NRA is in deep financial trouble and may soon 'be unable to exist'

No one but that is the latest "free" 990 from the IRS, you want to see 2017 pay for it.

None the less the comment "The NRA’s nonprofit status allows it to shield those donors’ names from the public, but not the IRS.," is blatantly false, that information is not "shielded" from the public, but fake news, which many believe, claims it is.

Besides bundling foreign money would be caught by the FEC but lets not worry about such pesky facts getting in the way of an anti-gun narrative.

 

I am sorry to inform you that I do not believe, other than the very few shooters, anybody believes in mass killings at schools, clubs or other places. The few that believe in it end up dead as a rule.

Abortion impacts millions of humans. Humans that stop short of birth.

 

only to those who think Clinton is a right winger and Trotsky was a moderate. But you prove a point I have made many times-anti gun posters are generally anti politics of pro gun posters and the NRA rather than really caring about gun issues

 

A point that is frequently laughed at due to lack of evidence

 

Its ironic they need Dems to control the Congress and/or the White House in order to keep the money flowing in. They can't sell the "they're coming for your guns" line when GOP is in control, and hence people don't send in the donations. Personally, I used to be a member, but quit because they were just too political, and kept calling me for more money.

 

Lol, out of context, out of authority.

It grabs by the pussу too?

P.S. Wonder how I got to write the word pussу without it getting censored? Ha. Glad you was asking. Actually the Latin letter y is the same as the Bulgarian letter у.

The advantage to have the Bulgarian phonetic keyboard - that is.

 

Well, Democrats will drill you for money too once you send them funds. All groups will drill you in fact. So the NRA drilling you for cash is no reason not to support them. I send no cash to them but support that fine gun safety organization.

Naturally they will also fulfil the role of upholding the 2nd amendment as well. Great job and if not them, then whom?

I see no Democrats sticking up for the 2nd amendment.

 

Yes, Dems do it too, but not to me, because I never sent them anything and they don't know I exist. Although I am no longer an NRA member, I still get the American Rifleman magazine, which I enjoy reading while sitting on the throne.

 

Our Sheriff Steve Whidden was very pro-Second as a Democrat.

http://news.wgcu.org/post/hendry-county-sheriff-primary-election-candidates

Then he was advised by the local Democrats to get on the Anti-gun bandwagon or hit the road.

Unwilling to do that he left the Democrats, or should I say they left him.

“Steve Whidden is a go-getter, an exemplary leader, husband, father and citizen. He is the perfect example of voters that are continuing to reject the big government, liberal ideals of today’s Democrat party and finding a home in the Republican Party of Florida."

http://www.florida.gop/project_majo..._start_at_hendry_county_lincoln_reagan_dinner

 

I repeat over and over. Democrats are not liberal. These people truly are actually authoritarians. They came up with hate speech and hate crimes. They did it to pour on the coal. But they specialize in hate. Seems to me to contradict their own positions. Congratulations to Sheriff Whidden.

 

You misspelled Republicans

 

And then he did this which had to make Libs heads explode and guess what, the parents of children in Hendry schools support it.

 

No, i did not say Republicans.

 

Really? LOL

 

Very true, but there are some around here who have problems with comprehension.

 

Meaning those you claim are anti-gun really aren't anti-gun. Exactly right. They're pro America.

 

In all fairness, when was the united states not divided over some matter or another? Trying to divide the united states is the metaphorical equivalent of trying to make a dog bark in a kennel.

And yet it has never actually been proven, making it nothing more than unsubstantiated rumors.

 

If they hunt animals as large as kangaroos, how the people of the nation of Australia protect themselves against the likes of them? Stay inside? Carry an umbrella?

 

The above statement operates on the notion that one political party is somehow better than the other. In truth neither of them is the better party. They have occasional bright ideas in one topic or another, but overall and taken as a whole they are both equally worthless and corrupt.

 

Sure they surely do feel that the lives of school children are not worth putting up with any repeat any no matter how mild restrictions on firearms.

Only if the children was still only a few cells in the wombs that might in 9 months turn into babies are they worth protecting.

Too bad that abortions are not normally done with firearms as then the right wing would be all for abortions.

 

Pray tell what sort of firearm-related restrictions both qualify as "mild" and simultaneously possess the ability to reduce the number of school shootings that occur in the united states? The number of mass killers who have actually undergone psychological screening prior to the purchasing of their firearms would indicate that such is not a viable option for discussing.

 

LOL only small low capability magazines allow no bumper stock, no firearms sold to anyone who can not yet legally buy a can of beer and so on.

As I said nothing like the UK just some minor restrictions to reduce the body count of school shootings and without even impacting hunting, target shooting or self defense by firearms.

 

The Virginia Tech massacre was carried out with two handguns that utilized ten round magazines. Nikolas Cruz also committed his massacre with ten round magazines.

How would such actually prevent more massacres from being committed?

The number of individuals who have committed mass killings and are over twenty one years of age suggest that such would not actually make an impact of anything. As have the number of individuals under twenty one years of age who have successfully stolen firearms for the purpose of committing mass killings.

Insufficient. Elaborate upon what "and so on" actually entails.

The number of mass killings that have involved firearms and magazines that would not be affected, by individuals who would not be affected, suggest that no meaningful difference would actually be made, thus rendering the proposals not only irrelevant but useless. They appear to be nothing more than an effort as testing the political waters to try and later build public support for more restrictions later on down the line when the currently proposed restrictions fail to prevent the next massacre from occurring. And then the next massacre, the next after that, the next after that, and so on.

 

LOL I did not say such limits would be completely successful but it would made it harder to do mass murders and increase the skills needed to carry them out when they do happen.

Now I would truly hate not to be allow my 357 revolver but if the mass murders of our children keep happenings living under UK firearms laws would not be the worst fate in the world.

If I understanding you correctly you beloved right to firearms are more important then the lives of our school children to the point even mild limits are too must for you?

In any case, let try to reduce those happening with mild limits before moving more toward the UK model.

 

The number of mass killings committed with magazines that hold ten rounds of ammunition or less is sufficient to indicate that such would make no meaningful difference overall. Therefore such proposals are neither minor, nor do they actually have any merit in being taken even somewhat seriously.

Beyond that fact, these magazines are quite common in the united states and number in the hundreds of millions, if not outright billions. Any attempt at prohibiting the future manufacture and sale of such goods would have no impact overall of any sort. Even if it did, magazines can be produced on 3D printers with ease, making it impossible to prevent their acquisition and misuse.

If the matter is going to be discussed seriously, abandon the pre-approved political talking points, and begin actually addressing the matter in a logical manner. Do no rely on proposals that are designed from the ground up with a planned obsolescence in mind, and instead try and construct proposals that would have a legitimate and meaningful impact.