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.

NRA HQ Response

tr foxtr fox Member Posts: 13,856
Relating to the lies about the NRA "sellling out" by working with Democrats and supporting more restrictions on the 1st Amendment (and by extension, the 2A) Here is the official response from the NRA. The fair and reasonable people here may find it interesting and helpful. The usual NRA haters will continue to hate.



We appreciate some NRA members' concerns about our position on H.R. 5175, the "DISCLOSE Act." Unfortunately, critics of our position have misstated or misunderstood the facts.



We have never said we would support any version of this bill. To the contrary, we clearly stated NRA's strong opposition to the DISCLOSE Act (as introduced) in a letter sent to Members of Congress on May 26 (click here to read the letter).



Through the courts and in Congress, the NRA has consistently and strongly opposed any effort to restrict the rights of our four million members to speak and have their voices heard on behalf of gun owners nationwide. The initial version of H.R. 5175 would effectively have put a gag order on the NRA during elections and threatened our members' freedom of association, by forcing us to turn our donor lists over to the federal government. We would also have been forced to list our top donors on all election-related television, radio and Internet ads and mailings-even mailings to our own members. We refuse to let this Congress impose those unconstitutional restrictions on our Association.



The NRA provides critical firearms training for our Armed Forces and law enforcement throughout the country. This bill would force us to choose between training our men and women in uniform and exercising our right to free political speech. We refuse to let this Congress force us to make that choice.



We didn't "sell out" to Nancy Pelosi or anyone else. We told Congress we opposed the bill. As a result, congressional leaders made a commitment to exempt us from its draconian restrictions on free speech. If that commitment is honored, we will not be involved in the final House debate. If that commitment is not fully honored, we will strongly oppose the bill.



Our position is based on principle and experience. During consideration of the previous campaign finance legislation passed in 2002, congressional leadership repeatedly refused to exempt the NRA from its provisions, promising that our concerns would be fixed somewhere down the line. That didn't happen; instead, the NRA had to live under those restrictions for seven years and spend millions of dollars on compliance costs and on legal fees to challenge the law. We will not go down that road again when we have an opportunity to protect our ability to speak.



There are those who say the NRA has a greater duty to principle than to gun rights. It's easy to say we should put the Second Amendment at risk over some so-called First Amendment principle - unless you have a sworn duty to protect the Second Amendment above all else, as we do.



The NRA is a bipartisan, single-issue organization made up of millions of individual members dedicated to the protection of the Second Amendment. We do not represent the interests of other organizations. That's their responsibility. Our responsibility is to protect and defend the interests of our members. And that we do without apology.
«1

Comments

  • ikedaikeda Member Posts: 450 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Interesting and helpful. Any comments from you haters out there?
  • n/an/a Member Posts: 168,427
    edited November -1
    [xx(]

    Can't you see what an idiot you look like defending the NRA on this one?


    [xx(]
  • trapguy2007trapguy2007 Member Posts: 8,959
    edited November -1
    I think the NRA screwed the pooch on this one .
    May well be a moot point since the Democrats are now crawfishing .
    They have now got the # down to 1/2 mill .
    This is the problem I have always had with them ---they think they can cut deals with the devil !!!!!!!!!
  • jwb267jwb267 Member Posts: 19,666 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    how many believed what obama said
  • mark christianmark christian Forums Admins, Member, Moderator Posts: 24,456 ******
    edited November -1
    Your gun rights in the hands of the NRA:
    Marathon_Man2.jpg
    "Is it safe"?
  • ikedaikeda Member Posts: 450 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by freemind
    [xx(]

    Can't you see what an idiot you look like defending the NRA on this one?


    [xx(]
    I don't see anyone defending the NRA. I only see a reasonable logical explanation given by the organization, explaining their actions. I'm still waiting for some intelligent rebuttal based on facts, and not emotions.
  • zinkzink Member Posts: 6,456 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Typical two steppin', double talk! They got caught red handed with the hand in the cookie jar, and just like a kid "deny till you die".

