What the NRA is against

[Bigjohn69]

Here are some laws the nra is fighting in wash state .

Senate Bill 6298 would expand the list of domestic violence offenses that prohibit firearm possession to also include “Harrassment.” Domestic violence is a serious issue and those convicted of violent offenses should be addressed accordingly. However, the definition of harassment under Washington state law is so broadly defined that it includes 37 other crimes, many of which involve no form of actual contact or threat of harm to a person


Senate Bill 5992 was originally introduced as a trigger modification device ban with broad, overreaching language that would have criminalized modifications commonly made to firearms by law-abiding citizens. Instead, the legislation was amended on the Senate floor to narrow down the definition of the ban to apply only to bump-fire stock attachments. They want the gat and full auto mods allowed.


Substitute House Bill 1122 would have required the locking up of one’s firearms or else they would potentially face reckless endangerment charges. This intrusive government legislation invades people’s homes and forces them to render their firearms useless in a self-defense situation by locking them up.



e Bill 5441 would have imposed a 6-month firearm prohibition for any person who has been released from a 72-hour mental health evaluation. Current law allows a person to be held for a limited time in order for a mental health professional to determine if the individual is in need of treatment or further commitment. At the end of the evaluation, individuals that are not in need of treatment are released. SB 5441 would nonetheless apply a blanket prohibition of firearm possession to all released individuals, and require the immediate surrender of all firearms and any concealed pistol license to law enforcement

, Friday, June 20, 2014, Florida Governor Rick Scott signed 5 pro-gun bills into law. A strong supporter of the Second Amendment, Governor Rick Scott has now signed more pro-gun bills into law

[Bigjohn69]

VP Pence supported nra money receiver

https://www.nrapvf.org/articles/2017092 ... -strange-1

Luther has earned our endorsement and highest rating, an "A+", because he is the ONLY candidate in the race we can count on to protect our Second Amendment freedoms. His opponent, Roy Moore, can’t be trusted with our gun rights. So don’t waste your vote!

[Jflem1983]

Im a proud lifetime member of the NRA.
They support safe fire arms use and storage.
They support the right to protect yourself if you need to.
The NRA is a great organization. Possibly the worlds oldest civil rights group.

[Bigjohn69]

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/18/us/flori ... 09PMVODtop


The Nra and politicians who get money from them are now the target of the people who are most in the line of fire .

[NotNorthAnymore]

IMO
The NRA should be disbanded as a terrorist organization for inciting murder against their fellow citizens.

Anyone whom supports citizens having military assault weapons in order to murder children, should eat their weapons.

[Bigjohn69]

http://cnn.it/2oh4yFp



Here's a list of members of Congress from Florida who received contributions during the 2016 election cycle from the group's political action committee, The National Rifle Association Political Victory Fund. All of them are Republicans.

[Jflem1983]

The NRA tends to support people with back bone. That excludes many democrats. Also democrats currently hate America. Didnt even have a flag at the DNC . So ya. NRA supports republicans in Florida.

[Jack DeBear]

Im a proud lifetime member of the NRA.
They support safe fire arms use and storage.
They support the right to protect yourself if you need to.
The NRA is a great organization. Possibly the worlds oldest civil rights group.

Hi, Jflem1983 (and anybody else who’s interested), I’m wondering what you make of this.

I grew up in a hunting culture.

And our family belonged to a gun club where my dad, a hunter, a former guide, and a war veteran, was an instructor and we were all trained on how to hunt with rifles.

At home we had a 30.06 repeater (with a standard clip), a .22 single shot, a pump action shotgun (three shells), and a hand pump air gun.

When my brother was 21 and still living with us, he went out and bought himself a .22 semi-automatic rifle with (I believe) a ten round clip.

My dad made him take it back--he showed us his 'back bone.'

And now I remember how Dad told him something to the effect that, as a hunting guide, he found out only crazy people thought they needed a semi-automatic rifle for sport: not war.

Nevertheless, I understood he would agree that learning to shoot was fun.

However, his main reason for teaching us that skill was for him to feel comfortable with ours and other’s safety as well as for us to become efficient at killing varmints along with a variety of game.

So I feel my dad was being a responsible person for trying to control my brother . . . for thinking that people who felt they needed to own a semi-automatic must be exhibiting a streak of crazy.

In the end my brother accepted his logic. I think my dad would say that he grew up.

Yet I believe the NRA’s logic is that wanting to own a semi-automatic rifle (and/ or handgun) is generally a sane desire to have at any age, and it would be useless for lawmakers to ban them because a ‘genuinely crazy’ person, in their eyes, would still be able to get a hold of one if they wanted to use it to kill people.

And along with that position, I believe it goes on to argue in support of the current American rights as well as to procur and peddle support for a consumerist gun culture no matter how that culture is able to find a way to get any version of semi-automatic rifle that they believe they can argue will fall within those rights--regardless of consulting with someone like my dad as well as the general public.

In any case, I have to go along with my dad’s thoughts about what he believed was actually ‘crazy.’

And when the NRA tries to influence American lawmakers on mental health and gun control issuers, I think it should take my dad’s stance into account first.

I mean, why wouldn’t the NRA, The National Rifle Association, not want to be a family that simply focuses on what I learned was the real and serious business of a gun club and its members?

Why not ditch all this lobbying and money influence jockeying and get back to the basics that my dad professed with our hunting family, along with how he dealt with my brother within our family?

[Jflem1983]

Im a proud lifetime member of the NRA.
They support safe fire arms use and storage.
They support the right to protect yourself if you need to.
The NRA is a great organization. Possibly the worlds oldest civil rights group.

Hi, Jflem1983 (and anybody else who’s interested), I’m wondering what you make of this.

I grew up in a hunting culture.

And our family belonged to a gun club where my dad, a hunter, a former guide, and a military veteran, was an instructor and we were all trained on how to hunt with rifles.

At home we had a .306 repeater (with a standard clip), a .22 single shot, a pump action shotgun (three shells), and a hand pump air gun.

When my brother was 21 and still living with us, he went out and bought himself a .22 semi-automatic rifle with (I believe) a ten round clip.

My dad made him take it back--he showed us his 'back bone.'

And now I remember how Dad told him something to the effect that, as a hunting guide, he found out only crazy people thought they needed a semi-automatic rifle for sport: not war.

Nevertheless, I understood he would agree that learning to shoot was fun.

However, his main reason for teaching us that skill was for him to feel comfortable with ours and other’s safety as well as for us to become efficient at killing varmints along with a variety of game.

So I feel my dad was being a responsible person for trying to control my brother . . . for thinking that people who felt they needed to own a semi-automatic must be exhibiting a streak of crazy.

In the end my brother accepted his logic. I think my dad would say that he grew up.

Yet I believe the NRA’s logic is that wanting to own a semi-automatic rifle (and/ or handgun) is generally a sane desire to have at any age, and it would be useless for lawmakers to ban them because a ‘genuinely crazy’ person, in their eyes, would still be able to get a hold of one if they wanted to use it to kill people.

And along with that position, I believe it goes on to argue in support of the current American rights as well as to procur and peddle support for a consumerist gun culture no matter how that culture is able to find a way to get any version of semi-automatic rifle that they believe they can argue will fall within those rights--regardless of consulting with someone like my dad as well as the general public.

In any case, I have to go along with my dad’s thoughts about what he believed was actually ‘crazy.’

And when the NRA tries to influence American lawmakers on mental health and gun control issuers, I think they should take my dad’s stance into account first.

I mean, why wouldn’t the NRA, The National Rifle Association, not want to be a family that simply focuses on what I learned was the real and serious business of a gun club and its members?

Why not ditch all this lobbying and money influence jockeying and get back to the basics that my dad professed with our hunting family, along with how he dealt with my brother within our family?

They wont ever get back anything they give up. Its a loss. No upside.

[Jack DeBear]

What will it lose?

[Jflem1983]

What will it lose?

Nothing if the NRA is able to stand tall. Beat back the evil democrats.

[Ka-El]

What will it lose?

It will lose the power it has to influence government. You think America is a democracy? You think voters call the shots? Responsible gun owners, especially those so-called “proud life-long members”, should question whether their views are properly being represented by the organization that suggests it’s speaking for them.

It’s a fair question, and not only because the N.R.A. has single-handedly dictated the shape of the debate over guns for decades. Whether they own guns or not, Americans should understand the outsize role the N.R.A. plays, not only in thwarting sensible gun safety laws but also in undermining law enforcement by abetting gun traffickers, criminal gun dealers and criminal gun users.

The N.R.A., which claims some 4.5 million members, often professes to speak for all gun owners — hunters, sportsmen, collectors and ordinary Americans who keep guns for self-defense. But on some issues, most gun owners clearly reject the party line.

In 2012, the Republican pollster Frank Luntz found that 87 percent of gun owners supported criminal background or “Brady” checks for all gun purchases. Following the December 2012 massacre of 20 children in Newtown, Conn., another poll showed that 92 percent of Americans supported background checks for all buyers, including those buying on the Internet and at gun shows.

But by April 2013, when the Senate considered a bill to do just that, the N.R.A. campaign to defeat it was in full swing. The N.R.A. tagged the bill as a top priority and made clear that senators who opposed it risked receiving a low N.R.A. rating, which many of its single-issue supporters use in deciding how to vote, or a flood of negative television ads.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/07/opin ... s-for.html

What ?!?!? Improved background checks ?!?!? What an assault on freedom and liberty !!!

Why we need to disband the NRA and drop the Second Amendment

If we didn’t have a Second Amendment in the United States, we would still have firearms and people could still own guns, and hunt, and do all that other fun stuff. But we wouldn’t have what amounts to a religious proscription against doing anything smart when it comes to firearms.

http://gregladen.com/blog/2011/12/20/wh ... amendment/

This pro-gun right wing union needs to go.

The NRA represents the worst in fanatical single issue ideologically extreme special interest groups. They thrive by promoting fear and paranoia. Every massacre of children increases gun sales for their donors. Today at conference, they were distracting public from talking about gun laws by blaming massacre on Hollywood, video games and instead talked about hiring more armed security guards on tax payer's money. An ideal business opportunity to boost more gun sales for their donors! The same right wing propagandizers discourage from talking about stricter gun control, funding mental health programs and ignore bullying that goes in schools and colleges that really do contribute to violence a lot more than movies.

Read more: http://www.city-data.com/forum/politics ... z58AZBtNgN

Shooting survivor to NRA: ‘Don’t you dare come back here’

A student who survived the Florida school shooting on Monday shared a message for the National Rifle Association (NRA), calling for it to "disband." … "Disband, dismantle ... don't make another organization under a different name. Don't you dare come back here,"

<snip>

“If the president wants to come up to me and tell me to my face that it was a terrible tragedy and how it should never have happened, and maintain telling us how nothing is going to be done about it, I’m going to happily ask him how much money he received from the National Rifle Association,” Gonzalez said during her speech. “I already know — $30 million.”

http://thehill.com/homenews/news/374502 ... -back-here

[GordonH]

Parents of innocent dead children already will not get what they lost back ever. What's more important an inanimate object (a gun) or your child.

[Jflem1983]

The NRA didnt kill anybody. Neither did the second ammendment

[Dizzy1]

The NRA didnt kill anybody. Neither did the second ammendment

No, but the idiots who keep hiding behind one of the biggest political lobbying groups and a 227 year old piece of paper are the one's responsible for allowing madmen to legally obtain assault weapons to mow down thousands of innocent men, women and children