• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

NY attorney general seeks to dissolve NRA

what is the good you want?

The dissolution of a repugnant organisation founded to advance rifle marksmanship, but perverted into an arm of the GOP


protecting NRA membership from perhaps big spending fat cat leaders

Perhaps more accurately protecting their donations and membership fees from misuse


or getting rid of an organization that defends a right that you utterly despise and are terrified of?


Defend to suppression of freedom and security and contribute to RW conservative politics.
 
I noted this earlier, but I'll reiterate it: The original purpose of the NRA is being pursued by the (501(c)(3)) NRA Foundation, not the NRA itself (a 501(c)(4) organization). That is why I think the Foundation should take over the role of the NRA, and allow the parent organization to be dissolved. Until now, however, the NRA Foundation has been an afterthought for the NRA, getting a pittance of its budget, being borrowed from and stolen from heavily, having no separate employees, and having an NRA-dependent board. All of that will need to be changed for the Foundation to survive in the future.

There is no doubt significant illegality that has been engineered by Wayne LaPierre and his cronies. Not all of it is necessarily criminal. But a closely-monitored, tax-exempt organization like the NRA needs to conduct its operations completely above-board. It has not done so. Ultimately, I think that the audits that will necessarily follow these lawsuits will uncover significant illegality, much of it criminal, and some of it federal. By the time that comes to light, we should have a new administration that will NOT issue blanket pardons to the miscreants.
 
I noted this earlier, but I'll reiterate it: The original purpose of the NRA is being pursued by the (501(c)(3)) NRA Foundation, not the NRA itself (a 501(c)(4) organization). That is why I think the Foundation should take over the role of the NRA, and allow the parent organization to be dissolved. Until now, however, the NRA Foundation has been an afterthought for the NRA, getting a pittance of its budget, being borrowed from and stolen from heavily, having no separate employees, and having an NRA-dependent board. All of that will need to be changed for the Foundation to survive in the future.

There is no doubt significant illegality that has been engineered by Wayne LaPierre and his cronies. Not all of it is necessarily criminal. But a closely-monitored, tax-exempt organization like the NRA needs to conduct its operations completely above-board. It has not done so. Ultimately, I think that the audits that will necessarily follow these lawsuits will uncover significant illegality, much of it criminal, and some of it federal. By the time that comes to light, we should have a new administration that will NOT issue blanket pardons to the miscreants.

Why can't a newly formed NRA just return to it's roots and advance rifle proficiency/marksmanship and safety ?

Those with political objectives can just join the GOP.
 
Why can't a newly formed NRA just return to it's roots and advance rifle proficiency/marksmanship and safety ?

Those with political objectives can just join the GOP.

Or the GOA, SAF, etc.

If the Dems would stop attacking the Second Amendment, no one would have to advocate for its protection.
 
Or if it were just repealed.

Find a recent red/blue map of the states. Start counting red states. Stop when you get to 13.

In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence"
 
Find a recent red/blue map of the states. Start counting red states. Stop when you get to 13.

In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence"

There can be no significant gun control in the USA until the 2nd amendment is repealed.
 
There can be no significant gun control in the USA until the 2nd amendment is repealed.

Then why even have this sub-forum, given that there is zero chance of repealing part of the Bill of Rights.

Edit: The Democrats are perfectly willing to ignore 2A protections to impose new gun control.
 
Have you counted red states yet?

Has any Democratic leader called for the repeal of the 2nd? Is it part of the platform? If the Democrats truly want significant gun control, and they aren't calling for the repeal of the 2nd Amendment, either you're wrong or the Democrats don't actually want significant gun control.

Before or after this November's election ?
 
Before or after this November's election ?

You pick. The 2A isn't going anywhere. The Democrats have already shown that they plan to ignore it, anyway.
 
Then after the landslide vote that Trump seems intent on engineering.

The office of the president isn't involved in Constitutional amendments.

There are, depending upon which map you happen to look at, between 25 and 29 red states. The Democrats won't flip half of them, and not all blue states would ratify the repeal of the Second Amendment.

Besides, the Democrats tell us that the support the Second Amendment.
 
The office of the president isn't involved in Constitutional amendments.

Then how do you account for FDR's election promise of 1932 to end prohibition ?

If Biden wins an absolute landslide and his margin of victory is reflected in congressional and state elections, he'll push for gun control

IMO, if he thought there were enough "blue" states, and the Democrats could command 2/3 of both houses, he'd go for it


There are, depending upon which map you happen to look at, between 25 and 29 red states. The Democrats won't flip half of them, and not all blue states would ratify the repeal of the Second Amendment.

I think they might if there was sufficient political momentum caused by a November landslide election


Besides, the Democrats tell us that the support the Second Amendment.


And they will continue to do so.
 
Then how do you account for FDR's election promise of 1932 to end prohibition ?

The office of the president was not involved in the vote to ratify the 21st Amendment.

