GOP favorite is a letter from the chair saying
that next week I have to give the president a list of our supporters
from NJ and I hope to be able to put your name on the list. Or the
critical "survey', with questions like:

Do you think Trump should be impeached?
Are you in favor of NK having nuclear weapons?
Are you in favor of unlimited abortion?
Do you approve of open borders?

Followed of course by an urgent appeal for more money. The fact that they
keep doing this, must mean that it works. And what does that tell you about
what the GOP thinks of the intelligence of the members of their own party?





I suspect the NRA will eventually succumb to demographic changes,
despite the jump in membership they get every time there's a
mass shooting and folks start talking about gun control.

Cindy Hamilton

At the very least this country's attitude and approach to guns will
change eventually. It's just a question of how many more need to die
needlessly before that happens.

On Saturday, December 28, 2019 at 2:17:07 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 13:57:47 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 12/28/2019 1:45 PM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
On Friday, December 27, 2019 at 7:31:26 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 14:36:40 -0800 (PST), wrote:

The NRA has record high membership and they manage to spend close to a
half billion a year on causes and candidates so rumors of their demise
by people like Madcow are greatly exaggerated, grounded in wishful
thinking.

Really? As far as I've been able to determine, they've been claiming
"five million" or "nearly five million" or "5.5 million" for about
eight years. Analysis of their IRS filings suggests that much of
their income (and income growth) nowadays is from donations rather
than dues.

My husband used to be a member, but dropped his membership because
the organization was getting "crazy". He still shoots fairly often.

I suspect the NRA will eventually succumb to demographic changes,
despite the jump in membership they get every time there's a
mass shooting and folks start talking about gun control.

Cindy Hamilton


The NRA is a Us vs. Them situation. They want zero control. If they
took a stance and did something to keep lawful guns out of the hands of
bad guys they would be looked at much differently.

The NRA does support enforcing the laws that will do that. ATF, not so
much. How many street level dealers get caught? How many of those are
actually prosecuted? Usually what happens is, the gun charge gets
tossed in a plea bargain for another crime, even if the gun charge
might actually bring more time in a federal prison, where getting out
early is harder to do than in overcrowded, underfunded state prisons.

I agree, the existing laws need to be better enforced or changed so that
they are enforceable. And where is Trump on this? Hello? Which makes
people like Ed and me wonder if the NRA really wants gun laws enforced.
If they do, why are they not challenging Trump to do it?

On Sun, 29 Dec 2019 08:53:33 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Saturday, December 28, 2019 at 1:48:40 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 09:13:39 -0800 (PST), Davej
wrote:

On Saturday, December 28, 2019 at 11:03:23 AM UTC-6, wrote:
On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 19:50:13 -0700, rbowman wrote:
On 12/27/2019 05:30 PM, gfretwell wrote:
The NRA has record high membership and they manage to spend close to a
half billion a year on causes and candidates so rumors of their demise
by people like Madcow are greatly exaggerated, grounded in wishful
thinking.

Don't pick on Madcow:

https://timesofsandiego.com/business...famation-suit/

Her defence was when she says something is literally true it's only
hyperbole and isn't necessarily true. She's even turned stomachs at the
WaPo, which takes a lot of doing

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...it-fell-apart/

So her defense is everyone should "literally" understand she is full
of **** and not take what she says seriously. I think that may be a
win for her.

Hey, that's what Rush Limbaugh always claims. "I'm just an entertainer," he says.

Exactly, both are clowns but people believe them. The difference is
Madcow is on in prime time on a TV network with "News" in the name.
Limbaugh is on in daytime radio, on a syndicated vanity show,
competing with "Days of Our Lives", "The Bold and the Beautiful" and
"People's Court".

Then substitute Tucker Carlson or Hannity, at Fox NEWS for Madcow.

They are interchangeable. "News" these days is a joke, particularly
cable news. I cut the cord a year or two ago and I don't miss it.

On Sun, 29 Dec 2019 09:06:05 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Saturday, December 28, 2019 at 2:17:07 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 13:57:47 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 12/28/2019 1:45 PM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
On Friday, December 27, 2019 at 7:31:26 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 14:36:40 -0800 (PST), wrote:

The NRA has record high membership and they manage to spend close to a
half billion a year on causes and candidates so rumors of their demise
by people like Madcow are greatly exaggerated, grounded in wishful
thinking.