    Lance
  • guntech59guntech59 Member Posts: 23,187 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by ikeda
    quote:Originally posted by freemind
    [xx(]

    Can't you see what an idiot you look like defending the NRA on this one?


    [xx(]
    I don't see anyone defending the NRA. I only see a reasonable logical explanation given by the organization, explaining their actions. I'm still waiting for some intelligent rebuttal based on facts, and not emotions.


    Perhaps you should do a search here and on the GR & CL forum instead of rehashing this same old crap again.

    You can beleive either way you want to but do some research first. There are probably 1000 threads on this very subject already. Read them and see if your question is already answered.
  • dongizmodongizmo Member Posts: 14,477 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly, is to fill the world with fools.
  • n/an/a Member Posts: 168,427
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by ikeda
    quote:Originally posted by freemind
    [xx(]

    Can't you see what an idiot you look like defending the NRA on this one?


    [xx(]
    I don't see anyone defending the NRA. I only see a reasonable logical explanation given by the organization, explaining their actions. I'm still waiting for some intelligent rebuttal based on facts, and not emotions.


    Are you a blind follower, or did you lose your ability to think for yourself?
    The NRA THEMSELVES admit, they WOULD have fought this piece of legislation, but THEY GOT AN EXCLUSION. No other "gun" group, only the NRA.

    So to say they don't get involved, is an UTTER LIE and outright BS.

    They do.
  • Rack OpsRack Ops Member Posts: 18,597 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
  • wsfiredudewsfiredude Member Posts: 7,769 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by tr fox
    We told Congress we opposed the bill. As a result, congressional leaders made a commitment to exempt us from its draconian restrictions on free speech.



    BALONEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  • RosieRosie Member Posts: 14,525 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    May as well give it up Fox. You can't use logic to get the blind to see the light. Best to use our energy to recruit new members.
  • dongizmodongizmo Member Posts: 14,477 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Rosie
    May as well give it up Fox. You can't use logic to get the blind to see the light. Best to use our energy to recruit new members.

    Rosie,
    What light would that be?
    The light the NRA is holding is a self serving beacon, I have watched as they could never stand their ground, always having to compromise.
    I am really surprised you would accept this, you never seemed to me the type to compromise on anything, but you accept it from a organization that claims to the the lone savior of the 2nd amendment [V]...
    Don
    The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly, is to fill the world with fools.
  • buffalobobuffalobo Member Posts: 2,348 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Rosie
    May as well give it up Fox. You can't use logic to get the blind to see the light. Best to use our energy to recruit new members.


    Yea, your gonna need them.

    The NRA saw the opportunity to protect the names of donors and damage other organizations at the same time, so they threw everybody under the bus(except top donors, imagine that)(hence the deserved bad PR). Instead of embracing the idea of freedom for all and using it's clout to help stop this legislation(and gaining good PR), they have shown thier true colors.

    Kinda blew your statement of being a single issue org as stated in previous thread.

    quote:Through the courts and in Congress, the NRA has consistently and strongly opposed any effort to restrict the rights of our four million members to speak and have their voices heard on behalf of gun owners nationwide.
  • n/an/a Member Posts: 168,427
    edited November -1
    Boil it down for gods sake.

    Unconstitutional legislation is proposed. Constitutional groups step up to actively oppose anti-Amendment I/Anti-Constitution government action.

    The NRA, thinking they are ensnared along with everyone, state that they oppose the anti-Constitution legislation.

    Collectivist-weenies in Congress get with Collectivist-weenies in the NRA and tell them they will exempt the NRA from the anti-Constitution provisions if they will not oppose the anti-Constitution legislation.

    All other groups are still ensnared in the anti-Constitution legislation.

    The NRA accepts and steps back, allowing the anti-Constitution legislation proceed with no opposition.

    Squirm, wiggle, obfuscate, rationalize and justify all you want, but the facts speak for themselves.

    The NRA is simply a Quisling Organization, bent of participating from the inner-circle, in further erosions of our Constitution and our individual liberties.

    I expect that they were not offered this deal out of thin air. I firmly believe that they specifically lobbied for an exemption for themselves, knowing full-well that it was anti-Constitution legislation and that all other gun-rights organizations were left in harms way.

