***The NRA habitually has never challenged each state for its gun
restrictions. To do otherwise would:
- Expose them to a humiliating court decision loss.
- Presuming they won a case, eliminate an invented bogey man that
generates profits.

On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 00:24:48 +0100, John Galt <kady101 at (no spam) gmail.com
wrote:

Interesting thought. If Alex is correct about it being a merchandising
org, then they are selling their mailing list left and right. So, join
AARP for a month, get on the list, cancel, and let the special offers
for AARP members from other organizations flow into the mailbox .

I don't think they're selling their mailing/membership list
indiscriminately. They expect a "piece of the action" from their
corporate partners. So, along with the mailing list, they sell the
AARP logo and the right to say that the product is "exclusively
endorsed" by the AARP. In return, they get a percentage of the gross
sales.

I'm sure that the AARP executives justify all this as an easy way to
raise money for their publications and advocacy work. But it corrupts
that very advocacy work.

Actually, you don't need to be an AARP member to take advantage of
most of these "branded" products. Ads I've seen on TV for, for
example, AARP Medigap insurance make a selling point of *not* having
to be a member. As for AARP discounts on hotels, rental cars, etc.,
most of these places offer the same discounts to senior citizens
generally. I once even asked a hotel for "the AARP discount" and got
it, even though I didn't state I was actually a member -- and they
didn't ask to see a membership card.

membership cards in the mail, as part of signup promotions, and I
suppose I could have used them. Truth be told, though, these AARP
discounts and sales programs really aren't that good a deal.

On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 20:29:27 -0600, ---agg--- <aggreen at (no spam) echoes.net
wrote:

***The NRA habitually has never challenged each state for its gun
restrictions. To do otherwise would:
- Expose them to a humiliating court decision loss.
- Presuming they won a case, eliminate an invented bogey man that
generates profits.

You have something of a point. As long as Miller v. U.S. (1939) was
the last (and just about the only) time the Supreme Court had spoken
on the Second Amendment, it could be plausibly argued that the
Amendment protected gun ownership only in the context of militia
membership. The NRA didn't want to take the chance that this view
would be formally enunciated by the Court, just as the gun-control
advocates didn't want to take the chance that the opposite would
happen. Each side was content to fight its case in the
public-relations arena, using nothing but the four-corners language of
the Amendment as fodder. This changed when the NRA was dragged kicking
and screaming into the District of Columbia Heller case (which other
activists had initiated). The case, somewhat unexpectedly, vindicated
the gun-rights position. Now the NRA has no choice but to pursue a
court strategy, including the Chicago case which is expected to apply
the Heller rationale to the States ("incorporation" under the 14th
Amendment).

***Posted by my gutless imposter, Alex.

I figured as much. I reply to posts on their own merits, not

On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 16:04:14 -0500, "~AGG~"

Australian_Capital_Territ... at (no spam) Pacific-Rim.act.au> wrote:

***Suck the big one, Alex. I'm not the only one posting nonOrthodox stuff
herein.

The posting of non-Orthodox stuff is not really the problem. The
problem is the mutual baiting and provocations between you and Nick,
and the use of this group as a sounding board for blatantly
ideological political propaganda. The mutual accusations of homosexual
activity don't help matters, either.

***My imposter posts using aioe.org, which is registered in Italy, and then
via open NNTP access with xs4all in the Netherlands. Gee, you use aioe.org,
Alex.

Do you have a link to the article in the Post that you mentioned on
AARP? No longer subscribe to weekdays