NRA RIP

AS IN OVERCOME THE TYRANNY OF THOSE WHO PROTECT PEOPLE'S FREEDOM TO MAKE ASSHATS OF THEMSELVES AND TAKE PRIDE IN IT?
YEAH. THOSE PEOPLE ARE REALLY THE SALT OF THE EARTH. SO LONG AS SOMEBODY ELSE DOES FOR THEM....

 

The NRA was once a legitimate operation. After the candyass frauds who have been scamming the vulnerable by promoting paranoid hysteria are flushed, it should return to its former mission.

Founded to advance rifle marksmanship and to teach firearm safety and competency, it has only focused on political lobbing since 1975, and has become radical and uncompromising in since the 1990s. One of the recent casualties in its continuing shoot-out is its top, highly-paid lobbyist Chris Cox, after it accused him of participating in an unsuccessful extortion scheme. This and other aspects of the NRA's internecine warfare, suits and countersuits, amidst their fiscal plight, seriously impairs their ability to thwart the will of the People in Congress.

“There is a cabal of cronyism operating within the NRA and that exists within the Board of Directors.
It must cease, and I do not care if I draw their angst. It sickens me to publicly make this statement,
but I will not allow anyone to damage my honor, integrity, character, and reputation.
Needless to say, there are those who have willingly done so to their own.”

Right-wing political entertainer, retired U.S. Army lieutenant colonel, and former GOP Congressman Allen West​

 

The NRA implemented their institute for legislative action branch in response to its members demanding the NRA fight for their second amendment rights. The leadership could either heed the demands of its members, or be removed and replaced by those who would heed such demands.

What is simply not understood on the part of yourself and others, is that the NRA did not simply decide one day that it would get involved in politics. Rather it was forced to do such out of self preservation.

It is yourself, and people like yourself, who made the NRA into what it is today. Had you and others of similar political ideology not been so determined to attack the second amendment and legal firearms ownership, this entire mess could have been avoided.

 

False. I am well aware that the NRA's political agenda has become more extremist over time.

Its shift in allocating its resources to travel and entertainment is relatively recent.

With its radicalization, people like me and most Americans that support sensible legislation to address the inordinate level of firearm slaughter in the US obviously pose a challenge to the permissiveness the NRA promotes.

Fortunately, its corruption is being exposed and its fiscal irresponsibility is making it impotent in thwarting the public will.

Clinging to the horrific status quo is not an option for Americans.
​

​

 

None of which is of any actual relevance to the discussion at hand. It is nothing more than continued efforts at distorting facts.

 

You cannot refute the empirical data, and the corrupt NRA's implosion continues.

Americans will be better represented by their elected representatives as a result.

 

If the NRA ever were to close down, a new pro-firearms lobbying organization would simply rise up to take its place, and nothing of significance would change. Those who legally produce, sell, own, and use firearms would continue to be represented just as they are currently, if not to an even-greater degree. The new organization could potentially pursue firearm-related freedoms to a degree that would make the NRA look quite moderate.

Again, nothing of significance is going to change, regardless of what outcome is had. Even if the NRA goes away tomorrow and never comes back, those that lobby on behalf of the firearms culture in the united states will not go away as well.

 

This is correct, and well stated.
These loony gun grabbers think the NRA is some nameless faceless boogeyman.
They cant wrap their head around the fact that every gun owner is, in fact, the NRA.

 

The National Rifle Association has ousted its president and first vice president, watched an open revolt from some members on the floor of its annual meeting, sued and been sued by its top contractor, suspended its top lobbyist, and had its leadership publicly hurl accusations of financial impropriety at one another, while facing congressional inquiries and an investigation by an exceedingly hostile attorney general. It has virtually bankrupted itself by allocating an unconscionable portion of members' dues to lavish compensation and travel and clothing allowances for its elite.

With the scam exposed and enfeebled, Americans will stand a far better chance of finally seeing the sensible measures to redress the inordinate level of firearm carnage they support enacted by their elected representatives. The permissiveness has killed far too many Americans.

 

None of which does anything to even attempt addressing the points raised.

Once again, if the NRA ever were to close down, a new pro-firearms lobbying organization would simply rise up to take its place, and nothing of significance would change. Those who legally produce, sell, own, and use firearms would continue to be represented just as they are currently, if not to an even-greater degree. The new organization could potentially pursue firearm-related freedoms to a degree that would make the NRA look quite moderate.

Yet again, nothing of significance is going to change, regardless of what outcome is had. Even if the NRA goes away tomorrow and never comes back, those that lobby on behalf of the firearms culture in the united states will not go away as well.

