M
Michael Terrell
Guest
On Tuesday, February 18, 2020 at 10:23:44 PM UTC-5, bitrex wrote:
How would you know?
How would you know?
B
Bill Sloman
Guest
On Wednesday, February 19, 2020 at 3:06:37 PM UTC+11, Rick C wrote:
Selling weapons is a business just like any other, and if you screw up badly enough you can go broke.
As a business, it has slightly odd customers, and there are devices that weapons manufacturers used to stay in business that wouldn't work for other products.
The National Rifle Association is - in reality - an industry lobby devoted to spreading the idea that every American needs at least one gun handy to protect their security. The US military-industrial complex supports the same idea at the national level.
The result is a lot more dangerous and expensive tools hanging around than is good for the population as a whole, even if it suits the weapons manufacturing business.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Selling weapons is a business just like any other, and if you screw up badly enough you can go broke.
As a business, it has slightly odd customers, and there are devices that weapons manufacturers used to stay in business that wouldn't work for other products.
The National Rifle Association is - in reality - an industry lobby devoted to spreading the idea that every American needs at least one gun handy to protect their security. The US military-industrial complex supports the same idea at the national level.
The result is a lot more dangerous and expensive tools hanging around than is good for the population as a whole, even if it suits the weapons manufacturing business.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
M
mpm
Guest
On Wednesday, February 19, 2020 at 12:22:15 AM UTC-5, Bill Sloman wrote:
Yeah, because before the NRA was around, and even before the founding of America, nobody every killed anybody anywhere.
And before spoons were invented, nobody was ever fat.
Your view on gun ownership are comical, I'll give you that.
Yeah, because before the NRA was around, and even before the founding of America, nobody every killed anybody anywhere.
And before spoons were invented, nobody was ever fat.
Your view on gun ownership are comical, I'll give you that.
B
Bill Sloman
Guest
On Wednesday, February 19, 2020 at 11:19:18 PM UTC+11, mpm wrote:
Bizarre idea.
> And before spoons were invented, nobody was ever fat.
Equally silly.
> Your view on gun ownership are comical, I'll give you that.
Your understanding of them is bizarre, and the comedy presumably comes from the defects in your understanding.
My point of view is that guns are useful - if dangerous - tools.
Most advanced industrial countries keep track of the people that hold them, and try not to let them get into the hands of people who might misuse them.
America is more slap-dash, and it shows up in a higher rate of gun-related deaths.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
about 12.21 per 100,000 people per year.
The places I've lived come in at about 1 per 100,000 per year.
This really isn't the stuff of stand-up comedy. The US passion for this kind of pointless risk-taking behaviour does have it's comic side. but it is a joke in very poor taste.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Bizarre idea.
> And before spoons were invented, nobody was ever fat.
Equally silly.
> Your view on gun ownership are comical, I'll give you that.
Your understanding of them is bizarre, and the comedy presumably comes from the defects in your understanding.
My point of view is that guns are useful - if dangerous - tools.
Most advanced industrial countries keep track of the people that hold them, and try not to let them get into the hands of people who might misuse them.
America is more slap-dash, and it shows up in a higher rate of gun-related deaths.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
about 12.21 per 100,000 people per year.
The places I've lived come in at about 1 per 100,000 per year.
This really isn't the stuff of stand-up comedy. The US passion for this kind of pointless risk-taking behaviour does have it's comic side. but it is a joke in very poor taste.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
R
Rick C
Guest
On Wednesday, February 19, 2020 at 7:19:18 AM UTC-5, mpm wrote:
This is the kind of illogical, unreasoned discussion that makes it so hard to understand or even discuss issues about gun control.
> And before spoons were invented, nobody was ever fat.
Amazingly deep thoughts.
> Your view on gun ownership are comical, I'll give you that.
Why not at least use logic in discussing gun control rather than this sort of Loony Toons stuff.
--
Rick C.
+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
This is the kind of illogical, unreasoned discussion that makes it so hard to understand or even discuss issues about gun control.
> And before spoons were invented, nobody was ever fat.
Amazingly deep thoughts.
> Your view on gun ownership are comical, I'll give you that.
Why not at least use logic in discussing gun control rather than this sort of Loony Toons stuff.
