Quantcast

NRA: 2A Yes, 1A No.

Discussion in 'Legal' started by Bubba613, Jun 16, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Bubba613

    Bubba613 member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2007
    Messages:
    1,953
    Gee, I guess all that "The 2A Protects all others" is just BS, then. We don't really care about anyone else's right to anything. As long as we've got ours, the rest of the world can disappear.
    Unfortunately for that theory, there is no distinction between "gun owners" and "everyone else." Everyone else includes gun owners, who also like to have free speech, and may not care for the NRA to be their sole mouthpiece.

    If legislation is bad, it is bad for everyone. It ought to be opposed, period. This bill is bad. It has nothing to recommend it and there is no principled stance that would allow the NRA to duck its responsibility to oppose it by cutting a separate deal with the Democrats.
    The decision appears to have been made on the most calculating political grounds of pure realpolitik.
     
  2. Sam1911

    Sam1911 Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2007
    Messages:
    34,964
    Location:
    Central PA
    The 2nd Amendment protects the other Amendments. The NRA helps defend the second amendment. But the NRA isn't a catch-all white knight for all Constitutional issues.

    Speak for yourself. I care very much about a great many rights (and other issues) for a great many people. But those issues very well may differ from your opinions, wishes, and beliefs about rights. If we're more-or-less aligned on the RKBA issues, we can work together by (among other things) supporting the NRA. If you like rutabagas and I hate them, and the NRA comes out on a strong pro-rutabaga platform, you probably just lost my contributions to this facet of fighting the RKBA war. (As well as accomplishing nothing for the 'bagas!)

    Which is where we WIN our battles. Or where we lose them. Earnest naïveté doesn't move any legislative mountains.
     
  3. Bubba613

    Bubba613 member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2007
    Messages:
    1,953
    No one is saying they should be.
    But this is an legislative issue that they could have taken a principled stand in favor of free speech on and they fumbled it, acting in a way that would make Bill Clinton smile.
    Co-opting your opposition is one of the first principles of politics. And the NRA just got played.
     
  4. Colonel

    Colonel Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Messages:
    319
    fixed deal.gif

    You owe me a keyboard!
     
  5. Sebastian the Ibis
    • Contributing Member

    Sebastian the Ibis Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2008
    Messages:
    1,952
    Location:
    "The Gunshine State"
    How about we criticize Schumer's Disclose Act, instead of the NRA?

    The Disclose Act (or the drafts of it currently circulating) is worse/more unconstitutional than McCain-Feingold, and will be struck down by SCOTUS. At least McCain-Feingold was bi-partisan and regulated Unions and Corporations. The Disclose Act is pure unconstitutional partisan entrenchment. However it's proponents don't care since they will get a couple of election cycles out of it, before it is struck down.

    The NRA got out of a sinking ship and while everyone else just wants them to keep paddling. There is a lot of sense in that, can't blame them.
     
  6. Bartholomew Roberts

    Bartholomew Roberts Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    14,613
    Location:
    Texas
    The only thing this is about is the Republicans were looking forward to seeing the Blue Dogs trapped between a rock (Disclose Vote) and a hard place (bad NRA rating going into November). They are now disappointed because not only will the Blue Dogs avoid a bad NRA grade in November; but the Dems actually bought the NRA off, so now the Republicans have to work harder to maintain their share of the pro-RKBA vote.
     
  7. KBintheSLC

    KBintheSLC Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2007
    Messages:
    3,208
    Location:
    Stalingrad, USA
    DITTO!

    Its called politics folks. Sometimes it involves a bit of hardball, which can include sidebar clauses that work to your advantage. The NRA has to walk a fine and delicate line in the DC shark tank. While I may not agree with all of their decisions, I believe that they are overall a good organization.
     
  8. Rail Driver

    Rail Driver Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2010
    Messages:
    2,525
    Location:
    Quincy, FL
    Since I don't see anybody else posting or referring to the NRA's response to this topic, I will. As part of my NRA membership I received this email today.

    I must say that I don't blame them for attempting to use the political process against those that would take our rights from us.
     