There is not going to be any widespread push on the part of the public for new firearm-related restrictions in the wake of the hypothetical end of the NRA. It as an organization will simply be replaced in the resulting power vacuum by a new, more powerful, more uncooperative organization that will make the NRA look modest in comparison.

 

If you need to believe that you can, of course.

The collapse of such a powerful political lobby that fleeced members via the mystique it inculcated and the paranoia it induced will not be readily supplanted.

Americans chances of having their elected representatives confront the obscene level of firearm carnage in America are greatly enhanced.

E.g., universal pre-sale background checks, opposed by the corrupt extremist lobby and frustrated by their congressional stooges, is supported by over 90% of Republicans and Democrats alike.

The People will get what they demand. The democratic will shall prevail.

 

​

​

 

If such were the case, the supposed majority of citizens of the united states who truly supported greater firearm-related restrictions would band together and form their own political lobby organization, to outspend and out-message the NRA. This supposed majority of citizens of the united states would actually be doing something to counter the influence of the NRA if they truly disagreed with the message being presented.

To the contrary, they are not doing any of this. They instead appear quite content to let the NRA continue presenting its message without opposition. Thus indicating this is not actually important to them.

 

As the member Bowerbird is so fond of saying, correlation does not equal causation.

That matter aside, your own sources are twelve years out of date.

 

The disgraced NRA had certainly disarmed the public will in Congress, but I expect that will begin to change.

All rights enumerated in the Constitution are circumscribed, None is absolute.

When the Founding Fathers inscribed,

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
​

... they explicitly acknowledged the need for a well regulated Militia that was, at that time, necessary to the security of a free State.

Even though the nation no longer relies on their “well-regulate Militia” for its security, their recognition of the need for gunsters to be “well-regulated” still pertains

Without depriving a citizen of her right to bear arms, it is certainly the right of the People to regulate.

Without becoming bogged down in specifics and minutia, what do you believe the Founding Fathers intended to say?

"THEY SAID EVERYBODY CAN HAVE ALL THE GUNS OF ANY TYPE
THEY DESIRE AND TAKE THEM WHEREVER THEY FELL LIKE!"
​

The American People differ, of course.

As previously noted, the now-outed conmen who fleeced members to finance personal lavish lifestyles waged a highly successful pr campaign to create a gun mystique and induce paranoia.

Even the fabled Wild West was never the permissive, macho shootery about which some fantasize. The People exercised their power to regulate then, as well.

 

None of which does anything to actually address the points that were raised.

That matter aside, the lower court ruling cited on the part of yourself does not count, as only rulings by the united state supreme court hold any validity. And the united state supreme court has already ruled in favor of the standard of individual ownership and use. Do be sure to read Nunn v State of Georgia, which declared a handgun ban unconstitutional for violating the second amendment.

 

You don't even know what "well regulated" means.

The phrase "well regulated" doesn't mean government regulated. It means "well functioning" or working in proper order.

Please educate yourself.

 

I'll ignore your petty ad hominem. You're overwrought, and stressed by this corrupt outfit's implosion.

regulated: adj (well regulated when postpositive) (of a business, military outfit, routine, etc) controlled or supervised to conform to rules, regulations, tradition, etc: a well-regulated militia.

Does out government of, by, and for the People have the right to regulate firearms? Of course.

 

...which says nothing about government doing any of the controlling, supervising, or regulating.

And "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" is NOT dependent on "a well regulated Militia"

But "a well regulated Militia" is dependent on "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms"

You can't have militia unless you have arm individuals, but you can have arm individuals without a militia.

Do you understand now????

 

Are you attempting to deny that our government of, by, and for the People is not empowered under the Constitution to regulate?

 

"shall not be infringed"

 

You do realize that the Constitution was created to control government, not the people?

The power goes from the people to the government, not from the government to the people.

The constitution doesn't tell me what I can't do. It tells government what it can't do.

 

Fake title for the "Guns Murders per 100,000" chart.

The numbers also include accidental shootings and suicides and doesn't include the countries with the most homicides like Mexico, South Africa, and other shithole countries.

 

Half of all gun-related deaths in 2016 occurred in six nations — Brazil, the United States, Mexico, Venezuela, Colombia and Guatemala.

Mexico, Venezuela and Guatemala.

Aren't these the countries where the undocumented Democrats come from ?

 

The US Constitution was created to achieve a number of goals, establishing the structure of the government of, by, and for the People prominent among them.

Do you accept that, under the US Constitution, that government of, by, and for the People is assigned a regulatory function?