Really? As far as I've been able to determine, they've been claiming
"five million" or "nearly five million" or "5.5 million" for about
eight years. Analysis of their IRS filings suggests that much of
their income (and income growth) nowadays is from donations rather
than dues.

My husband used to be a member, but dropped his membership because
the organization was getting "crazy". He still shoots fairly often.

I suspect the NRA will eventually succumb to demographic changes,
despite the jump in membership they get every time there's a
mass shooting and folks start talking about gun control.

Cindy Hamilton


The NRA is a Us vs. Them situation. They want zero control. If they
took a stance and did something to keep lawful guns out of the hands of
bad guys they would be looked at much differently.

The NRA does support enforcing the laws that will do that. ATF, not so
much. How many street level dealers get caught? How many of those are
actually prosecuted? Usually what happens is, the gun charge gets
tossed in a plea bargain for another crime, even if the gun charge
might actually bring more time in a federal prison, where getting out
early is harder to do than in overcrowded, underfunded state prisons.

I agree, the existing laws need to be better enforced or changed so that
they are enforceable. And where is Trump on this? Hello? Which makes
people like Ed and me wonder if the NRA really wants gun laws enforced.
If they do, why are they not challenging Trump to do it?


Things like trying to pass laws on private sales is clearly
unenforceable so your tongue is forking again.

On Sunday, December 29, 2019 at 12:03:54 PM UTC-5, trader_4 wrote:
On Saturday, December 28, 2019 at 1:45:22 PM UTC-5, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
On Friday, December 27, 2019 at 7:31:26 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 14:36:40 -0800 (PST), wrote:

The NRA has record high membership and they manage to spend close to a
half billion a year on causes and candidates so rumors of their demise
by people like Madcow are greatly exaggerated, grounded in wishful
thinking.

Really? As far as I've been able to determine, they've been claiming
"five million" or "nearly five million" or "5.5 million" for about
eight years. Analysis of their IRS filings suggests that much of
their income (and income growth) nowadays is from donations rather
than dues.

My husband used to be a member, but dropped his membership because
the organization was getting "crazy". He still shoots fairly often.

Same here, I left the NRA twenty years ago. One thing that annoyed
me was the non-stop mailings, every couple of weeks, with a moronic
letter with a plea for more money.

I still get those from the Republicans. Apparently they have not figured
out I left them yet. A couple weeks ago I got a letter from Melania.
It said "check enclosed" on the outside. The check was a copy of a check
for $45 that Melania had donated to the GOP. The letter asked me to do
the same. That's the kind of shystering that got me fed up with both
the NRA and GOP. Another GOP favorite is a letter from the chair saying
that next week I have to give the president a list of our supporters
from NJ and I hope to be able to put your name on the list. Or the
critical "survey', with questions like:

Do you think Trump should be impeached?
Are you in favor of NK having nuclear weapons?
Are you in favor of unlimited abortion?
Do you approve of open borders?

I used to get those. I answered the questions the opposite of the
way I knew they expected, although I'm convinced that nobody ever
looked at anybody's answers. They only looked for the check.

Cindy Hamilton

On 12/28/2019 2:20 PM, rbowman wrote:
On 12/28/2019 11:45 AM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
Really?Â* As far as I've been able to determine, they've been claiming
"five million" or "nearly five million" or "5.5 million" for about
eight years.Â* Analysis of their IRS filings suggests that much of
their income (and income growth) nowadays is from donations rather
than dues.

If I says 'NRA' on the envelope I tend to file it in the garbage can
immediately. LaPierre is too greasy for my tastes and the endless 'the
sky is falling' messaging gets old.

otoh, leaving the playing field means Bloomberg and his minions win.

I've been an NRA lifer for decades. One of the best deals I ever made.
It is not cheap today but sometimes they offer it at lower cost.

I have no problem with LaPierre. There have been squabbles over the
years but I think the NRA is still the best group to be in if you like
the shooting sports. They are a non-political group that has been
forced into the stance they are taking because one political party wants
to take away our guns.

