In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Rembrandt,So... Are you saying that the NRA feels it has the right to falsely, possibly, represent a mans record on how hes voted, or may vote, concerning gun issues, based souly on his inability or care to return his questionaire? That the NRA has the right to grade this man and publish information that rates this man with an F and give him a bad name with gun owners, because of the same? If that doesnt sound like a bunch of bull to voters, I dont know what does. That is dead wrong of anyone, let alone the NRA, to give a possibly very pro gun representative a bad name and endanger the voters chances of electing that official, as would benefit both the voter and the country as a whole. What kind of $#!t is that? The NRA is suppose to be pro gun and get these officials elected if and when possible with their help, not see to it that they are defeated!! Voters do depend on the NRA to point them in the correct direction come election time, as do I myself. If this is how things are working, this needs to be fixed, immiediately.
SSgt Ryan E. Roberts, USMC[This message has been edited by robsguns (edited 01-17-2002).]
Robsguns...you're swinging after the bell. I'm saying the questionaire is only part of the grade, their voting record is also taken into account. But if a firstime candidate is running and has no voting record, then he is graded on his responses to the questionaire and press statements they may have made. They may also be listed as incomplete or no rating.....but an incomplete or no rating is about the same as an "F". The legislator I was refering to earlier that got the "F", was a first time candidate and someone had seen a newspaper article with a mis-quote thinking he was anti-gun....the guy turned out to be pro-gun. An honest mistake....these things can happen.
Rembrandt, I dont see how this grading system is fair at all for the first time candidate, especially if no press statements have been made and no questionaire has been filled out. I may not fully understand what you meant to say in your post, but it still sounds fishy to me, even after reading it again. I'll let this horse die, I know my stance on the NRA, and everyone else knows theirs. As long as we all do our part, I believe we will keep the anti-gun advocates at bay. Its time to call it a night.Josey, I cant find vituperatively in my computers dictionary, where'd you get that word from and what does it mean?
SSgt Ryan E. Roberts, USMC[This message has been edited by robsguns (edited 01-17-2002).]
Robsguns....if they fail to fill out a questionsaire and there are no press statements, no voting record....and no one knows where they stand on gun issues, then they are given no grade at all....but many members tell me they view an incomplete grade or no rating as an "F". The NRA volunteers that do this make every effort to be fair and honest to the candidate and the voters....."Who is the NRA?"...I'm the NRA, and about 4,000,000 others...
Rob,these were FrontPageMagazine.com's words,not mine but it is to to attack somebody in harshly abusive or critical language vi?tu?per?ate [v tp r?yt , vi tp r?yt ] (past vi?tu?per?at?ed, past participle vi?tu?per?at?ed, present participle vi?tu?per?at?ing, 3rd person present singular vi?tu?per?ates) vti be harshly critical: to attack somebody in harshly abusive or critical language[Mid-16th century. From, ultimately, Latin vituperare , from vitium (see vice1 ) + parare (see prepare ).]vi?tu?per?a?tor noun vi?tu?per?a?to?ry adjective Encarta
Robsguns- I am more concerned about the high grades that the NRA gives that are not deserved, than the low grades they give to some pols who do not submit the questionare in. It gives a false sense of security with the candidate who is getting the undeserved grade.A few years ago, Joe Scarborough(Rep. Florida) was running for his first term in congress. He was running in the primary against an incumbent who had several votes that were in no way beneficial to gun owners. Joe Scarborough, though not known nationally, was known locally as a very pro gun right candidate. The NRA would not support him, they supported the incumbent. I guess they figured the incumbent had a better chance of winning, so they through their endorsement to him, EVEN THOUGH SCARBOROUGHS RECORD OF GUN RIGHTS WAS BETTER. Scarborough, won the primary, and the election, and until he left Congress the GOA(whos graing system is more accurate) gave Scarborough an A(a grade which is hard to come by as far as the GOA is concerned-unlike the NRA who gives As out like there is no tommorrow)
Happiness is a warm gun
Robsguns - I will match my service record with yours any day of the week. And I use my right name so I don't have to sign it at the bottom. And I don't sign it as veteran of the US Army. What I am trying to tell you is that verbalizing off on this forum is useless. We are preaching to the choir. What works is to have someone working for us politically. I currently pay for three memberships, contribute to the ILA, and give what I can when asked. If it were not for the NRA we would be where Australia and the UK are now. It's already started in California. And Tipper Gore would be our First Lady.
John Carr, I did not insinuate, or otherwise state anything derogatory towards you personally, I was making a point about who is taking a free ride on whom, and its not ANY of us here I am sure. As for the signatures, mine identifies me as to who I am and how to find me, that was my point there. The USMC, you may think as my having added to sound important, wrong, it simply tells all there is to tell, what I do, who I am, what I am, nothing more. As to your service record, its probably better than mine, I'm not politically correct at work. At no time do I mean to offend others here, I simply make it known, on topics of deep feeling to me, how I stand, and I will do it passionately at times. I agree with you on the choir, but even the choir needs to hear the sermon at times.
SSgt Ryan E. Roberts, USMC[This message has been edited by robsguns (edited 01-18-2002).][This message has been edited by robsguns (edited 01-18-2002).]
Some 35 years ago when we were NYC residentsthe NYPD wanted to illegally seize my two registered pistols. I contacted the NRA, offering to be a test case and requested assistance. They turned me down cold.I gave up on them for 20 years and have only recently rejoined.The enemy of my enemies has to be my ally and those enemies should not gain strength from our infighting.It's the only game in town. Like it or notwe have to support the NRA.
Comments
SSgt Ryan E. Roberts, USMC[This message has been edited by robsguns (edited 01-17-2002).]
SSgt Ryan E. Roberts, USMC[This message has been edited by robsguns (edited 01-17-2002).]
Happiness is a warm gun
SSgt Ryan E. Roberts, USMC[This message has been edited by robsguns (edited 01-18-2002).][This message has been edited by robsguns (edited 01-18-2002).]