If Biden wins an absolute landslide and his margin of victory is reflected in congressional and state elections, he'll push for gun control

IMO, if he thought there were enough "blue" states, and the Democrats could command 2/3 of both houses, he'd go for it

Given that it's going to actually take getting 2/3 votes in both houses, which would be doubtful given that not all Democrats would vote to repeal the 2nd, and that it would take 38 states to ratify any such amendment, I don't think that even in his most demented state that he would "go for it". Why would he? He already believes that his gun control proposals would be Constitutional. There is zero need in his mind to repeal the 2nd.

I think they might if there was sufficient political momentum caused by a November landslide election

And they will continue to do so.

So they'll continue tell us that they support the 2nd Amendment, but if the demographics work out they'd move to repeal it?

Funny thing is I believe you on that.
 
The office of the president was not involved in the vote to ratify the 21st Amendment.

Says who ?


Given that it's going to actually take getting 2/3 votes in both houses, which would be doubtful given that not all Democrats would vote to repeal the 2nd, and that it would take 38 states to ratify any such amendment, I don't think that even in his most demented state that he would "go for it". Why would he? He already believes that his gun control proposals would be Constitutional. There is zero need in his mind to repeal the 2nd.

Yes it's going to be difficult

But a few years ago I'd have said it was "impossible"


So they'll continue tell us that they support the 2nd Amendment, but if the demographics work out they'd move to repeal it?

Funny thing is I believe you on that.


Yes, they won't move against the 2nd amendment unless they have enough support

Like the Republicans ant to cut social security.
 
Says who ?

The Constitution. The president doesn't get a vote and doesn't sign anything with regards to amendments.

Yes it's going to be difficult

But a few years ago I'd have said it was "impossible"

Yes, they won't move against the 2nd amendment unless they have enough support

So they're lying to us.

Like the Republicans ant to cut social security.

Yeah, I find those two actions equally repugnant.
 
The Constitution. The president doesn't get a vote and doesn't sign anything with regards to amendments.

There is a device called the TELEPHONE.

Maybe you've heard of it ?

Or believe the president sits in a political vacuum ?


So they're lying to us.

No, they reflect fairly accurately the views of their supporters


Now Republicans - they lie all the time, none more so than Trump - the biggest liar to be president possibly ever. Certainly in living memory and that includes another tupically shifty Republican - Richard Nixon.


Yeah, I find those two actions equally repugnant.


Republicans cutting welfare ?

Yes, the worst policy they have and a sure fire vote loser if they speak about it openly.
 
There is a device called the TELEPHONE.

Maybe you've heard of it ?

Or believe the president sits in a political vacuum ?

He has no authority with regards to passing amendments.

No, they reflect fairly accurately the views of their supporters

Which evidently is "yes we support the 2A until we can repeal the 2A". That's pretty blatant dishonesty.

Now Republicans - they lie all the time, none more so than Trump - the biggest liar to be president possibly ever. Certainly in living memory and that includes another tupically shifty Republican - Richard Nixon.


Republicans cutting welfare ?

Yes, the worst policy they have and a sure fire vote loser if they speak about it openly.

I'm not a Republican. One can support the Second Amendment and not support Trump. In fact, it should preclude it.
 
He has no authority with regards to passing amendments.

I can see you have never studied politics

Look up the difference between "power" and "influence"



Which evidently is "yes we support the 2A until we can repeal the 2A". That's pretty blatant dishonesty.

I'm not sure that too many Democrat leaders have said they support the 2nd amendment per se


I'm not a Republican. One can support the Second Amendment and not support Trump. In fact, it should preclude it.


Yes you are

You are just lying to yourself.
 
Haven't bothered to read the entire thread but the 'debate' in the first couple pages and the last couple, seems to have missed one little item.

NRA Was 'Foreign Asset' To Russia Ahead of 2016, New Senate Report Reveals

Drawing on contemporaneous emails and private interviews, an 18-month probe by the Senate Finance Committee's Democratic staff found that the NRA underwrote political access for Russian nationals Maria Butina and Alexander Torshin more than previously known — even though the two had declared their ties to the Kremlin.
[. . .]
The conclusions of the Senate investigation could have legal implications for the NRA, Wyden says.

Tax-exempt organizations are barred from using funds for the personal benefit of its officials or for actions significantly outside their stated missions. The revelations in the Senate report raise questions about whether the NRA could face civil penalties or lose its tax-exempt status.

The National Rifle Association called the report "politically motivated," and suggested that the 2015 Moscow trip was not an official NRA trip.

This came out in September last year and causes me to wonder if it might not have been what spurred the New York AG's investigation of the group.

Then there was this little bit of info, also from 2019 - Russia-Meddling Uproar Worsens as Probe of NRA’s Role is Dropped - Republicans on Federal Election Commission block investigation
 
Back
Top Bottom