Come on guys. I am glad that Fold does something to teach kids about guns and safety. While teaching them at home is not the perfect way, at least it is teaching them something about safety. That is what is important. I wish gun safety would be trained in schools as a way to reduce accidents.
My son is now 12 and he has taken the official Minnesota gun safety training besides being home schooled on the subject, so I feel safe should he ever get his hands on a gun. Only problem is that he now expects me to go sit in the cold woods with him looking for deer now.
I am not talking about "gun culture" I am talking about "gun safety". Not knowing how to add or speak properly will not kill you. Finding a gun and using it as a toy can.
It needs to be drilled into their heads.
[Edited 2 times. Most recently by on May 7, 2005 at 09:00pm.]
...Caitlin Fairly was recovering in fair condition on Monday at the Blair E. Batson Children's Hospital after the 8:50 p.m. Friday shooting. Caitlin found a small-caliber gun, which was pointed at or near her mouth when it fired, at her 4204 Carter Circle home, police said...
Caitlin is a 9 year old girl who was playing with a gun. I am sure that she could spell and add well for her age, but that did not help her. Knowledge of the proper way of handling a firearm probably would have saved her a lot of pain.
The conservatives on this board complain about the state of the schools and then want to place gun training alongside English and math in the curriculum. The Chinese kids will be kicking their ass academically, but the U.S, kids will be able to handle a weapon.
Where's the money for this training? Can't raise taxes, you know.
And I appreciate you teach a child about safety and perhaps keeping him from being the one in the hospital.
The Chinese kids will be kicking their ass academically, but the U.S, kids will be able to handle a weapon.
Just maybe that 9 year old girl would not be in fair condition if someone had taught her better handling of a weapon. Which is more important?
Where's the money for this training? Can't raise taxes, you know.
I am sure that the DNR guys would be more than happy to come in and talk to these kids. We already pay for them and many pamphlets that get handed out. Basic safety.
"I am sure that the DNR guys would be more than happy to come in and talk to these kids."
You talk like they work for the sheer love of it, instead of for a living. Talked to anyone from the DNR about the agency's budget, lately? They're spread kinda thin. They've had to look hard at costs like any other department in the state.
[Edited 4 times. Most recently by on May 8, 2005 at 07:14am.]
I believe my apathetic views towards my own English skills are bona fide. I will not go out of my way to improve my spelling, grammar, pronunciation, meaning, and lingusitic history on a daily basis.Â
My views are daily blogs, posting on threads, email, web searching, shorthand note taking, text messaging, instant messaging, and other forms of communications are the downfall of the language skills throughout the entire world. Over numerous years of writing sentences without vowels because of my work I feel that I'm extremly lucky to have some of these skills left.
It would take me at least 15 mins to even structure togethor a paragraph with perfect grammar.
But on the flip side,I am able to speed read when I feel like doing so. I just skip the vowels when I'm reading a book.
I would be willing to bet that any text contains 80% surplus information. By scanning over the vowel letters in a text I'm able to read it faster. Maybe this is why Ancient Greek didn't use vowel letters.
I gss you cn rd ths wtht vwls.
Â
I'm sorry that I didn't answer your question. I would have to say NO. But I wanted to explain my reasons.
[Edited 2 times. Most recently by on May 8, 2005 at 10:58am.]
Caitlin is a 9 year old girl who was playing with a gun. I am sure that she could spell and add well for her age, but that did not help her. Knowledge of the proper way of handling a firearm probably would have saved her a lot of pain.
Of course, simply not having a gun around would have saved her a lot of pain as well.
I don't see any reason why the NRA would do a poor job teaching kids gun safety. I think that would be a good activity for them. They could even talk about the gun ownership rights. I don't care about that. They could re-direct all the money they use to buy off politicians and do something useful.
If they started getting too far afield, like fretting about the United Nations and whatever other shadowy group they're afraid of, most kids by the age of 12 would see the folly of their reasoning.
I think keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of 9 year olds would be more effective.