--
Rick C.
+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
M
Michael Terrell
Guest
On Wednesday, February 19, 2020 at 7:19:18 AM UTC-5, mpm wrote:
The NRA was created after the Civil War to ensure that the freed slaves had the right to protect themselves from the Democratic Party's KKK thugs.
The NRA was created after the Civil War to ensure that the freed slaves had the right to protect themselves from the Democratic Party's KKK thugs.
R
Rick C
Guest
On Wednesday, February 19, 2020 at 1:06:07 PM UTC-5, Michael Terrell wrote:
Where did you read that? It appears to be patently false. For one thing, the NRA was proposed in 1861 by Americans in England copying the British group. It was finally formed in 1871 in New York to "promote and encourage rifle shooting on a scientific basis," according to the NRA web site.
Who do you trust, some left wing nut case or the NRA?
--
Rick C.
-- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
Where did you read that? It appears to be patently false. For one thing, the NRA was proposed in 1861 by Americans in England copying the British group. It was finally formed in 1871 in New York to "promote and encourage rifle shooting on a scientific basis," according to the NRA web site.
Who do you trust, some left wing nut case or the NRA?
--
Rick C.
-- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
M
mpm
Guest
On Wednesday, February 19, 2020 at 10:48:07 AM UTC-5, Rick C wrote:
Thank you. I try.
Thank you. I try.
M
mpm
Guest
On Wednesday, February 19, 2020 at 1:16:46 PM UTC-5, Rick C wrote:
> Who do you trust, some left wing nut case or the NRA?
Is that a trick question?
BTW Guys, I assume by now everyone knows we are each entrenched in our views about guns and/or gun ownership, etc... So, let's at least agree to be civil about the discussions going forward, and lighten up a bit.
As for the NRA, I am not currently a member, although I have been a member for many years prior. I decided to NOT renew my membership this year because of all the financial fuck-ups at NRA. When they clean house, and get back to their core mission, then I'll consider renewing. Until then, there are plenty of other places to put my "pro-2A" membership dollars.
But as to the NRA "power" - I don't think that really exists.
What does exist is the voters behind those memberships, whether they are current on not. That's what the politicians respond to. Mostly. Or at least, when its convenient for them to represent so.
> Who do you trust, some left wing nut case or the NRA?
Is that a trick question?
BTW Guys, I assume by now everyone knows we are each entrenched in our views about guns and/or gun ownership, etc... So, let's at least agree to be civil about the discussions going forward, and lighten up a bit.
As for the NRA, I am not currently a member, although I have been a member for many years prior. I decided to NOT renew my membership this year because of all the financial fuck-ups at NRA. When they clean house, and get back to their core mission, then I'll consider renewing. Until then, there are plenty of other places to put my "pro-2A" membership dollars.
But as to the NRA "power" - I don't think that really exists.
What does exist is the voters behind those memberships, whether they are current on not. That's what the politicians respond to. Mostly. Or at least, when its convenient for them to represent so.
R
Rick C
Guest
On Wednesday, February 19, 2020 at 2:24:13 PM UTC-5, mpm wrote:
That's pretty ironic coming from you. I seem to recall you were a lot more direct in your insults in another thread. My comment wasn't even an insult to the person I was addressing. He is not a leftist, did you not get the intended humor???
> As for the NRA, I am not currently a member, although I have been a member for many years prior. I decided to NOT renew my membership this year because of all the financial fuck-ups at NRA. When they clean house, and get back to their core mission, then I'll consider renewing. Until then, there are plenty of other places to put my "pro-2A" membership dollars.
I don't recall your membership being a part of the issue. I suspect you feel that ending your membership makes you more of a moderate?
You seem to state the obvious. The lobbyist stir the pot with their members who vote, then tell the politicians how they will stir the pot away from voting for them on one hand and donate the money from their members to the politician to pay to further motivate voters.
You seem to think voters are largely independent thinking rational people. Rather, significant numbers of them are motivated by whatever hey hear or read without giving it much thought. That's why spending advertising money in an election is so important and often decides who wins. Lobbyist use this as their tool to shape laws. NRA-ILA is a lobbying group. If it didn't work, they wouldn't be doing it.