    It is what it is and any defender of the clear and indefensible action is just as bad as the NRA, in my estimation.
  • ikedaikeda Member Posts: 450 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by guntech59
    quote:Originally posted by ikeda
    quote:Originally posted by freemind
    [xx(]

    Can't you see what an idiot you look like defending the NRA on this one?


    [xx(]
    I don't see anyone defending the NRA. I only see a reasonable logical explanation given by the organization, explaining their actions. I'm still waiting for some intelligent rebuttal based on facts, and not emotions.


    Perhaps you should do a search here and on the GR & CL forum instead of rehashing this same old crap again.

    You can beleive either way you want to but do some research first. There are probably 1000 threads on this very subject already. Read them and see if your question is already answered.
    What question? I don't have any questions, and I'm not rehashing anything. I'm really not interested in what the NRA supposedly did back in 1934, or 44 or 54. I hear a lot of whining and teeth gnashing, but I'm still waiting for any intelligent rebuttal to what the NRA's statement put forth today. So far the only responses I have read here are really enlightening ones like "Baloney", that says a lot!
  • quickmajikquickmajik Member Posts: 16,324
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by quickmajik
    quote:Originally posted by wsfiredude
    Originally posted by tr fox
    We told Congress we opposed the bill. As a result, congressional leaders made a commitment to exempt us from its draconian restrictions on free speech.



    BALONEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



    That isnt what they told me...The ILA said they were still holding out to see the language before the figured out if they would oppose it, or, pretend they had nothing to do with the process.

    Arent they going to back harry reid in november because of this exemption?

    Despite the fact he has been on the records many times a an anti gunner?

    Imagine that.. They are backing the guy who would be joyfully heading up any anti gun legislation in the senate, if he gets re-elected.. I wonder if they are gonna get a big tax break or something a year or two down the line, as well as selling all other gun orgs membership privacy down the commode?
  • n/an/a Member Posts: 168,427
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by ikeda
    [What question? I don't have any questions, and I'm not rehashing anything. I'm really not interested in what the NRA supposedly did back in 1934, or 44 or 54. I hear a lot of whining and teeth gnashing, but I'm still waiting for any intelligent rebuttal to what the NRA's statement put forth today. So far the only responses I have read here are really enlightening ones like "Baloney", that says a lot!


    The NRA and Stalin had one thing in common.

    They both need(ed) useful IDIOTS.
  • buffalobobuffalobo Member Posts: 2,348 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Not just other gun rights orgs they are throwing under the bus, but any other orgs who might choose to participate in the political process.



    Ikeda, then you haven't read them all and are not interested in them(rebuttals) anyway.
  • n/an/a Member Posts: 168,427
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by ikeda
    quote:Originally posted by guntech59
    quote:Originally posted by ikeda
    quote:Originally posted by freemind
    [xx(]

    Can't you see what an idiot you look like defending the NRA on this one?


    [xx(]
    I don't see anyone defending the NRA. I only see a reasonable logical explanation given by the organization, explaining their actions. I'm still waiting for some intelligent rebuttal based on facts, and not emotions.


    Perhaps you should do a search here and on the GR & CL forum instead of rehashing this same old crap again.

    You can beleive either way you want to but do some research first. There are probably 1000 threads on this very subject already. Read them and see if your question is already answered.
    What question? I don't have any questions, and I'm not rehashing anything. I'm really not interested in what the NRA supposedly did back in 1934, or 44 or 54. I hear a lot of whining and teeth gnashing, but I'm still waiting for any intelligent rebuttal to what the NRA's statement put forth today. So far the only responses I have read here are really enlightening ones like "Baloney", that says a lot!
    Boil it down for gods sake.

    Unconstitutional legislation is proposed. Constitutional groups step up to actively oppose anti-Amendment I/Anti-Constitution government action.

    The NRA, thinking they are ensnared along with everyone, state that they oppose the anti-Constitution legislation.

    Collectivist-weenies in Congress get with Collectivist-weenies in the NRA and tell them they will exempt the NRA from the anti-Constitution provisions if they will not oppose the anti-Constitution legislation.

    All other groups are still ensnared in the anti-Constitution legislation.

    The NRA accepts and steps back, allowing the anti-Constitution legislation to proceed with no opposition.
  • quickmajikquickmajik Member Posts: 16,324
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by buffalobo
    Not just other gun rights orgs they are throwing under the bus, but any other orgs who might choose to participate in the political process.


    Ikeda, then you haven't read them all and are not interested in them(rebuttals) anyway.


    Sounds like something right out of a nazi or communist hand book doesnt it?[xx(]

    Oh semantics, ohh retoric.. Ohh the idiocy.. Get a grip people.. There is alot at stake here, Keep it from happening, no matter what org you belong to. Defend other peoples righst for one time.. here and now, when it matters.
    Call the NRA.
  • tr foxtr fox Member Posts: 13,856
    edited November -1
    it396, Please, please never forget that it is important to me that you read what I post. Which you obviously do. But regarding reading or caring what you post? Not so much.
  • wsfiredudewsfiredude Member Posts: 7,769 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by quickmajik
    quote:Originally posted by quickmajik
    quote:Originally posted by wsfiredude
    Originally posted by tr fox
    We told Congress we opposed the bill. As a result, congressional leaders made a commitment to exempt us from its draconian restrictions on free speech.



    BALONEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



    That isnt what they told me...The ILA said they were still holding out to see the language before the figured out if they would oppose it, or, pretend they had nothing to do with the process.

    Arent they going to back harry reid in november because of this exemption?

    Despite the fact he has been on the records many times a an anti gunner?

    Imagine that.. They are backing the guy who would be joyfully heading up any anti gun legislation in the senate, if he gets re-elected.. I wonder if they are gonna get a big tax break or something a year or two down the line, as well as selling all other gun orgs membership privacy down the commode.




    Quick,

    I am not suggesting it didn't happen, but I do not think the deal was as simple as the NRA makes it out to be;

    "We told Congress we opposed the bill. As a result, congressional leaders made a commitment to exempt us..."



    In their statement, the NRA implies they simply walked up the hill and told Congress, "No; we do not like it.", then Congress bowed. I do not believe that for a second.

    I guarantee there was a NRA 'masseuse' behind the scenes, giving 'back rubs' and g-d knows what else to coerce Congress into granting the exemption.
  • n/an/a Member Posts: 168,427
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by tr fox
    it396, Please, please never forget that it is important to me that you read what I post. Which you obviously do. But regarding reading or caring what you post? Not so much.
    Oh, you care, fox. You and I both know it.

    You can't stand to see the direct rebuking of your lying posts and the lies and deceit that dribbles from the NRA's hissing lips.

    Of course I read what you post, fox.

    I and others have a vested interest in ensuring that your lying propaganda is directly opposed with constitutional truth and that it does not take root.

    Our vested interest is the Constitution, the Republic and individual liberty.

    I am wide awake and fully engaged, fox and you are on the opposing team and/or their cheer squad.

    As to your 'personal' opinion of my writings....I don't care, not...one...bit.

    Just so you know, fox.
  • n/an/a Member Posts: 168,427
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by wsfiredude
    quote:Originally posted by quickmajik
    quote:Originally posted by quickmajik
    quote:Originally posted by wsfiredude
    Originally posted by tr fox
    We told Congress we opposed the bill. As a result, congressional leaders made a commitment to exempt us from its draconian restrictions on free speech.



    BALONEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



    That isnt what they told me...The ILA said they were still holding out to see the language before the figured out if they would oppose it, or, pretend they had nothing to do with the process.

    Arent they going to back harry reid in november because of this exemption?

    Despite the fact he has been on the records many times a an anti gunner?

    Imagine that.. They are backing the guy who would be joyfully heading up any anti gun legislation in the senate, if he gets re-elected.. I wonder if they are gonna get a big tax break or something a year or two down the line, as well as selling all other gun orgs membership privacy down the commode.




    Quick,

    I am not suggesting it didn't happen, but I do not think the deal was as simple as the NRA makes it out to be;

    "We told Congress we opposed the bill. As a result, congressional leaders made a commitment to exempt us..."



    In their statement, the NRA implies they simply walked up the hill and told Congress, "No; we do not like it.", then Congress bowed. I do not believe that for a second.

    I guarantee there was a NRA 'masseuse' behind the scenes, giving 'back rubs' and g-d knows what else to coerce Congress into granting the exemption.
    Absolutely agreed, Shane.

    "I expect that they were not offered this deal out of thin air. I firmly believe that they specifically lobbied for an exemption for themselves, knowing full-well that it was anti-Constitution legislation and that all other gun-rights organizations were left in harms way."
  • Don McManusDon McManus Member Posts: 23,458 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by ikeda
    I don't see anyone defending the NRA. I only see a reasonable logical explanation given by the organization, explaining their actions. I'm still waiting for some intelligent rebuttal based on facts, and not emotions.


    1. Pelosi & Co propose anti-Constitutional bill.

    2. NRA opposes bill.

    3. Pelosi & Co tell NRA 'we will exclude you if you drop your opposition.'

    4. NRA says 'OK'

    5. Pelosi & Co. exclude NRA.

    6. NRA drops opposition because they are a 'single issue' entity.

    The Bill hasn't changed. It is still Unconstitutional, it just doesn't apply to the NRA.

    We often hear that the 2nd Amendment is the final guarantor of the remainder of the Bill of Rights. It seems less important when one conspires to concede the 1st Amendment in order to protect ones balance sheet.

    The bottom line is that destroying the First Amendment will limit our ability to protect the 2nd. Selectively destroying competing 2nd Amendment Rights organizations through one's unholy alliance with Congress will increase the ability of the NRA and Congress to further redefine what 'infringe' actually means.

    Pelosi and LaPerri?r have conspired to increase the power of both Congress and the NRA to shape political discussion through the silencing of their opposition. It is much deeper and much worse than simply selling out.
    Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.

    Brad Steele
  • HighballHighball Member Posts: 15,755
    edited November -1
    quote:I don't have any questions, and I'm not rehashing anything. I'm really not interested in what the NRA supposedly did back in 1934, or 44 or 54. I

    Simply amazing.
    I have heard all my life about people too stupid to learn from History, and the inevitable consequences of that inability.

    Why, Dear Lord, must I suffer the consequences of others stupidity ?

    I WISH...fervently..there was some way to limit the damage SOLELY to those that INSIST upon their right to ignore reality in favor of their own dream world.
  • jpwolfjpwolf Member Posts: 9,164
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by ikeda
    What question? I don't have any questions, and I'm not rehashing anything. I'm really not interested in what the NRA supposedly did back in 1934, or 44 or 54. I hear a lot of whining and teeth gnashing, but I'm still waiting for any intelligent rebuttal to what the NRA's statement put forth today. So far the only responses I have read here are really enlightening ones like "Baloney", that says a lot!


    Wow, too difficult to go back a couple of days, eh? This has already been discussed. And as usual, it has already been proven that the NRA did the un-constitutional thing. Big surprise.

    All of their attempts to re-word it, are just so much more shoveling... the hole gets deeper.

    It is funny to watch you sycophants grasp at their ridiculous attempts at cover-up, and then hold it up high and say, "There! See! We told ya they didn't "poop dick" us again."

    Guess you all like it that way?
  • jpwolfjpwolf Member Posts: 9,164
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
    ... It is much deeper and much worse than simply selling out.


    Don, just another example of CONgress's agreement as to "who" they think should, and indeed who they want to "represent" gunowners.

    Apparently, this is still not enough for some, to "figure it out"?
  • quickmajikquickmajik Member Posts: 16,324
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by wsfiredude
    quote:Originally posted by quickmajik
    quote:Originally posted by quickmajik
    quote:Originally posted by wsfiredude
    Originally posted by tr fox
    We told Congress we opposed the bill. As a result, congressional leaders made a commitment to exempt us from its draconian restrictions on free speech.



    BALONEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



    That isnt what they told me...The ILA said they were still holding out to see the language before the figured out if they would oppose it, or, pretend they had nothing to do with the process.

    Arent they going to back harry reid in november because of this exemption?

    Despite the fact he has been on the records many times a an anti gunner?

    Imagine that.. They are backing the guy who would be joyfully heading up any anti gun legislation in the senate, if he gets re-elected.. I wonder if they are gonna get a big tax break or something a year or two down the line, as well as selling all other gun orgs membership privacy down the commode.




    Quick,

    I am not suggesting it didn't happen, but I do not think the deal was as simple as the NRA makes it out to be;

    "We told Congress we opposed the bill. As a result, congressional leaders made a commitment to exempt us..."



    In their statement, the NRA implies they simply walked up the hill and told Congress, "No; we do not like it.", then Congress bowed. I do not believe that for a second.

    I guarantee there was a NRA 'masseuse' behind the scenes, giving 'back rubs' and g-d knows what else to coerce Congress into granting the exemption.


    They spent over two million dollars to get the supreme court to decide the way they did on the case that brought about the whole thing..[;)]
  • RosieRosie Member Posts: 14,525 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Don
    They are all we have right now. I'm sure you are a man that is intelligent enough to see that. Look at your business and see all the comprises you and everyone in it has to make on a daily basis. A person that sees every thing in black and white won't go far and if you reach way down and think I'm sure you can see there are other colors.
  • n/an/a Member Posts: 168,427
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Rosie
    Don
    They are all we have right now. I'm sure you are a man that is intelligent enough to see that. Look at your business and see all the comprises you and everyone in it has to make on a daily basis. A person that sees every thing in black and white won't go far and if you reach way down and think I'm sure you can see there are other colors.


    LMAO!

    You were not really serious with that response, were you?
  • HighballHighball Member Posts: 15,755
    edited November -1
    quote:A person that sees every thing in black and white won't go far and if you reach way down and think I'm sure you can see there are other colors.

    That apply to YOUR Honor and integrity, also, Rosie ?
  • n/an/a Member Posts: 168,427
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Rosie
    Don
    They are all we have right now. I'm sure you are a man that is intelligent enough to see that. Look at your business and see all the comprises you and everyone in it has to make on a daily basis. A person that sees every thing in black and white won't go far and if you reach way down and think I'm sure you can see there are other colors.
    Compromise such as you describe in business is fine and acceptable in many instances.

    Of course, when talking about the Constitution, it is a completely different equation and there is NO compromise to be made unless it is via the Amendment Process which is found in, you guessed it, the Constitution itself.

    You guys either cannot or simply refuse to see any distinction between private business dealings which are yours to make between private individuals and the already established 'contract' between the States, the People and the Federal Government, which is the US Constitution.

    Frankly, you are simply beyond help in my opinion and after seeing you express such views over the years.

    You are the poster-boy for an eroded Constitution, vanishing individual liberty, vanishing state and national sovereignty and a burgeoning predatory federal government.
  • nyforesternyforester Member Posts: 2,575 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    All of this crap don't mean diddly squat anymore.
    The poop storm is coming and you better hold your arms close !
    Abort Cuomo
  • HighballHighball Member Posts: 15,755
    edited November -1
    Yeah, Forester... just sure fun, kicking these Beast-Lovers around, is all....I have decided that I am gonna have fun till it all ends in a bang....
  • nyforesternyforester Member Posts: 2,575 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Good for you Highball !
    Give 'em HELL.
    Make 'em eat plenty of Rollaids !
    Abort Cuomo
  • n/an/a Member Posts: 168,427
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by nyforester
    All of this crap don't mean diddly squat anymore.
    The poop storm is coming and you better hold your arms close !


    Good to see you post forester. How ya been?
  • nyforesternyforester Member Posts: 2,575 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Jeff
    I have been here, just reading and watching.
    I have been real busy. I opened up a side Forestry business
    that has been taking up most of my weekends and evenings.
    Can't complain, the money is GOOD !
    Thanks,
    Pete
    Abort Cuomo
Sign In or Register to comment.