Yes, whoever owned the firearm should have used basic common sense when it comes to safety (do not store a loaded weapon, gun locks, etc.) and from the sounds of the article may face charges. Again, if the owner had taken safety training in school, maybe this would have been avoided.
The next generation being able to compete effectively in a globalized world.
Agreed, but living long enough to compete would also be important I would think.
You talk like they work for the sheer love of it, instead of for a living.
Many I have talked to do it for the love of it. Income is just an added bonus.
Talked to anyone from the DNR about the agency's budget, lately? They're spread kinda thin.
They have no problem with giving speeches at gun safety training classes. I think they would also be able to do the same during slow times (when there is no hunting season for example) at the schools. Just an hour or so of teaching children would sure help.
Of course, simply not having a gun around would have saved her a lot of pain as well.
Yes it would have, however it is a constitutional right to have one. Abstinence would certainly put an end to STD's, but that apparently is not a realistic option either. We must turn to the next best thing which is education.
My dad taught be to have my guns locked up.....ammo locked up elsewhere
Exactly. That alone would have saved this girl a lot of pain.
and I am not sure what the law is now
Varies depending on what you are hunting, but (if I remember right)Â basically: No one under 12. 12-16=passing an accredited safety training and a guardian with them.
"Yes it would have, however it is a constitutional right to have one."
There's a lot of things in that Constitution, doesn't mean you have to follow them all. Having a gun simply because you canis nothing more than Constitutional circle jerking.
 Having a gun simply because you can is nothing more than Constitutional circle jerking.
We do not know what their reasons were for having one were. Personal security maybe? However, it is their right as a U.S. citizen to have one. It is their responsibility to use safe measures with it also.
My original arguement is that at times children may find or figure out a way to get their hands on such a weapon. What is wrong with teaching them that it is not a toy and can cause serious harm if not treated in a proper manor?
if you have a gun in your home...as far as i'm concerned...its your responsiblity.....IMHO you should be charged with something for a kid getting his/her hands on it if they do something wrong with it...
"What is wrong with teaching them that it is not a toy and can cause serious harm if not treated in a proper manor?"
You seem to want to make it a requirement. I say there are more pressing priorities.
And I don't think DNR people do their job out of love any more than people in other professions. They shouldn't be asked to sacrifice their personal time simply because they work for taxpayer money.
Yes there is a lot of improvement needed in many areas. I am not fighting with you on that. I do believe that teaching safety could help save a lot of problems as well though.
And I don't think DNR people do their job out of love any more than people in other professions.
You haven't met any have you?
They shouldn't be asked to sacrifice their personal time simply because they work for taxpayer money.
Nobody is asking such a thing. It could easily be an hour or two during a slow time. Or it could be a police officer doing some outreach time. I am sure that there would be many gun club personel that would volunteer for such a safety program as well.
Yes, I have. And I also hear the heat they get as well. And I wouldn't want to see them shouldered with the task of teaching firearms safety in a school setting.
[Edited 2 times. Most recently by on May 9, 2005 at 05:11am.]
They are against every single Democrat in the Nation, and they demonize us all, in order to instill fear in the minds of some people, those who actually believe that the day will come when they cannot own a gun.
Baca, Joe (D-CA), Berry, Marion (D-AR), Bishop, Sanford D Jr (D-GA), Boren, Dan (D-OK), Boucher, Rick (D-VA), Boyd, Allen (D-FL), Chandler, Ben (D-KY), Costello, Jerry F (D-IL), Cramer, Bud (D-AL), Cuellar, Henry (D-TX), Davis, Artur (D-AL), Davis, Lincoln (D-TN), Dingell, John D (D-MI), Gordon, Bart (D-TN), Green, Gene (D-TX), Herseth, Stephanie (D-SD), Hill, Baron (D-IN), Holden, Tim (D-PA), Kanjorski, Paul E (D-PA), Lampson, Nick (D-TX), Lucas, Frank D (R-OK), Lucas, Ken (D-KY), Marshall, Jim (D-GA), Matheson, Jim (D-UT), McIntyre, Mike (D-NC), Melancon, Charles J (D-LA), Michaud, Mike (D-ME), Murtha, John P (D-PA), Oberstar, James L (D-MN), Ortiz, Solomon P (D-TX), Peterson, Collin C (D-MN), Rahall, Nick (D-WV), Reyes, Silvestre (D-TX), Ross, Mike (D-AR), Ryan, Tim (D-OH), Salazar, John Tony (D-CO), Sandlin, Max (D-TX), Skelton, Ike (D-MO), Stenholm, Charles W (D-TX), Stoll, Steve (D-MO), Strickland, Ted (D-OH), Tanner, John (D-TN), Taylor, Gene (D-MS), Thompson, Mike (D-CA), Turner, Jim (D-TX), John, Chris (D-LA), Johnson, Tim (D-SD), Nelson, Ben (D-NE) and Reid, Harry (D-NV)have all received money from the NRAduring the 2004 election cycle.