--
Rick C.
-+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
On Wednesday, February 19, 2020 at 1:16:46 PM UTC-5, Rick C wrote:
Who do you trust, some left wing nut case or the NRA?
Is that a trick question?
BTW Guys, I assume by now everyone knows we are each entrenched in our views about guns and/or gun ownership, etc... So, let's at least agree to be civil about the discussions going forward, and lighten up a bit.
That's pretty ironic coming from you. I seem to recall you were a lot more direct in your insults in another thread. My comment wasn't even an insult to the person I was addressing. He is not a leftist, did you not get the intended humor???
> As for the NRA, I am not currently a member, although I have been a member for many years prior. I decided to NOT renew my membership this year because of all the financial fuck-ups at NRA. When they clean house, and get back to their core mission, then I'll consider renewing. Until then, there are plenty of other places to put my "pro-2A" membership dollars.
I don't recall your membership being a part of the issue. I suspect you feel that ending your membership makes you more of a moderate?
You seem to state the obvious. The lobbyist stir the pot with their members who vote, then tell the politicians how they will stir the pot away from voting for them on one hand and donate the money from their members to the politician to pay to further motivate voters.
You seem to think voters are largely independent thinking rational people. Rather, significant numbers of them are motivated by whatever hey hear or read without giving it much thought. That's why spending advertising money in an election is so important and often decides who wins. Lobbyist use this as their tool to shape laws. NRA-ILA is a lobbying group. If it didn't work, they wouldn't be doing it.
--
Rick C.
-+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
R
Rick C
Guest
On Wednesday, February 19, 2020 at 2:25:33 PM UTC-5, mpm wrote:
Actually, you don't. That's the problem. You argue to support the way you feel rather than thinking about what makes sense and putting your actions behind that. But then ultimately we are all emotional thinkers. So you are not alone.
--
Rick C.
+- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
Actually, you don't. That's the problem. You argue to support the way you feel rather than thinking about what makes sense and putting your actions behind that. But then ultimately we are all emotional thinkers. So you are not alone.
--
Rick C.
+- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
B
bitrex
Guest
On 2/19/20 7:19 AM, mpm wrote:
There were abortions before Planned Parenthood existed, doesn't seem to
stop Conservatives from wanting to make abortion illegal...
There were abortions before Planned Parenthood existed, doesn't seem to
stop Conservatives from wanting to make abortion illegal...
W
whit3rd
Guest
On Wednesday, February 19, 2020 at 4:19:18 AM UTC-8, mpm wrote:
That's unfair; before the founding of America, the Boston Massacre killed... five. It was a big deal.
Nowadays, a weapons discharge in a crowd kills a lot more. One man, in Las Vegas,
in 2017, had 58 deceased victims.
Modern weaponry, among city dwellers, is a continuously new problem on this planet, and
old solutions deserve as much reconsideration as we can muster.
That's unfair; before the founding of America, the Boston Massacre killed... five. It was a big deal.
Nowadays, a weapons discharge in a crowd kills a lot more. One man, in Las Vegas,
in 2017, had 58 deceased victims.
Modern weaponry, among city dwellers, is a continuously new problem on this planet, and
old solutions deserve as much reconsideration as we can muster.
M
Michael Terrell
Guest
On Wednesday, February 19, 2020 at 1:16:46 PM UTC-5, Rick C wrote:
I don't trust you.
I don't trust you.
R
Rick C
Guest
On Wednesday, February 19, 2020 at 6:14:13 PM UTC-5, Michael Terrell wrote:
I don't know what to tell you. You have your medical issues, but even with all that you could be happy if you wanted to. I've met people who were dying who were happier than you. It's like you want to feel bad about everyone else as if that would somehow make you feel better about yourself. I don't know. I'm just glad I don't think like you. I'd hate to be that miserable all the time.
--
Rick C.
-++- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-++- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
I don't know what to tell you. You have your medical issues, but even with all that you could be happy if you wanted to. I've met people who were dying who were happier than you. It's like you want to feel bad about everyone else as if that would somehow make you feel better about yourself. I don't know. I'm just glad I don't think like you. I'd hate to be that miserable all the time.
--
Rick C.
-++- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-++- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
M
mpm
Guest
On Wednesday, February 19, 2020 at 7:29:19 PM UTC-5, Rick C wrote:
Wow Ric, you just went down a couple notches in my book.
That's really uncalled for. Even from you.
Wow Ric, you just went down a couple notches in my book.
That's really uncalled for. Even from you.
M
mpm
Guest
The NRA and the NRA-ILA have different missions, but I honestly wouldn't expect you to know that. That's not a dig, it's just a stated opinion.
And as far as being motivated by sound bytes, you're practically the poster child for that movement. Probably explains the Tesla. (That is a dig, asshole.)
You "seem to" (your favorite weasel phrase) have a reading comprehension issue.
When I spoke of my lapse in NRA Membership, it was crystal clear in context that I didn't "end" the membership so much as I "suspended" it. I even went on to state that I would re-up when the NRA cleaned-up its financial house and got some new leadership on the board. (Which BTW, still has not happened to my satisfaction - in case you were wondering.)
But, because you "seem" to have trouble with words, you somehow leap from that, to the conclusion that I "feel" more like a moderate? WTF, boy? Are you stupid? Did somebody drop a TV set on your head when you were little? (I "feel" they might have.) You might as well conclude that because Jimmy was a punctual paperboy, he'll make a great Senator.
And if that sounds retarded to you (as it should), then you'll understand suspending my NRA membership under protest of the organizations' malfeasance has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the underlying beliefs and values that cause me to be a member in the first place. Duh?! In other words, you can support something without paying a membership dues. People do it all the time. (I know, shocker!) Hell, you probably even support efforts of the local no-kill animal shelter. Did you send them a check, drop off supplies, offer to walk some of the animals? (Probably not.)
Ordinarily, I wouldn't bother to explain such an easy concept at this length, but I "seem" to be dealing with the intellect of a 6-year old. (Another dig)
And your last paragraph is simply a gift to bad writers everywhere. You springboard from a mere assumption of my thoughts (which have no foundation in truth), and then debate the alternative view. From there, you leap again to the unsupported assertion (as if it were fact) that spending money in an election is so important it decides who wins. Really?!
Oh boy, where to start with this one....?
Well sparky, that's not really a complete grasp of the nature of money in politics. Sure - money matters. But not the way you "seem" to think - and certainly not as it relates to the gun lobby.
A LACK of money is an obvious problem. No argument there. But (and here's the part you "seem" to have missed): Money matters more for challengers than it does for incumbents. The more a CHALLENGER spends (above a certain minimum floor - you can do your own research), the more likely THEY will win.. (It also turns out, at least for House and Senate races) that the more an INCUMBENT spends, the more likely they are to lose). We'll come back to this concept in a moment...
But for starters, review the campaign spending of
Steve Forbes, Rick Perry, and Bloomberg..
And not only that - let's kick another hole in your "theory" about money in politics: It turns out that some candidates' dollars are more valuable than those of other candidates. Incumbents are already well-known, so they don't get as much "bang for the buck" (pardon the pun) in terms of name recognition, media coverage, etc..., because they already get a lot of FREE airtime that the challengers don't get. Did you factor THAT into your money equation? I didn't think so.
And another consideration: Do incumbents spend more money out of FEAR that they will lose an election, and does the electorate pick up on that? (FACT: Incumbents, historically, are more likely to lose close races - but you could certainly counter that this is simply a "numbers" game built into the equation, and I probably wouldn't protest too vigorously in response - but it's an interesting wrinkle. But here's the real beauty of the argument: If you did argue it was a just numbers game, then it proves my point about money in politics - it is simply a mirror of the way the race is going to turn out anyway (at least in close elections).
So, Yes - Money is important. But that's only a 2nd-graders view of politics.
WHO's money (incumbent or challenger?) matters more, especially in early campaigning. And especially in tight races.
But you know what? We have an experiment folding out right before our eyes..
If the press is to be believed, Michael Bloomberg is on-track to spend a STELLAR amount of money on his presidential campaign. Let's see if MONEY really can buy an election, or if it's the MESSAGE that matters.
And as far as being motivated by sound bytes, you're practically the poster child for that movement. Probably explains the Tesla. (That is a dig, asshole.)
