How The Gun Industry Funnels Tens Of Millions Of Dollars To The NRA

@revelette1,

revelette1 wrote:

If the NRA was to go down in flames it would be a good day.

Only for people who hate civil liberties and want to have fun violating other people's rights.

But luckily there is no reason to think that the NRA is in any danger. All this talk about the NRA being destroyed is just a silly leftist daydream about how nice it would be if no one prevented them from violating people's civil liberties.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

It is.

I guess I am bit more fuzzy than usual.

Not much to say on your last post as farmerman covered it already.

1 Reply

@revelette1,

When did NRA bcome a 501 3-c "public charity" . ?? The purse string side of Congress will introduce legislation to take away charitable deduction just like they did for other more pressing deductions

2 Replies

@farmerman,

Who knows, maybe they opened up a toddler for gun target practice for free program in the name of gun safety.

1 Reply

@revelette1,

What is it about civil liberties that bothers you so much?

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

When did NRA bcome a 501 3-c "public charity" . ??

I didn't bother to look up a concrete date. But since they defend civil liberties, it is certainly reasonable for them to have tax free status.

farmerman wrote:

The purse string side of Congress will introduce legislation to take away charitable deduction just like they did for other more pressing deductions

Do away with charitable deductions? Unlikely.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

The NRA enables abets and promotes tens of thousands of fatal violations of Americans' civil rights every year. What do you have against cuvil rights oralloy?

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

The NRA enables abets and promotes tens of thousands of fatal violations of Americans' civil rights every year.

No they don't.

MontereyJack wrote:

What do you have against civil rights oralloy?

Nothing at all.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Of course they do.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

Nope. Preventing you from banning pistol grips on rifles does not violate a single right and does not cause a single death.

All it does is prevent you from violating people's civil liberties.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Actually that argument has always been total bullshit. The guy who ecercised what you call his civil licerty and shot up a synogogueby a couple days ago used an assault'-style rifle which likely had a pistol grip. That is wbat wouldbebanned by law. The gun not the grip. His alleged civil liberty resultd in death a gross violation of civil rights and one you guys seem to be all for.

2 Replies

@MontereyJack,

That isn't how civil liberties work, you don't get to take away the majorities rights because a very minority of a group did something wrong.

Based on that fact, we should be deporting immigrants because some of them have violated the civil rights of US citizens when they killed them.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

Actually that argument has always been total bullshit.

Since you are trying to ban pistol grips on rifles, pointing out that you are trying to ban pistol grips on rifles is completely accurate.

MontereyJack wrote:

The guy who exercised what you call his civil liberty and shot up a synagogue by a couple days ago used an assault'-style rifle which likely had a pistol grip.

If there had been no pistol grip on his rifle, would that make the victim any less dead?

MontereyJack wrote:

That is what would be banned by law. The gun not the grip.

A law that bans pistol grips on rifles, bans pistol grips on rifles.

MontereyJack wrote:

His alleged civil liberty resulted in death a gross violation of civil rights and one you guys seem to be all for.

Not allowing you to ban pistol grips on rifles did not cause any deaths or violate any civil rights.

The only thing it did was prevent you from having some fun by violating other people's civil liberties.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

It comes back to the basic question I have asked for a couple of years that no one on the anti-gun side can answer.

What is the difference between a Ruger Ranch Rifle and an AR-15? Don't provide an answer, I want to anti-gun nuts to answer.

0 Replies

@Baldimo,

Actually that is how rights and librerties do work. as scalia noted in generall they are not unlimited and they can conflict with each other and broadly speaking your exercise of what you consider to. Be your right cant harm someone else. In particular scalia ssid gun rights were not unlimited and could be regulated. The nra and oralloy and the zealots go fsr far beyond that point and argue for unrestricted availability and use of guns. Guns are lethal and thatlethali.ty conflicts with others right to live And be secure. The nra is uncostitutional therefore. You have free speecch but there arecostitutional limits. You cant libel or slander. You cant lie under youoath..you cant make false claims for efficacy ogf medicines and

2 Replies

@MontereyJack,

Sorry to tell you, but the Constitution was created to limit the power of the Federal Govt, not the people. When the govt starts using the power of the Constitution to limit the rights of the people, that is when our Constitution is broken.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

Actually that is how rights and liberties do work. as scalia noted in general they are not unlimited and they can conflict with each other and broadly speaking your exercise of what you consider to. Be your right cant harm someone else. In particular scalia said gun rights were not unlimited and could be regulated.

Only if those regulations can be justified with a good reason.

Feel free to try to provide a good reason for banning pistol grips on rifles.

MontereyJack wrote:

The nra and oralloy and the zealots go far far beyond that point and argue for unrestricted availability and use of guns.

We do no such thing.

MontereyJack wrote:

Guns are lethal and that lethality conflicts with others right to live And be secure. The nra is uncostitutional therefore.

That's just silly.

MontereyJack wrote:

You have free speecch but there are constitutional limits.

Only constitutional if those limits can be justified with a good reason.

MontereyJack wrote:

You cant libel or slander. You cant lie under oath..you cant make false claims for efficacy of medicines

People can provide a good reason for outlawing libel and slander.

People can provide a good reason for outlawing perjury.

People can provide a good reason for outlawing false claims about medicine.

Can you provide a good reason for outlawing pistol grips on rifles?

1 Reply

@oralloy,

I can provide a whole lot of good readons for rrguating guns shot up synogogues dhot up churches what is it three in the last two weeks shot up barbecues. Shot up businesses hot up schools Parkland Sandy HkookColumbine shot up sisterr by her 4year oldbrother shot up wife and neighbors by her husband who didnt like how svhe cooked his eggs twoshot up families offor or five people in the lsst two weeks 58people shot at. Country show in vegas....
.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

Those shootings are only good reasons for a regulation if you can show how the regulation would have helped to prevent or minimize those shootings.

If a proposed regulation would have no impact on any of those shootings, then those shootings do not justify the proposed regulation.

So... go ahead and try to explain how banning pistol grips on rifles would have made any difference in any of those shootings.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

hmmm lets see, shootings, guns. WAAAAIT A MINIT, I may be dead wrong but I think mass shootings are somehow associated with guns..

1 Reply

How The Gun Industry Funnels Tens Of Millions Of Dollars To The NRA

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know