"You will be surprised at how many Dems get an A rating by them."
Does that buy them insurance against demonization? I'm guessing the NRA may contribute as much more or as much to their opponent.
If they have all this money to spread around, why don't they use it to teach kids gun safety?
Are NRA members so single-issue that these rating are the deciding factor? That would place them in the same category as blind-sheep party loyalists in your mind, wouldn't it, Dan?
[Edited 5 times. Most recently by on May 15, 2005 at 07:30pm.]
Does that buy them insurance against demonization?
I seriously doubt that they would rate them good then backstab them. Why would they? I could see them disagreeing with a particular vote or updating the ratings to reflect current situations though.
I'm guessing the NRA may contribute as much more or as much to their opponent.
"Guessing" being the key word. How about some proof.
Do you donate some to Republicans but more to dems or do you concentrate your money on the candidate of your choice?
If they have all this money to spread around, why don't they use it to teach kids gun safety?
I have already addressed this issue. They do much for safety training.
Are NRA members so single-issue that these rating are the deciding factor? That would place them in the same category as blind-sheep party loyalists in your mind, wouldn't it, Dan?
LOL. Do you really believe that? Do you not think that this is just a piece of education for them? It does not mean that they have to vote a certain way or get their membership revoked.
"I seriously doubt that they would rate them good then backstab them. Why would they? "
I don't know if it's a matter of "backstabbing." With a high rating, I wouldn't think the NRA guarantees them anything.
"Guessing" being the key word. How about some proof.
You don't think the NRA walks into every office of every member of the House and Senate?
"LOL. Do you really believe that?
That's my inclination, laugh all you want.
"Do you not think that this is just a piece of education for them?"
Are there NRA members who look at the record of members of Congress and the Senate, and state offices, and vote down the line? I have no reason not to believe that. I think it could be the first, second and third source for voting decisions with many people.
"Do you donate some to Republicans but more to dems or do you concentrate your money on the candidate of your choice? "
Only Democrats. I'm not trying to buy anyone's vote. But the NRA is.
[Edited 10 times. Most recently by on May 15, 2005 at 09:19pm.]
"I have already addressed this issue. They (NRA) do much for safety training."
They could do more if they used the money they used to pay off politicians, couldn't they? It's about the childrenisn't it? You said that. You're more than willing to give that burden to the state DNR (taxpayers). What do a bunch of pencil-necked government bureaurcrats know when compared to the NRA? That would seem to me the conservative line.
[Edited 6 times. Most recently by on May 15, 2005 at 09:41pm.]
Those people, all of them, could NOT be re-elected, without giving lip-service to Gun Owners, and the NRA. It's just not possible. Rural areas are full of HUNTERS, I mean... what a gimme . This is a Hunting/Fishing/Outdoor-Activities state.
So your idea of a good candidate is one that pays "lip-service" to what concerns the voters? They are just a bunch of lying bastards, but that is alright since it got a Dem elected?
Now that I answered your question, what difference would it make if 100% of that money went to Republicans? I have not heard a peep out of you about the unions that give 98%, 99% or even 100% of their money to Dems. or Soros and his groups. Why is the NRA different?
[Edited 2 times. Most recently by on May 16, 2005 at 04:33pm.]
Your bitterness knows no bounds. Seek professional help.
I've taken flight ground school....I wonder if I can land a plane??
Not with me in it.
:) see point taken.
Come on guys. I am glad that Fold does something to teach kids about guns and safety. While teaching them at home is not the perfect way, at least it is teaching them something about safety. That is what is important. I wish gun safety would be trained in schools as a way to reduce accidents.
My son is now 12 and he has taken the official Minnesota gun safety training besides being home schooled on the subject, so I feel safe should he ever get his hands on a gun. Only problem is that he now expects me to go sit in the cold woods with him looking for deer now.
I want to try this though!
http://users.rcn.com/sitzkrieg/war/gatlinggun.wmv
Teaching them "something" is the wrong way to go about it. It only makes kids wonder.
"I wish gun safety would be trained in schools as a way to reduce accidents."
Proper English, first. Mathematics.
Gun culture as an elective.
[Edited 2 times. Most recently by on May 7, 2005 at 06:02pm.]
yeah...my english skills suck....
but...I used to have them...I've just gotten lazy....and well..i don't care...I personally feel its for the "smug"...
Gun culture as an elective.
I am not talking about "gun culture" I am talking about "gun safety". Not knowing how to add or speak properly will not kill you. Finding a gun and using it as a toy can.
It needs to be drilled into their heads.
[Edited 2 times. Most recently by on May 7, 2005 at 09:00pm.]
Caitlin is a 9 year old girl who was playing with a gun. I am sure that she could spell and add well for her age, but that did not help her. Knowledge of the proper way of handling a firearm probably would have saved her a lot of pain.
[Edited by on May 7, 2005 at 09:05pm.]
The conservatives on this board complain about the state of the schools and then want to place gun training alongside English and math in the curriculum. The Chinese kids will be kicking their ass academically, but the U.S, kids will be able to handle a weapon.
Where's the money for this training? Can't raise taxes, you know.
[Edited by on May 8, 2005 at 05:49am.]
Maybe they can do gun safety instead of condoms and cucumbers.
You don't have to lock and guard an arsenal of cucumbers.
[Edited by on May 8, 2005 at 05:52am.]
Fold...If you would have told me this version...I would have accepted it...
but you first said you taught your kid..."WITHOUT guns" ......
I appreciate the kind words.
And I appreciate you teach a child about safety and perhaps keeping him from being the one in the hospital.
The Chinese kids will be kicking their ass academically, but the U.S, kids will be able to handle a weapon.
Just maybe that 9 year old girl would not be in fair condition if someone had taught her better handling of a weapon. Which is more important?
Where's the money for this training? Can't raise taxes, you know.
I am sure that the DNR guys would be more than happy to come in and talk to these kids. We already pay for them and many pamphlets that get handed out. Basic safety.
[Edited by on May 8, 2005 at 06:43am.]
"Just maybe that 9 year old girl would not be in fair condition if someone had taught her better handling of a weapon."
I think keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of 9 year olds would be more effective.
Which is more important?"
The next generation being able to compete effectively in a globalized world.
[Edited 3 times. Most recently by on May 8, 2005 at 07:17am.]
"I am sure that the DNR guys would be more than happy to come in and talk to these kids."
You talk like they work for the sheer love of it, instead of for a living. Talked to anyone from the DNR about the agency's budget, lately? They're spread kinda thin. They've had to look hard at costs like any other department in the state.
[Edited 4 times. Most recently by on May 8, 2005 at 07:14am.]
Why is Rick against gun safety? ORRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR, is it his anti-gun mentality speaking?
"yeah...my english skills suck.... but...I used to have them...I've just gotten lazy....and well..i don't care..."
Are you as indifferent to other shortcomings?
[Edited by on May 8, 2005 at 10:20am.]
Are you as indifferent to other shortcomings?
I believe my apathetic views towards my own English skills are bona fide. I will not go out of my way to improve my spelling, grammar, pronunciation, meaning, and lingusitic history on a daily basis.Â
My views are daily blogs, posting on threads, email, web searching, shorthand note taking, text messaging, instant messaging, and other forms of communications are the downfall of the language skills throughout the entire world. Over numerous years of writing sentences without vowels because of my work I feel that I'm extremly lucky to have some of these skills left.
It would take me at least 15 mins to even structure togethor a paragraph with perfect grammar.
But on the flip side,I am able to speed read when I feel like doing so. I just skip the vowels when I'm reading a book.
I would be willing to bet that any text contains 80% surplus information. By scanning over the vowel letters in a text I'm able to read it faster. Maybe this is why Ancient Greek didn't use vowel letters.
I gss you cn rd ths wtht vwls.
Â
I'm sorry that I didn't answer your question. I would have to say NO. But I wanted to explain my reasons.
[Edited 2 times. Most recently by on May 8, 2005 at 10:58am.]
Of course, simply not having a gun around would have saved her a lot of pain as well.
see....somewhere along the lines..some idiot didn't teach their kids....
Â
My dad taught be to have my guns locked up.....ammo locked up elsewhere...and keys ...ha...I have no keys....
I don't see any reason why the NRA would do a poor job teaching kids gun safety. I think that would be a good activity for them. They could even talk about the gun ownership rights. I don't care about that. They could re-direct all the money they use to buy off politicians and do something useful.
If they started getting too far afield, like fretting about the United Nations and whatever other shadowy group they're afraid of, most kids by the age of 12 would see the folly of their reasoning.
[Edited by on May 8, 2005 at 01:26pm.]
I think keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of 9 year olds would be more effective.
Yes, whoever owned the firearm should have used basic common sense when it comes to safety (do not store a loaded weapon, gun locks, etc.) and from the sounds of the article may face charges. Again, if the owner had taken safety training in school, maybe this would have been avoided.
The next generation being able to compete effectively in a globalized world.
Agreed, but living long enough to compete would also be important I would think.
You talk like they work for the sheer love of it, instead of for a living.
Many I have talked to do it for the love of it. Income is just an added bonus.
Talked to anyone from the DNR about the agency's budget, lately? They're spread kinda thin.
They have no problem with giving speeches at gun safety training classes. I think they would also be able to do the same during slow times (when there is no hunting season for example) at the schools. Just an hour or so of teaching children would sure help.
Of course, simply not having a gun around would have saved her a lot of pain as well.
Yes it would have, however it is a constitutional right to have one. Abstinence would certainly put an end to STD's, but that apparently is not a realistic option either. We must turn to the next best thing which is education.
My dad taught be to have my guns locked up.....ammo locked up elsewhere
Exactly. That alone would have saved this girl a lot of pain.
and I am not sure what the law is now
Varies depending on what you are hunting, but (if I remember right)Â basically: No one under 12. 12-16=passing an accredited safety training and a guardian with them.
I think that would be a good activity for them.
They do safety courses:
http://www.nrahq.org/education/training/basictraining.asp
http://www.nrahq.org/education/guide.asp
The UN is a shadowy group? Poor confused liberal.
"Yes it would have, however it is a constitutional right to have one."
There's a lot of things in that Constitution, doesn't mean you have to follow them all. Having a gun simply because you canis nothing more than Constitutional circle jerking.
I can burn a flag....doesn't mean I'm going to run out and do it.
 Having a gun simply because you can is nothing more than Constitutional circle jerking.
We do not know what their reasons were for having one were. Personal security maybe? However, it is their right as a U.S. citizen to have one. It is their responsibility to use safe measures with it also.
My original arguement is that at times children may find or figure out a way to get their hands on such a weapon. What is wrong with teaching them that it is not a toy and can cause serious harm if not treated in a proper manor?
[Edited by on May 8, 2005 at 04:55pm.]
why do I think we are all on the same page??
Â
if you have a gun in your home...as far as i'm concerned...its your responsiblity.....IMHO you should be charged with something for a kid getting his/her hands on it if they do something wrong with it...
"What is wrong with teaching them that it is not a toy and can cause serious harm if not treated in a proper manor?"
You seem to want to make it a requirement. I say there are more pressing priorities.
And I don't think DNR people do their job out of love any more than people in other professions. They shouldn't be asked to sacrifice their personal time simply because they work for taxpayer money.
Yet another person who knows nothing of the DNR.
You seem to want to make it a requirement.
That is what I said.
 I say there are more pressing priorities.
Yes there is a lot of improvement needed in many areas. I am not fighting with you on that. I do believe that teaching safety could help save a lot of problems as well though.
And I don't think DNR people do their job out of love any more than people in other professions.
You haven't met any have you?
They shouldn't be asked to sacrifice their personal time simply because they work for taxpayer money.
Nobody is asking such a thing. It could easily be an hour or two during a slow time. Or it could be a police officer doing some outreach time. I am sure that there would be many gun club personel that would volunteer for such a safety program as well.
"You haven't met any have you?"
Yes, I have. And I also hear the heat they get as well. And I wouldn't want to see them shouldered with the task of teaching firearms safety in a school setting.
[Edited 2 times. Most recently by on May 9, 2005 at 05:11am.]
Oh horseshit Bill.
The gun "lobby" only got active after the assholes in government started doing everything they could to start violating the 2nd Amendment.
And as for Bush sr. resigning, he was fairly anti-gun his whole life and only joined the NRA shortly before he wanted to run for POTUS.
Ok Bill, what is the gun "lobbies" political agenda in your OPINION?
Oh and Bill. Sorry for the abrasive tone in my 1st post. I have a cold and it is making me a tad cranky.
[Edited by on May 12, 2005 at 07:18pm.]
Well duh! As the "progessives" have seized gun-control as one of their defining issues, yes, the NRA will be supporting conservatives.
[Edited by on May 15, 2005 at 08:34am.]
They are against every single Democrat in the Nation............
Don't you ever tire of shooting your mouth off when you have absolutely no idea of what you're talking about, Fold???????????
Just from my area, Jim Oberstar, Mary Murphy and Tom Bakk (ALL DEMOCRATS)have consistantly received A and B ratings from the NRA.
Get a clue, fool.
Hubert Humphrey strongly believed in the Second Amendment.
They are against every single Democrat in the Nation, and they demonize us all, in order to instill fear in the minds of some people, those who actually believe that the day will come when they cannot own a gun.
Baca, Joe (D-CA), Berry, Marion (D-AR), Bishop, Sanford D Jr (D-GA), Boren, Dan (D-OK), Boucher, Rick (D-VA), Boyd, Allen (D-FL), Chandler, Ben (D-KY), Costello, Jerry F (D-IL), Cramer, Bud (D-AL), Cuellar, Henry (D-TX), Davis, Artur (D-AL), Davis, Lincoln (D-TN), Dingell, John D (D-MI), Gordon, Bart (D-TN), Green, Gene (D-TX), Herseth, Stephanie (D-SD), Hill, Baron (D-IN), Holden, Tim (D-PA), Kanjorski, Paul E (D-PA), Lampson, Nick (D-TX), Lucas, Frank D (R-OK), Lucas, Ken (D-KY), Marshall, Jim (D-GA), Matheson, Jim (D-UT), McIntyre, Mike (D-NC), Melancon, Charles J (D-LA), Michaud, Mike (D-ME), Murtha, John P (D-PA), Oberstar, James L (D-MN), Ortiz, Solomon P (D-TX), Peterson, Collin C (D-MN), Rahall, Nick (D-WV), Reyes, Silvestre (D-TX), Ross, Mike (D-AR), Ryan, Tim (D-OH), Salazar, John Tony (D-CO), Sandlin, Max (D-TX), Skelton, Ike (D-MO), Stenholm, Charles W (D-TX), Stoll, Steve (D-MO), Strickland, Ted (D-OH), Tanner, John (D-TN), Taylor, Gene (D-MS), Thompson, Mike (D-CA), Turner, Jim (D-TX), John, Chris (D-LA), Johnson, Tim (D-SD), Nelson, Ben (D-NE) and Reid, Harry (D-NV)have all received money from the NRAduring the 2004 election cycle.
You can also go here
http://www.nrapvf.org/Elections/Default.aspx
 to see who ranks how by their standards. You will be surprised at how many Dems get an A rating by them.
[Edited 2 times. Most recently by on May 15, 2005 at 07:13pm.]
"You will be surprised at how many Dems get an A rating by them."
Does that buy them insurance against demonization? I'm guessing the NRA may contribute as much more or as much to their opponent.
If they have all this money to spread around, why don't they use it to teach kids gun safety?
Are NRA members so single-issue that these rating are the deciding factor? That would place them in the same category as blind-sheep party loyalists in your mind, wouldn't it, Dan?
[Edited 5 times. Most recently by on May 15, 2005 at 07:30pm.]
Does that buy them insurance against demonization?
I seriously doubt that they would rate them good then backstab them. Why would they? I could see them disagreeing with a particular vote or updating the ratings to reflect current situations though.
I'm guessing the NRA may contribute as much more or as much to their opponent.
"Guessing" being the key word. How about some proof.
Do you donate some to Republicans but more to dems or do you concentrate your money on the candidate of your choice?
If they have all this money to spread around, why don't they use it to teach kids gun safety?
I have already addressed this issue. They do much for safety training.
Are NRA members so single-issue that these rating are the deciding factor? That would place them in the same category as blind-sheep party loyalists in your mind, wouldn't it, Dan?
LOL. Do you really believe that? Do you not think that this is just a piece of education for them? It does not mean that they have to vote a certain way or get their membership revoked.
[Edited by on May 15, 2005 at 08:23pm.]
"I seriously doubt that they would rate them good then backstab them. Why would they? "
I don't know if it's a matter of "backstabbing." With a high rating, I wouldn't think the NRA guarantees them anything.
"Guessing" being the key word. How about some proof.
You don't think the NRA walks into every office of every member of the House and Senate?
"LOL. Do you really believe that?
That's my inclination, laugh all you want.
"Do you not think that this is just a piece of education for them?"
Are there NRA members who look at the record of members of Congress and the Senate, and state offices, and vote down the line? I have no reason not to believe that. I think it could be the first, second and third source for voting decisions with many people.
"Do you donate some to Republicans but more to dems or do you concentrate your money on the candidate of your choice? "
Only Democrats. I'm not trying to buy anyone's vote. But the NRA is.
[Edited 10 times. Most recently by on May 15, 2005 at 09:19pm.]
"I have already addressed this issue. They (NRA) do much for safety training."
They could do more if they used the money they used to pay off politicians, couldn't they? It's about the childrenisn't it? You said that. You're more than willing to give that burden to the state DNR (taxpayers). What do a bunch of pencil-necked government bureaurcrats know when compared to the NRA? That would seem to me the conservative line.
[Edited 6 times. Most recently by on May 15, 2005 at 09:41pm.]
I never said the NRA endorsed them, dumbass. I mentioned ratings.
Vet's Legislation that Pwlenty supported last week,
with his signature
. (It's now State Law.)
What? I thought that Republicans were evil people that do not support Vets? What happened?
MONEY
talks, and
Bullshit
Walks
,
Oberstar has received $21,550 for his relection campaigns from the NRA.
If I am wrong and they actually DO, please show me where, who and...most importantly,Â
how
.
I refer you back to
Grandpa Dan Zachary 5/15/05 7:12pm
 for your answer.
Those people, all of them, could NOT be re-elected, without giving lip-service to Gun Owners, and the NRA. It's just not possible. Rural areas are full of HUNTERS, I mean... what a gimme
. This is a Hunting/Fishing/Outdoor-Activities state.
So your idea of a good candidate is one that pays "lip-service" to what concerns the voters? They are just a bunch of lying bastards, but that is alright since it got a Dem elected?
Now that I answered your question, what difference would it make if 100% of that money went to Republicans? I have not heard a peep out of you about the unions that give 98%, 99% or even 100% of their money to Dems. or Soros and his groups. Why is the NRA different?
[Edited 2 times. Most recently by on May 16, 2005 at 04:33pm.]
Fold the victim, again.