  9. Bubba613

    Bubba613 member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2007
    Messages:
    1,953
    It's a good thing there's no one else who needs free speech to defend rights other than the NRA.
    In street terms that's called taking out your rivals.
     
  10. LeontheProfessional

    LeontheProfessional Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2010
    Messages:
    669
    Location:
    Virginia
    Reread the thread. Especially several of the links posted. You are missing the point.
     
  11. Rail Driver

    Rail Driver Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2010
    Messages:
    2,525
    Location:
    Quincy, FL
    Do you expect the NRA to stand up for Joe Schmoe's 1a rights when they're working to keep the government and the anti-gun lobby from taking away your 2a rights?

    Perhaps the NRA should change their entire mission and name... Something like.... Oh, I don't know maybe the "Bill of Rights Defense League"?

    I, for one, am not going to down the NRA for doing what they've got to do in order to protect their ability to speak out in defense of our rights.
     
  12. LeontheProfessional

    LeontheProfessional Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2010
    Messages:
    669
    Location:
    Virginia
    It is not even that they are supporting the bill. They just want to make sure that if it does pass they are still protected.
     
  13. rbernie
    • Contributing Member

    rbernie Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2004
    Messages:
    21,697
    Location:
    Norra Texas
    As far as I can tell, Bubba613 is not interested in anything other than bashing the NRA on this issue.

    So be it. But the links and the data speak for themselves.
     
  14. Boba Fett

    Boba Fett Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    1,243
    Location:
    Texas ~ Join the NRA & TSRA
    Man get over yourself. Have you read nothing that the NRA has said? Do you really not get it? Or do you just want to bash the NRA?

    If you are so concerned about free speech, then Google First Amendment advocacy groups and start sending them money. I'm all for protecting free speech. I'm all for 1A. I think supporting 1A is a great idea.


    But why on earth do you want the NRA to shoot itself and its collective members in the foot for the sake of a battle that is not their focus, that they do not believe they can win, and that when lost will hinder them in their pursuit to protect 2A?


    Tell you what, how about if you send the NRA a few billion with the request that they use it to promote 1A. They can form a special 1A group specifically focused on 1A and you can chair the newly formed division of the NRA that will counter any 1A attacks.

    Until they have this sort of funding to specifically protect the first amendment, I want my money to be used to protect 2A! That is what I pay for with my dues. That is what any extra I send them goes for. Do you not understand that they have to focus on 2A related issues with the funding they have or else they will simply become ineffectual in anything they do? If they spread themselves out to cover any amendments violation, they will never accomplish anything.

    Considering that you simply reply to people's posts with "I hate NRA" type of comments, it's not surprising that you really haven't a clue about how the NRA works...
     
  15. Starcheck55

    Starcheck55 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2008
    Messages:
    164
  16. Sam1911

    Sam1911 Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2007
    Messages:
    34,964
    Location:
    Central PA
    Oh really? Taking out their "rivals?" Like whom, for instance?

    So, again, what "rivals" do you think the NRA is "taking out?"

    Odd line of reasoning.
     
  17. Carl N. Brown

    Carl N. Brown Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2005
    Messages:
    8,632
    Location:
    Kingsport Tennessee
    The Democrats introduced the bill.

    They exempted groups defined under that 501 whatever rule, which coincidentally included the NRA which is defined as a 501(c)(4) group.

    The NRA is not going to fight being exempted.

    That does not mean they support the Disclose Bill.

    They are not fighting being exempted from it.

    If the Democrats could have included NRA under the disclose bill, I bet they would have but they want to exempt their favored 501 groups too, but the legal choice is exempt all 501s or none.


    If non-501(c)(4) groups are included in the Disclose Act, but 501(c)(4) groups are exempted, would I want the NRA using my dues/contibutions to fight to be silenced if the Disclose Bill becomes an Act? No.
     
  18. GoodKat

    GoodKat Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2008
    Messages:
    398
    Perhaps you could name some of those groups.
     
  19. DT Guy

    DT Guy Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2003
    Messages:
    1,439
    Sounds to me like the Dems are going to hose a bunch of groups, and the NRA was smart enough to avoid it.

    I call that a win.


    Larry
     
  20. Bubba613

    Bubba613 member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2007
    Messages:
    1,953
    Amazing that legitimate discussion is termed "bashing" on this forum.
    Here is the GOA on the legislation and on the NRA's decisions:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRUbwnkEPqc
    They somehow see it differently. But the writer obviously errs in attributing to NRA members disfavor with their stance. From the discussion here it seems people are fine with it.
     
  21. Rmfcasey

    Rmfcasey Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2009
    Messages:
    23
    I am a Nra life member that thinks this is a bad deal. The Dems are working to restore restrictions to political speech that were judged unconstitutional.The NRA spent millions to fight McCain-Finegold and will have to spend millions to fight this if it becomes law as the Dems are sure to try to silence the NRA. You will not be able to maintain your freedoms if you allow the freedoms of others to be taken away. Read the first line of the NRA statement and see if it agrees with their stance on this bill. I believe that even though the focus of the NRA is the 2nd Amendment they should not compromise on any of our rights.
    Rmfcasey
     
  22. HexHead

    HexHead Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2008
    Messages:
    3,438
    Location:
    TN
    As a life member of the NRA, I support what they did here. They made sure they'd be in a position to continue to fight for my 2nd amendment rights. I don't want them being distracted with 1st amendment issues. Personally, I feel we should be attacking the 1st amendment with the same fervor the libs attack the 2nd. The 1st should ONLY apply the way it's written in the Constitution, that the government can't drag you off because they don't like what you said. The rest of the way the libs try to interpret it is BS.
     
  23. TexasRifleman

    TexasRifleman Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2003
    Messages:
    18,302
    Location:
    Ft. Worth
    You are all aware are you not that the NRA is a single issue organization right?

    They don't care about anything other than 2A issues, nor do I want them to.

    They endorsed Harry Reid based on his 2A voting record, and that's what I want to see even if I disagree with Harry Reid on everything else.

    NRA and other pro gun groups start playing into wider territory they will have to shut the doors and we'll all be in trouble.

    I consider it a good week when stuff like this is the worst complaint on gun forums.... Notice how we are not debating some new anti gun legislation?
     
  24. Carl N. Brown

    Carl N. Brown Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2005
    Messages:
    8,632
    Location:
    Kingsport Tennessee
    NRA & HR5175 McCain Finegold II

    Quote: ...the NRA has inserted a provision in the bill...

    One of the few honest gun control writers said that enemies of the NRA often attribute to it more powers than it actually has or exercises. At that time he was writing about anti-gun pro-control enemies.

    The NRA was willing to spend millions to fight McCain-Finegold.

    Section 501(c) of the United States Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. § 501(c)), provides that 26 types of nonprofit organizations are exempt from some federal income taxes. IRS publication 557, lists 501(c)(4) as Civic Leagues, Social Welfare Organizations, and Local Associations of Employees. "501(c) (4) organizations may lobby for legislation; they may also participate in political campaigns and elections, as long as campaigning is not the organization's primary purpose."

    In theory, the Disclose Act would put the quietus on groups newly set up without significant membership, the kind of astroturf (wink-nudge) "artificial grassroots" groups set up just to influence elections, by these tests:
    * Established under 501(c)(4) for 10 years;
    * 1 million or more dues-paying members;
    * Members in all 50 states;
    * No more than 15% of funding from corporations or unions; and,
    * Does not use corporate or union money for campaign related expenditures.

    Maybe this lets the NRA off the hook. Maybe it keeps the NRA from spending millions fighting the bill. Maybe it protects 501(c)94) groups friendly with the Dems too. And maybe the bill has no real chance of passing anyway.
     
  25. 9teenEleven

    9teenEleven Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2009
    Messages:
    186
    I resigned my membership due to that double-talking letter the sent via email arguing that they are actually trying to PROTECT the 1A. If they are willing to lie to their membership like that then I want no part. I'm not willing to lose one right just to protect another.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice