Shall not be infringed wrote:
On Jun 19, 10:28 am, edspyhill01 wrote:
On Jun 19, 6:45 am, Cliff
wrote:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...10/06/17/AR201...
[
....
The bill would require corporations, unions and nonprofit groups to
disclose their top five donors if they participate in political
activity and to agree to other disclosures in connection with
expenditures prior to elections. The bill and a similar measure in
the Senate are aimed at countering a Supreme Court ruling that
unleashed unlimited political spending by corporations.

The NRA had threatened to muster its formidable lobbying power
against the legislation unless it was exempted from key donor
disclosure requirements. ....
]

Do as we say, give us what we want, or we'll shoot you.

Time will tell who that quote is atributed to.

$1 says it's not the NRA.

As a matter of fact , there was an email from the folks at the NRA in my
inbox today . You idiots are seriously twisting what the NRA's position on
this matter really is .
There is legislation pending that would seriously limit the rights of
organizations to speak freely on matters of importance . These laws are
designed in part to muzzle the NRA in it's defense of our right to keep and
bear arms . We can't allow that to happen .
--
Snag
Citizens have guns.
Subjects don't .

"Snag" wrote in message
...
Shall not be infringed wrote:
On Jun 19, 10:28 am, edspyhill01 wrote:
On Jun 19, 6:45 am, Cliff
wrote:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...10/06/17/AR201...
[
....
The bill would require corporations, unions and nonprofit groups to
disclose their top five donors if they participate in political
activity and to agree to other disclosures in connection with
expenditures prior to elections. The bill and a similar measure in
the Senate are aimed at countering a Supreme Court ruling that
unleashed unlimited political spending by corporations.

The NRA had threatened to muster its formidable lobbying power
against the legislation unless it was exempted from key donor
disclosure requirements. ....
]

Do as we say, give us what we want, or we'll shoot you.

Time will tell who that quote is atributed to.

$1 says it's not the NRA.

As a matter of fact , there was an email from the folks at the NRA in my
inbox today . You idiots are seriously twisting what the NRA's position on
this matter really is .

I got the e-mail, too. It's a nice PR job!

There is legislation pending that would seriously limit the rights of
organizations to speak freely on matters of importance . These laws are
designed in part to muzzle the NRA in it's defense of our right to keep
and
bear arms . We can't allow that to happen .

Not really. There is some question about the laws' ethical status -- it
depends on whether you believe in full disclosure, or complete privacy. The
two are in conflict. It's not as simple as the NRA suggests.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:
"Snag" wrote in message
...
Shall not be infringed wrote:
On Jun 19, 10:28 am, edspyhill01 wrote:
On Jun 19, 6:45 am, Cliff

wrote:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...10/06/17/AR201...
[
....
The bill would require corporations, unions and nonprofit groups
to disclose their top five donors if they participate in political
activity and to agree to other disclosures in connection with
expenditures prior to elections. The bill and a similar measure in
the Senate are aimed at countering a Supreme Court ruling that
unleashed unlimited political spending by corporations.

The NRA had threatened to muster its formidable lobbying power
against the legislation unless it was exempted from key donor
disclosure requirements. ....
]

Do as we say, give us what we want, or we'll shoot you.

Time will tell who that quote is atributed to.

$1 says it's not the NRA.

As a matter of fact , there was an email from the folks at the NRA
in my inbox today . You idiots are seriously twisting what the NRA's
position on this matter really is .

I got the e-mail, too. It's a nice PR job!

There is legislation pending that would seriously limit the rights
of organizations to speak freely on matters of importance . These
laws are designed in part to muzzle the NRA in it's defense of our
right to keep and
bear arms . We can't allow that to happen .

Not really. There is some question about the laws' ethical status --
it depends on whether you believe in full disclosure, or complete
privacy. The two are in conflict. It's not as simple as the NRA
suggests.
--
Ed Huntress

The truth lies somewhere in the middle , as it usually does . We only hear
what
'they" want us to know , and that's seldom the whole truth ...


--
Snag
Got Guns ?

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

As a matter of fact , there was an email from the folks at the NRA in my
inbox today . You idiots are seriously twisting what the NRA's position on
this matter really is .

I got the e-mail, too. It's a nice PR job!

I'm not on their mailing list. Care to forward it to me?

There is legislation pending that would seriously limit the rights of
organizations to speak freely on matters of importance . These laws are
designed in part to muzzle the NRA in it's defense of our right to keep
and
bear arms . We can't allow that to happen .

Not really. There is some question about the laws' ethical status -- it
depends on whether you believe in full disclosure, or complete privacy. The
two are in conflict. It's not as simple as the NRA suggests.

Yes it is. Free speech is unrestricted speech. Especially when it concerns maters of
politics.

The concern might be that there are groups of small numbers with big bankrolls that
attempt to sway public opinion by appearing as a large group of like minded individuals.

The NRA with 3 million members is a big group we know exists.

The Brady Center is looking like a small group, claiming to be big. I posted this in
another thread but the Brady bunch has claimed to have 500K members and they rented out
their mailing list which means they had to disclose, turns out they had 50K members and
some of those are people like me monitoring them. Not much of a deal for marketing.

http://www.examiner.com/x-30265-Detr...-to-raise-cash


My brain seems to want to pull up words like pamphleteers. Of course that reminds me of
Thomas Paine who didn't put his name on Common Sense.

On one level, I'd like to know who is behind all these adds I see on the TV but on
another, freedom of speech means you can say things with out having the state identify
you. Considering the withering array of laws that can make almost anything illegal, I'm
going to go for staying anonymous. We saw the illegal scrutiny of Joe the Plumber when he
embarrassed Obama and the Dems.

Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

As a matter of fact , there was an email from the folks at the NRA in
my
inbox today . You idiots are seriously twisting what the NRA's position
on
this matter really is .

I got the e-mail, too. It's a nice PR job!

I'm not on their mailing list. Care to forward it to me?

Ok, I sent it, and a follow-up they sent two days later.


There is legislation pending that would seriously limit the rights of
organizations to speak freely on matters of importance . These laws are
designed in part to muzzle the NRA in it's defense of our right to keep
and
bear arms . We can't allow that to happen .

Not really. There is some question about the laws' ethical status -- it
depends on whether you believe in full disclosure, or complete privacy.
The
two are in conflict. It's not as simple as the NRA suggests.

Yes it is. Free speech is unrestricted speech. Especially when it
concerns maters of
politics.

It isn't really about speech. It's about finding out who the puppeteers are.

It's a legitimate debate -- full disclosure versus secret campaign funding.


The concern might be that there are groups of small numbers with big
bankrolls that
attempt to sway public opinion by appearing as a large group of like
minded individuals.

The NRA with 3 million members is a big group we know exists.

The Brady Center is looking like a small group, claiming to be big. I
posted this in
another thread but the Brady bunch has claimed to have 500K members and
they rented out
their mailing list which means they had to disclose, turns out they had
50K members and
some of those are people like me monitoring them. Not much of a deal for
marketing.

http://www.examiner.com/x-30265-Detr...-to-raise-cash


My brain seems to want to pull up words like pamphleteers. Of course that
reminds me of
Thomas Paine who didn't put his name on Common Sense.

On one level, I'd like to know who is behind all these adds I see on the
TV but on
another, freedom of speech means you can say things with out having the
state identify
you. Considering the withering array of laws that can make almost
anything illegal, I'm
going to go for staying anonymous. We saw the illegal scrutiny of Joe the
Plumber when he
embarrassed Obama and the Dems.

Wes

Well, as I said, it's a legitimate debate. The NRA is trying to wrap it in
the flag, but that's a PR farce. As it is, there are all kinds of
organizations that fund campaigning -- including a LOT of government
contractors -- who disguise themselves as something else.

--
Ed Huntress

On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 17:38:47 -0400, Wes
wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

As a matter of fact , there was an email from the folks at the NRA in my
inbox today . You idiots are seriously twisting what the NRA's position on
this matter really is .

I got the e-mail, too. It's a nice PR job!

I'm not on their mailing list. Care to forward it to me?

There is legislation pending that would seriously limit the rights of
organizations to speak freely on matters of importance . These laws are
designed in part to muzzle the NRA in it's defense of our right to keep
and
bear arms . We can't allow that to happen .

Not really. There is some question about the laws' ethical status -- it
depends on whether you believe in full disclosure, or complete privacy. The
two are in conflict. It's not as simple as the NRA suggests.

Yes it is. Free speech is unrestricted speech. Especially when it concerns maters of
politics.

The concern might be that there are groups of small numbers with big bankrolls that
attempt to sway public opinion by appearing as a large group of like minded individuals.

The NRA with 3 million members is a big group we know exists.

The Brady Center is looking like a small group, claiming to be big. I posted this in
another thread but the Brady bunch has claimed to have 500K members and they rented out
their mailing list which means they had to disclose, turns out they had 50K members and
some of those are people like me monitoring them. Not much of a deal for marketing.

http://www.examiner.com/x-30265-Detr...-to-raise-cash


My brain seems to want to pull up words like pamphleteers. Of course that reminds me of
Thomas Paine who didn't put his name on Common Sense.

On one level, I'd like to know who is behind all these adds I see on the TV but on
another, freedom of speech means you can say things with out having the state identify
you. Considering the withering array of laws that can make almost anything illegal, I'm
going to go for staying anonymous. We saw the illegal scrutiny of Joe the Plumber when he
embarrassed Obama and the Dems.

Wes

A recent posting at the DU posits that the infamous gun banning
organization is losing money and has only received one donation of
$2,500 so far this year. If so, perhaps Paul Helmke and Petey Hamm
will have to stop traveling first class and switch to a cheaper grade
of snake oil.

A look at the opensecrets.org page for the Brady Campaign shows that,
with the exception of the 1999-2000 donation cycle ($1.7M), the
Brady\u2019s have been losing money ever since, and in fact now pay
out more money than they receive in donations.

What happened in the 1999-2000 donation cycle to boost donations so
much? On April 20th, 1999 two psychopaths stormed their high-school in
Littleton, CO and killed 13 people. I find it ironic that 8 years
later, at Virginia Tech, 32 people lost their lives and there was no
increase in donations. Either the general public has become wise to
the Brady\u2019s tricks, or there is some other factor at play here.

Now, with even more guns in public hands than ever before, crime is at
an all time low. Whether or not this is the reason for the decline is
immaterial, what is important to note, is there has been no increase
in crime as a result. Proof positive I\u2019d say that more guns does
not mean more crime, proving John Lott right.

Whatever ends up happening to the Brady Campaign, I could care less. I
know I certainly won\u2019t be shedding any tears when they eventually
disband and go away. Good riddance to bad rubbish I say.

Would the last one out of the building please turn off the lights?
Thanks!

"Ed Huntress" wrote:


"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

As a matter of fact , there was an email from the folks at the NRA in
my
inbox today . You idiots are seriously twisting what the NRA's position
on
this matter really is .

I got the e-mail, too. It's a nice PR job!

I'm not on their mailing list. Care to forward it to me?

Ok, I sent it, and a follow-up they sent two days later.

Tom Gresham had LaPiere on his second hour show. Tom and many listeners didn't seem too
impressed with LaPiere and Tom used to work for the NRA. That is available as a podcast.

http://guntalk.libsyn.com/guntalk_2010_06_20_part_b



There is legislation pending that would seriously limit the rights of
organizations to speak freely on matters of importance . These laws are
designed in part to muzzle the NRA in it's defense of our right to keep
and
bear arms . We can't allow that to happen .

Not really. There is some question about the laws' ethical status -- it
depends on whether you believe in full disclosure, or complete privacy.
The
two are in conflict. It's not as simple as the NRA suggests.

Yes it is. Free speech is unrestricted speech. Especially when it
concerns maters of
politics.

It isn't really about speech. It's about finding out who the puppeteers are.

It's a legitimate debate -- full disclosure versus secret campaign funding.

Or figuring out it is you paying the xerox bill and finding a law you violated.


The concern might be that there are groups of small numbers with big
bankrolls that
attempt to sway public opinion by appearing as a large group of like
minded individuals.

The NRA with 3 million members is a big group we know exists.

The Brady Center is looking like a small group, claiming to be big. I
posted this in
another thread but the Brady bunch has claimed to have 500K members and
they rented out
their mailing list which means they had to disclose, turns out they had
50K members and
some of those are people like me monitoring them. Not much of a deal for
marketing.

http://www.examiner.com/x-30265-Detr...-to-raise-cash


My brain seems to want to pull up words like pamphleteers. Of course that
reminds me of
Thomas Paine who didn't put his name on Common Sense.

On one level, I'd like to know who is behind all these adds I see on the
TV but on
another, freedom of speech means you can say things with out having the
state identify
you. Considering the withering array of laws that can make almost
anything illegal, I'm
going to go for staying anonymous. We saw the illegal scrutiny of Joe the
Plumber when he
embarrassed Obama and the Dems.

Wes

Well, as I said, it's a legitimate debate. The NRA is trying to wrap it in
the flag, but that's a PR farce. As it is, there are all kinds of
organizations that fund campaigning -- including a LOT of government
contractors -- who disguise themselves as something else.

Liberty can be ugly at times. I'm man enough to try it.

Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller