NRA and Ellsworth

[SavageEagle]

Oh, you want them to work for you for free? Kind of a gun oriented welfare program, where some folks do the work, while others get to go do the shooting.

Not sure what caliber of people you could interest in that sort of thing... you know, spend your whole life working for other people, while living in a box cause those folks don't want to pay you for your work.

Sure, they deserve to get paid. Do they deserve hundreds of thousands of dollars a year? No. You paid them to have New Orleans Gun Owners returned guns that were confiscated. What's wrong with that you ask? Did you see the guns returned to them? Rusted, broken firearms once worth hundreds or thousands of dollars, now worth nothing. No compensation, no reimbursement, just rusted broken junk. All that money wasted. For nothing. The NRA shouldn't have been paid ANYTHING that year, IMO.

 

[Joe Williams]

Sure, they deserve to get paid. Do they deserve hundreds of thousands of dollars a year? No. You paid them to have New Orleans Gun Owners returned guns that were confiscated. What's wrong with that you ask? Did you see the guns returned to them? Rusted, broken firearms once worth hundreds or thousands of dollars, now worth nothing. No compensation, no reimbursement, just rusted broken junk. All that money wasted. For nothing. The NRA shouldn't have been paid ANYTHING that year, IMO.

You are blaming the NRA for the illegal acts of New Orleans PD and the US Military? You are holding NRA to account for the destruction of private property committed by other people?

First you want to pay the people running a major organization frigging pennies, then blame them for the acts of other organizations?

I'm going to be charitable and assume your cold is affecting your thought processes.

 

[SavageEagle]

You are blaming the NRA for the illegal acts of New Orleans PD and the US Military? You are holding NRA to account for the destruction of private property committed by other people?

First you want to pay the people running a major organization frigging pennies, then blame them for the acts of other organizations?

I'm going to be charitable and assume your cold is affecting your thought processes.

I think you are reading something else other than my posts.

THE NRA FOUGHT TOOTH AND NAIL TO RETURN JUNK TO GUN OWNERS. Not New Orleans government, not Louisiana Government, not the Federal Government. No, they wanted to NOT return ANYTHING. But oh, the great powerful NRA fought. They fought hard. They spent millions. Not for reimbursement. Not for compensation. But for the return of junk to gun owners.

Did I explain that clearly enough? Those are the facts. Cold. Hard. Facts. And the NRA hailed it as a great victory. Please.

I may have a foggy head, but I do remember this clear as day.

 

[Joe Williams]

I think you are reading something else other than my posts.

THE NRA FOUGHT TOOTH AND NAIL TO RETURN JUNK TO GUN OWNERS. Not New Orleans government, not Louisiana Government, not the Federal Government. No, they wanted to NOT return ANYTHING. But oh, the great powerful NRA fought. They fought hard. They spent millions. Not for reimbursement. Not for compensation. But for the return of junk to gun owners.

Did I explain that clearly enough? Those are the facts. Cold. Hard. Facts. And the NRA hailed it as a great victory. Please.

I may have a foggy head, but I do remember this clear as day.

It's not the NRA's job to sue for damaged property, that is the job of the property owners. The NRA got their property returned, which as you noted those who stole it had no intention of doing. If that property was damaged, it's the RESPONSIBILITY of the owners to follow up. How much handholding do you frigging need, Ryan? What, are you so devoid of the ability to function in the real world that you think the NRA was supposed to replace those guns? Were they supposed to sue for each property owner, so the owners themselves didn't have to actually do anything? What were they supposed to do, Ryan? Turn back time and fix the ****ing guns? For you to hold the NRA responsible for damage caused by other people goes beyond unrealistic, it's absolutely delusional.

 

[SavageEagle]

It's not the NRA's job to sue for damaged property, that is the job of the property owners. The NRA got their property returned, which as you noted those who stole it had no intention of doing. If that property was damaged, it's the RESPONSIBILITY of the owners to follow up. How much handholding do you frigging need, Ryan? What, are you so devoid of the ability to function in the real world that you think the NRA was supposed to replace those guns? Were they supposed to sue for each property owner, so the owners themselves didn't have to actually do anything? What were they supposed to do, Ryan? Turn back time and fix the ****ing guns? For you to hold the NRA responsible for damage caused by other people goes beyond unrealistic, it's absolutely delusional.

So the NRA, who took on the responsibility ON BEHALF of the Gun Owners themselves, had no responsibility to fight for reimbursement or compensation? Even though that's what they set out to do, but instead settled on just returning the junk to the gun owners?

No, I don't expect for the NRA to reimburse or compensate gun owners for their loses. But when the NRA steps up with their OWN lawyers and promise to make the situation right by promising to get their guns back or replaced, those gun owners handed over that responsibility to the NRA who promised to do the job for them. Now that the whole case is over with, the gun owners themselves have no grounds to sue for their damaged property. Go back and read the agreements between the NRA lawyers and the government. The gun owners themselves no longer have any recourse BECAUSE the NRA failed to fulfill their promise.

So now tell me. How are the gun owners suppose to go about getting reimbursement or compensation? They can't re-sue the government.

 

[SirRealism]

Threads about 3rd party voting always amuse me. Not because everybody's always wrong, but because nearly everybody is correct. To me, the only difference is in how and when we'll suffer from our vote.

• Voting third party quite often helps get Dems elected. TRUE
• Voting Republican will help us elect the the lesser of two weevils, and might help us swing the majority back in our favor. TRUE
• Always capitulating to a [strike]three-year-old child[/strike] political party, regardless of its transgressions, helps ensure that it will continue to act against our will. TRUE
• If we relied purely on the candidates' stances and records, and if we didn't know party affiliation, there's a very good chance that a 3rd party candidate would win. TRUE
• The circumstances for the previous statement will probably never occur. TRUE

I'm going to vote my conscience. For me, that means Burris at this point. If Coats loses, I hope that his "lesser of two evil" supporters will talk to the GOP. Tell the Republicans we'd love to have them back in our party. But we don't like the friends that they always drag along with them... friends who always trash the house. There are a great many of us who would love to vote Republican, but no longer for the likes of McCain, Lugar, Coats, etc.

If you truly believe that Coats or Ellsworth would be a better senator than Burris, that's cool. I don't believe it, and so I can't vote for either of them.