You "seem to" (your favorite weasel phrase) have a reading comprehension issue.
When I spoke of my lapse in NRA Membership, it was crystal clear in context that I didn't "end" the membership so much as I "suspended" it. I even went on to state that I would re-up when the NRA cleaned-up its financial house and got some new leadership on the board. (Which BTW, still has not happened to my satisfaction - in case you were wondering.)
But, because you "seem" to have trouble with words, you somehow leap from that, to the conclusion that I "feel" more like a moderate? WTF, boy? Are you stupid? Did somebody drop a TV set on your head when you were little? (I "feel" they might have.) You might as well conclude that because Jimmy was a punctual paperboy, he'll make a great Senator.
And if that sounds retarded to you (as it should), then you'll understand suspending my NRA membership under protest of the organizations' malfeasance has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the underlying beliefs and values that cause me to be a member in the first place. Duh?! In other words, you can support something without paying a membership dues. People do it all the time. (I know, shocker!) Hell, you probably even support efforts of the local no-kill animal shelter. Did you send them a check, drop off supplies, offer to walk some of the animals? (Probably not.)
Ordinarily, I wouldn't bother to explain such an easy concept at this length, but I "seem" to be dealing with the intellect of a 6-year old. (Another dig)
And your last paragraph is simply a gift to bad writers everywhere. You springboard from a mere assumption of my thoughts (which have no foundation in truth), and then debate the alternative view. From there, you leap again to the unsupported assertion (as if it were fact) that spending money in an election is so important it decides who wins. Really?!
Oh boy, where to start with this one....?
Well sparky, that's not really a complete grasp of the nature of money in politics. Sure - money matters. But not the way you "seem" to think - and certainly not as it relates to the gun lobby.
A LACK of money is an obvious problem. No argument there. But (and here's the part you "seem" to have missed): Money matters more for challengers than it does for incumbents. The more a CHALLENGER spends (above a certain minimum floor - you can do your own research), the more likely THEY will win.. (It also turns out, at least for House and Senate races) that the more an INCUMBENT spends, the more likely they are to lose). We'll come back to this concept in a moment...
But for starters, review the campaign spending of
Steve Forbes, Rick Perry, and Bloomberg..
And not only that - let's kick another hole in your "theory" about money in politics: It turns out that some candidates' dollars are more valuable than those of other candidates. Incumbents are already well-known, so they don't get as much "bang for the buck" (pardon the pun) in terms of name recognition, media coverage, etc..., because they already get a lot of FREE airtime that the challengers don't get. Did you factor THAT into your money equation? I didn't think so.
And another consideration: Do incumbents spend more money out of FEAR that they will lose an election, and does the electorate pick up on that? (FACT: Incumbents, historically, are more likely to lose close races - but you could certainly counter that this is simply a "numbers" game built into the equation, and I probably wouldn't protest too vigorously in response - but it's an interesting wrinkle. But here's the real beauty of the argument: If you did argue it was a just numbers game, then it proves my point about money in politics - it is simply a mirror of the way the race is going to turn out anyway (at least in close elections).
So, Yes - Money is important. But that's only a 2nd-graders view of politics.
WHO's money (incumbent or challenger?) matters more, especially in early campaigning. And especially in tight races.
But you know what? We have an experiment folding out right before our eyes..
If the press is to be believed, Michael Bloomberg is on-track to spend a STELLAR amount of money on his presidential campaign. Let's see if MONEY really can buy an election, or if it's the MESSAGE that matters.
M
Michael Terrell
Guest
On Wednesday, February 19, 2020 at 6:30:13 PM UTC-5, whit3rd wrote:
Gee! People were at a loud, outdoor concert, and the gunman was randomly shooting into the crowd from not only a long way, but from an elevation. Go back 200 years and find a similar setting. He could have planted home built bombs and killed even more, in either time frame., yet bombs have improved vastly in the same period. The problem isn't the weapon, it is the fruitcake who shouldn't have been out in public.
Gee! People were at a loud, outdoor concert, and the gunman was randomly shooting into the crowd from not only a long way, but from an elevation. Go back 200 years and find a similar setting. He could have planted home built bombs and killed even more, in either time frame., yet bombs have improved vastly in the same period. The problem isn't the weapon, it is the fruitcake who shouldn't have been out in public.