On 12/28/2019 3:01 PM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
On Saturday, December 28, 2019 at 2:28:42 PM UTC-5, rbowman wrote:
On 12/28/2019 11:57 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 12/28/2019 1:45 PM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
On Friday, December 27, 2019 at 7:31:26 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 14:36:40 -0800 (PST), wrote:

The NRA has record high membership and they manage to spend close to a
half billion a year on causes and candidates so rumors of their demise
by people like Madcow are greatly exaggerated, grounded in wishful
thinking.

Really? As far as I've been able to determine, they've been claiming
"five million" or "nearly five million" or "5.5 million" for about
eight years. Analysis of their IRS filings suggests that much of
their income (and income growth) nowadays is from donations rather
than dues.

My husband used to be a member, but dropped his membership because
the organization was getting "crazy". He still shoots fairly often.

I suspect the NRA will eventually succumb to demographic changes,
despite the jump in membership they get every time there's a
mass shooting and folks start talking about gun control.

Cindy Hamilton


The NRA is a Us vs. Them situation. They want zero control. If they
took a stance and did something to keep lawful guns out of the hands of
bad guys they would be looked at much differently.

otoh, given freedom of rein, the left would try to outlaw several of my
firearms. No, they're not tricked out M4geries with bump stocks -- they
are .22LR semiautomatics like those I've been shooting since I graduated
from a single shot .22 over 60 years ago.

Several of our guns would be outlawed as well.

The problem with Them is most are pig ignorant about firearms. It's like
having a discussion about snakes with someone who is scared ****less by
snakes. Most snakes are beneficial. Even the poisonous ones have their
place in the ecology.

I know, I know. When they say "automatic weapon" I always ask "semi-auto
or full auto?" and they never can answer the question. Even after I
explain the difference, it's like talking to the dog.

Cindy Hamilton


I see the same things myself. There are tons of falsehoods that have
been spread by the anti-gunners. They even invent names like "cop
killer bullets" to scare the ignorant. For them to say the NRA wants
zero control is downright stupid. They do not want guns in the hands of
the wrong people or have them miss-used. One of their top goals is the
promotion of firearm safety.

I've had a semi-automatic Remington 1100 shotgun for over 50 years that
I have shot trap and skeet with, done all sorts of upland and waterfowl
hunting and even deer hunting with. Hunting rules here limit it to
three rounds so it is plugged but even then with adequate tags I've
doubled on deer more than half a dozen times. This kind of shotgun
would be banned today if the current anti-gunners got their way.

On 12/29/2019 12:48 PM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
On Sunday, December 29, 2019 at 12:03:54 PM UTC-5, trader_4 wrote:
On Saturday, December 28, 2019 at 1:45:22 PM UTC-5, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
On Friday, December 27, 2019 at 7:31:26 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 14:36:40 -0800 (PST), wrote:

The NRA has record high membership and they manage to spend close to a
half billion a year on causes and candidates so rumors of their demise
by people like Madcow are greatly exaggerated, grounded in wishful
thinking.

Really? As far as I've been able to determine, they've been claiming
"five million" or "nearly five million" or "5.5 million" for about
eight years. Analysis of their IRS filings suggests that much of
their income (and income growth) nowadays is from donations rather
than dues.

My husband used to be a member, but dropped his membership because
the organization was getting "crazy". He still shoots fairly often.

Same here, I left the NRA twenty years ago. One thing that annoyed
me was the non-stop mailings, every couple of weeks, with a moronic
letter with a plea for more money.

I still get those from the Republicans. Apparently they have not figured
out I left them yet. A couple weeks ago I got a letter from Melania.
It said "check enclosed" on the outside. The check was a copy of a check
for $45 that Melania had donated to the GOP. The letter asked me to do
the same. That's the kind of shystering that got me fed up with both
the NRA and GOP. Another GOP favorite is a letter from the chair saying
that next week I have to give the president a list of our supporters
from NJ and I hope to be able to put your name on the list. Or the
critical "survey', with questions like:

Do you think Trump should be impeached?
Are you in favor of NK having nuclear weapons?
Are you in favor of unlimited abortion?
Do you approve of open borders?

I used to get those. I answered the questions the opposite of the
way I knew they expected, although I'm convinced that nobody ever
looked at anybody's answers. They only looked for the check.

Cindy Hamilton

Now they sneak them in on some alleged news articles.
Should illegal immigrants have free healthcare?
Should we kill cute puppies if they bark?
Donate $10

On 12/29/2019 1:13 PM, Frank wrote:


I have no problem with LaPierre.Â* There have been squabbles over the
years but I think the NRA is still the best group to be in if you like
the shooting sports.Â* They are a non-political group that has been
forced into the stance they are taking because one political party wants
to take away our guns.

The original concepts of the NRA was good but now they buy politicians
like many other interests. LaPierre just seems creepy to me though.
I'd avoid him at a cocktail party.

On Sunday, December 29, 2019 at 12:42:14 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sun, 29 Dec 2019 08:53:33 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Saturday, December 28, 2019 at 1:48:40 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 09:13:39 -0800 (PST), Davej
wrote:

On Saturday, December 28, 2019 at 11:03:23 AM UTC-6, wrote:
On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 19:50:13 -0700, rbowman wrote:
On 12/27/2019 05:30 PM, gfretwell wrote:
The NRA has record high membership and they manage to spend close to a
half billion a year on causes and candidates so rumors of their demise
by people like Madcow are greatly exaggerated, grounded in wishful
thinking.

Don't pick on Madcow:

https://timesofsandiego.com/business...famation-suit/

Her defence was when she says something is literally true it's only
hyperbole and isn't necessarily true. She's even turned stomachs at the
WaPo, which takes a lot of doing

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...it-fell-apart/

So her defense is everyone should "literally" understand she is full
of **** and not take what she says seriously. I think that may be a
win for her.

Hey, that's what Rush Limbaugh always claims. "I'm just an entertainer," he says.

Exactly, both are clowns but people believe them. The difference is
Madcow is on in prime time on a TV network with "News" in the name.
Limbaugh is on in daytime radio, on a syndicated vanity show,
competing with "Days of Our Lives", "The Bold and the Beautiful" and
"People's Court".

Then substitute Tucker Carlson or Hannity, at Fox NEWS for Madcow.

They are interchangeable. "News" these days is a joke, particularly
cable news. I cut the cord a year or two ago and I don't miss it.

Fine, get your "news" from Trump, bots and RT.

On Sunday, December 29, 2019 at 12:45:33 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sun, 29 Dec 2019 09:06:05 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Saturday, December 28, 2019 at 2:17:07 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 13:57:47 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 12/28/2019 1:45 PM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
On Friday, December 27, 2019 at 7:31:26 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 14:36:40 -0800 (PST), wrote:

The NRA has record high membership and they manage to spend close to a
half billion a year on causes and candidates so rumors of their demise
by people like Madcow are greatly exaggerated, grounded in wishful
thinking.

Really? As far as I've been able to determine, they've been claiming
"five million" or "nearly five million" or "5.5 million" for about
eight years. Analysis of their IRS filings suggests that much of
their income (and income growth) nowadays is from donations rather
than dues.

My husband used to be a member, but dropped his membership because
the organization was getting "crazy". He still shoots fairly often.

I suspect the NRA will eventually succumb to demographic changes,
despite the jump in membership they get every time there's a
mass shooting and folks start talking about gun control.

Cindy Hamilton


The NRA is a Us vs. Them situation. They want zero control. If they
took a stance and did something to keep lawful guns out of the hands of
bad guys they would be looked at much differently.

The NRA does support enforcing the laws that will do that. ATF, not so
much. How many street level dealers get caught? How many of those are
actually prosecuted? Usually what happens is, the gun charge gets
tossed in a plea bargain for another crime, even if the gun charge
might actually bring more time in a federal prison, where getting out
early is harder to do than in overcrowded, underfunded state prisons.

I agree, the existing laws need to be better enforced or changed so that
they are enforceable. And where is Trump on this? Hello? Which makes
people like Ed and me wonder if the NRA really wants gun laws enforced.
If they do, why are they not challenging Trump to do it?


Things like trying to pass laws on private sales is clearly
unenforceable so your tongue is forking again.

Wow, I thought the vast majority of gun owners were supposed to be good,
law abiding citizens. Now you're again saying that these good, law
abiding citizens won't obey new laws covering private sales. What a bizarre
argument to make.

On Sun, 29 Dec 2019 14:23:27 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 12/29/2019 1:13 PM, Frank wrote:


I have no problem with LaPierre.Â* There have been squabbles over the
years but I think the NRA is still the best group to be in if you like
the shooting sports.Â* They are a non-political group that has been
forced into the stance they are taking because one political party wants
to take away our guns.

The original concepts of the NRA was good but now they buy politicians
like many other interests. LaPierre just seems creepy to me though.
I'd avoid him at a cocktail party.

Without the NRA, there wouldn't be any rifles and it would just be the
National Association. They are really the only ones stopping the
people who think all guns should be banned.
At that point, the only ones with guns would be the drug gangs.

On Sun, 29 Dec 2019 12:02:58 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Sunday, December 29, 2019 at 12:42:14 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sun, 29 Dec 2019 08:53:33 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Saturday, December 28, 2019 at 1:48:40 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 09:13:39 -0800 (PST), Davej
wrote:

On Saturday, December 28, 2019 at 11:03:23 AM UTC-6, wrote:
On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 19:50:13 -0700, rbowman wrote:
On 12/27/2019 05:30 PM, gfretwell wrote:
The NRA has record high membership and they manage to spend close to a
half billion a year on causes and candidates so rumors of their demise
by people like Madcow are greatly exaggerated, grounded in wishful
thinking.

Don't pick on Madcow:

https://timesofsandiego.com/business...famation-suit/

Her defence was when she says something is literally true it's only
hyperbole and isn't necessarily true. She's even turned stomachs at the
WaPo, which takes a lot of doing

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...it-fell-apart/

So her defense is everyone should "literally" understand she is full
of **** and not take what she says seriously. I think that may be a
win for her.

Hey, that's what Rush Limbaugh always claims. "I'm just an entertainer," he says.

Exactly, both are clowns but people believe them. The difference is
Madcow is on in prime time on a TV network with "News" in the name.
Limbaugh is on in daytime radio, on a syndicated vanity show,
competing with "Days of Our Lives", "The Bold and the Beautiful" and
"People's Court".

Then substitute Tucker Carlson or Hannity, at Fox NEWS for Madcow.

They are interchangeable. "News" these days is a joke, particularly
cable news. I cut the cord a year or two ago and I don't miss it.

Fine, get your "news" from Trump, bots and RT.

I like my "news" from the source, not an opinionated entertainer. If
you want to know what congress is doing, look at congress.gov. There
are also similar sources for most things. I only use published news to
see what I should find out more about. It is amazing how the truth and
the news disagree. At a certain point I really don't care that much
because there is really not much I can do about it anyway. Do you
really think writing a letter to your congressman, telling him to
ignore that lobbyist who just gave him $100,000 is going to change his
mind?

On Sun, 29 Dec 2019 12:05:10 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Sunday, December 29, 2019 at 12:45:33 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sun, 29 Dec 2019 09:06:05 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Saturday, December 28, 2019 at 2:17:07 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 13:57:47 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 12/28/2019 1:45 PM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
On Friday, December 27, 2019 at 7:31:26 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 14:36:40 -0800 (PST), wrote:

The NRA has record high membership and they manage to spend close to a
half billion a year on causes and candidates so rumors of their demise
by people like Madcow are greatly exaggerated, grounded in wishful
thinking.

Really? As far as I've been able to determine, they've been claiming
"five million" or "nearly five million" or "5.5 million" for about
eight years. Analysis of their IRS filings suggests that much of
their income (and income growth) nowadays is from donations rather
than dues.

My husband used to be a member, but dropped his membership because
the organization was getting "crazy". He still shoots fairly often.

I suspect the NRA will eventually succumb to demographic changes,
despite the jump in membership they get every time there's a
mass shooting and folks start talking about gun control.

Cindy Hamilton


The NRA is a Us vs. Them situation. They want zero control. If they
took a stance and did something to keep lawful guns out of the hands of
bad guys they would be looked at much differently.

The NRA does support enforcing the laws that will do that. ATF, not so
much. How many street level dealers get caught? How many of those are
actually prosecuted? Usually what happens is, the gun charge gets
tossed in a plea bargain for another crime, even if the gun charge
might actually bring more time in a federal prison, where getting out
early is harder to do than in overcrowded, underfunded state prisons.

I agree, the existing laws need to be better enforced or changed so that
they are enforceable. And where is Trump on this? Hello? Which makes
people like Ed and me wonder if the NRA really wants gun laws enforced.
If they do, why are they not challenging Trump to do it?


Things like trying to pass laws on private sales is clearly
unenforceable so your tongue is forking again.

Wow, I thought the vast majority of gun owners were supposed to be good,
law abiding citizens. Now you're again saying that these good, law
abiding citizens won't obey new laws covering private sales. What a bizarre
argument to make.

Read what I have been writing again. I said the "private sales" that
cause the problem are guns that were stolen. Those are not going to be
reported. Two guys in Montana swapping guns does not affect the
streets of Chicago.
Even if I take your scenario of an Indiana or Pennsylvania resident
buying guns and illegally selling them in New Jersey or Chicago, the
sale is still illegal. You just want to make it more illegal? The
threat of $100,000 fines and 10 years in federal prison isn't stopping
them. What would your punishment be? Death Penalty for violating GCA
68?

Ed Pawlowski writes:
On 12/28/2019 1:45 PM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
On Friday, December 27, 2019 at 7:31:26 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 14:36:40 -0800 (PST), wrote:


I suspect the NRA will eventually succumb to demographic changes,
despite the jump in membership they get every time there's a
mass shooting and folks start talking about gun control.

Cindy Hamilton


The NRA is a Us vs. Them situation. They want zero control.

That wasn't the case in the 1970's. Then Heston took over and
the nuts came out to play.

On Mon, 30 Dec 2019 22:20:01 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

Ed Pawlowski writes:
On 12/28/2019 1:45 PM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
On Friday, December 27, 2019 at 7:31:26 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 14:36:40 -0800 (PST), wrote:


I suspect the NRA will eventually succumb to demographic changes,
despite the jump in membership they get every time there's a
mass shooting and folks start talking about gun control.

Cindy Hamilton


The NRA is a Us vs. Them situation. They want zero control.

That wasn't the case in the 1970's. Then Heston took over and
the nuts came out to play.



That didn't happen in a vacuum. There was also a significant increase
in gun laws in that time frame and the birth of anti gun groups.
You also had the outrageous ATF raid of Ken Ballew where they really
did not have probable cause (the warrant application was flawed), they
claimed they knocked and announced but it was not heard by either Mr
or Mrs Ballew and the cops were in civilian clothes.
Mr Ballew was killed.

A lot of gun owners had a shiver go down their spine after that.

Jack booted thugs can break into your house and kill you with no real
reason.

On 12/30/2019 03:20 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Ed Pawlowski writes:
On 12/28/2019 1:45 PM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
On Friday, December 27, 2019 at 7:31:26 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 14:36:40 -0800 (PST), wrote:


I suspect the NRA will eventually succumb to demographic changes,
despite the jump in membership they get every time there's a
mass shooting and folks start talking about gun control.

Cindy Hamilton


The NRA is a Us vs. Them situation. They want zero control.

That wasn't the case in the 1970's. Then Heston took over and
the nuts came out to play.

Heston became president of the NRA in 1998. The Brady Bill was passed in
1994. Of course it was Heston that got the NRA fired up.

The NRA wasn't the only ones upset.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printz_v._United_States

On 12/30/2019 05:17 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 30 Dec 2019 22:20:01 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

Ed Pawlowski writes:
On 12/28/2019 1:45 PM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
On Friday, December 27, 2019 at 7:31:26 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 14:36:40 -0800 (PST), wrote:


I suspect the NRA will eventually succumb to demographic changes,
despite the jump in membership they get every time there's a
mass shooting and folks start talking about gun control.

Cindy Hamilton


The NRA is a Us vs. Them situation. They want zero control.

That wasn't the case in the 1970's. Then Heston took over and
the nuts came out to play.



That didn't happen in a vacuum. There was also a significant increase
in gun laws in that time frame and the birth of anti gun groups.
You also had the outrageous ATF raid of Ken Ballew where they really
did not have probable cause (the warrant application was flawed), they
claimed they knocked and announced but it was not heard by either Mr
or Mrs Ballew and the cops were in civilian clothes.
Mr Ballew was killed.

A lot of gun owners had a shiver go down their spine after that.

Jack booted thugs can break into your house and kill you with no real
reason.


Waco and Ruby Ridge didn't inspire a lot of trust either. I'm not sure
if the alleged illegal weapons were ever found at Waco or if they went
the way of the famous weapons of mass destruction. Weaver was entrapped
by an ATF informant in an attempt to get inside the Aryan Nations. Again
the initial weapons charges were questionable as was the entire handling
of the situation.

On Mon, 30 Dec 2019 19:00:29 -0700, rbowman
wrote:

On 12/30/2019 05:17 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 30 Dec 2019 22:20:01 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

Ed Pawlowski writes:
On 12/28/2019 1:45 PM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
On Friday, December 27, 2019 at 7:31:26 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 14:36:40 -0800 (PST), wrote:


I suspect the NRA will eventually succumb to demographic changes,
despite the jump in membership they get every time there's a
mass shooting and folks start talking about gun control.

Cindy Hamilton


The NRA is a Us vs. Them situation. They want zero control.

That wasn't the case in the 1970's. Then Heston took over and
the nuts came out to play.



That didn't happen in a vacuum. There was also a significant increase
in gun laws in that time frame and the birth of anti gun groups.
You also had the outrageous ATF raid of Ken Ballew where they really
did not have probable cause (the warrant application was flawed), they
claimed they knocked and announced but it was not heard by either Mr
or Mrs Ballew and the cops were in civilian clothes.
Mr Ballew was killed.

A lot of gun owners had a shiver go down their spine after that.

Jack booted thugs can break into your house and kill you with no real
reason.


Waco and Ruby Ridge didn't inspire a lot of trust either. I'm not sure
if the alleged illegal weapons were ever found at Waco or if they went
the way of the famous weapons of mass destruction. Weaver was entrapped
by an ATF informant in an attempt to get inside the Aryan Nations. Again
the initial weapons charges were questionable as was the entire handling
of the situation.

Yeah highly trained government snipers did not know the difference
between a gun and a baby so they shot Mrs Weaver in the head. after
they shot her son in the back.

On Monday, December 30, 2019 at 7:18:07 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Mon, 30 Dec 2019 22:20:01 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

Ed Pawlowski writes:
On 12/28/2019 1:45 PM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
On Friday, December 27, 2019 at 7:31:26 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 14:36:40 -0800 (PST), wrote:


I suspect the NRA will eventually succumb to demographic changes,
despite the jump in membership they get every time there's a
mass shooting and folks start talking about gun control.

Cindy Hamilton


The NRA is a Us vs. Them situation. They want zero control.

That wasn't the case in the 1970's. Then Heston took over and
the nuts came out to play.



That didn't happen in a vacuum. There was also a significant increase
in gun laws in that time frame and the birth of anti gun groups.
You also had the outrageous ATF raid of Ken Ballew where they really
did not have probable cause (the warrant application was flawed), they
claimed they knocked and announced but it was not heard by either Mr
or Mrs Ballew and the cops were in civilian clothes.
Mr Ballew was killed.

A lot of gun owners had a shiver go down their spine after that.

Jack booted thugs can break into your house and kill you with no real
reason.

Yes, leave it to you to focus on one bad incident from decades ago
and then try to use that to define America.

On Tue, 31 Dec 2019 06:50:43 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Monday, December 30, 2019 at 7:18:07 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Mon, 30 Dec 2019 22:20:01 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

Ed Pawlowski writes:
On 12/28/2019 1:45 PM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
On Friday, December 27, 2019 at 7:31:26 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 14:36:40 -0800 (PST), wrote:


I suspect the NRA will eventually succumb to demographic changes,
despite the jump in membership they get every time there's a
mass shooting and folks start talking about gun control.

Cindy Hamilton


The NRA is a Us vs. Them situation. They want zero control.

That wasn't the case in the 1970's. Then Heston took over and
the nuts came out to play.



That didn't happen in a vacuum. There was also a significant increase
in gun laws in that time frame and the birth of anti gun groups.
You also had the outrageous ATF raid of Ken Ballew where they really
did not have probable cause (the warrant application was flawed), they
claimed they knocked and announced but it was not heard by either Mr
or Mrs Ballew and the cops were in civilian clothes.
Mr Ballew was killed.

A lot of gun owners had a shiver go down their spine after that.

Jack booted thugs can break into your house and kill you with no real
reason.

Yes, leave it to you to focus on one bad incident from decades ago
and then try to use that to define America.

You seem to be hung up on a guy buying a shotgun from Dicks that never
killed anyone. There are also plenty of other abuses by the feds but I
was really responding to Lundall and he brought up the 70s.