R
Rick C
Guest
On Wednesday, February 19, 2020 at 11:09:38 PM UTC-5, Michael Terrell wrote:
Take away the weapon and fruitcake is just a dessert.
You are aware that building bombs is highly controlled and illegal done by an individual, no? So are you suggesting we should regulate guns the same way as bombs?
I won't argue against that. It seems logical.
--
Rick C.
+--- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+--- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
Take away the weapon and fruitcake is just a dessert.
You are aware that building bombs is highly controlled and illegal done by an individual, no? So are you suggesting we should regulate guns the same way as bombs?
I won't argue against that. It seems logical.
--
Rick C.
+--- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+--- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
R
Rick C
Guest
On Wednesday, February 19, 2020 at 8:30:00 PM UTC-5, mpm wrote:
> The NRA and the NRA-ILA have different missions, but I honestly wouldn't expect you to know that. That's not a dig, it's just a stated opinion.
I am familiar with the difference. My gun friend is a life member of the NRA, but won't give a penny to the ILA.
> And as far as being motivated by sound bytes, you're practically the poster child for that movement. Probably explains the Tesla. (That is a dig, asshole.)
Except that I don't talk in sound bites and you only demean yourself my calling others names. I'm not sure what the Tesla issue is. I expect you are trying to fit me in a pigeon hole of some sort.
Not sure why you are so vested in this issue of NRA membership. It's a non-issue as far as I am concerned.
> But, because you "seem" to have trouble with words, you somehow leap from that, to the conclusion that I "feel" more like a moderate? WTF, boy? Are you stupid? Did somebody drop a TV set on your head when you were little? (I "feel" they might have.) You might as well conclude that because Jimmy was a punctual paperboy, he'll make a great Senator.
You are talking like one of the resident illiterates in this group. He often calls people "boy" and puts them down. But as usual you make literally no sense.
> And if that sounds retarded to you (as it should), then you'll understand suspending my NRA membership under protest of the organizations' malfeasance has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the underlying beliefs and values that cause me to be a member in the first place. Duh?! In other words, you can support something without paying a membership dues. People do it all the time. (I know, shocker!) Hell, you probably even support efforts of the local no-kill animal shelter. Did you send them a check, drop off supplies, offer to walk some of the animals? (Probably not.)
Now I understand perfectly. You mentioned your NRA membership specifically because it has no bearing on the discussion. Great!
Wow! You do go on. Thanks for the education.
--
Rick C.
-+++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
> The NRA and the NRA-ILA have different missions, but I honestly wouldn't expect you to know that. That's not a dig, it's just a stated opinion.
I am familiar with the difference. My gun friend is a life member of the NRA, but won't give a penny to the ILA.
> And as far as being motivated by sound bytes, you're practically the poster child for that movement. Probably explains the Tesla. (That is a dig, asshole.)
Except that I don't talk in sound bites and you only demean yourself my calling others names. I'm not sure what the Tesla issue is. I expect you are trying to fit me in a pigeon hole of some sort.
Not sure why you are so vested in this issue of NRA membership. It's a non-issue as far as I am concerned.
> But, because you "seem" to have trouble with words, you somehow leap from that, to the conclusion that I "feel" more like a moderate? WTF, boy? Are you stupid? Did somebody drop a TV set on your head when you were little? (I "feel" they might have.) You might as well conclude that because Jimmy was a punctual paperboy, he'll make a great Senator.
You are talking like one of the resident illiterates in this group. He often calls people "boy" and puts them down. But as usual you make literally no sense.
> And if that sounds retarded to you (as it should), then you'll understand suspending my NRA membership under protest of the organizations' malfeasance has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the underlying beliefs and values that cause me to be a member in the first place. Duh?! In other words, you can support something without paying a membership dues. People do it all the time. (I know, shocker!) Hell, you probably even support efforts of the local no-kill animal shelter. Did you send them a check, drop off supplies, offer to walk some of the animals? (Probably not.)
Now I understand perfectly. You mentioned your NRA membership specifically because it has no bearing on the discussion. Great!
Wow! You do go on. Thanks for the education.
--
Rick C.
-+++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209