It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NRA not charitable organization but a terrorist organization

page: 1
10
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 27 2019 @ 07:25 AM
link   
I have told you guys several times MS-NBC and CNN are right wing and not left wing. If you want truly left wing positions then you have to go to truth-out.org or Mother Jones.

Here is a Mother Jones article describing how the New York attorney general is going after the NRA's classification as a charitable organization. For any liberals reading this you might have the same reaction I did that classifying the NRA as a charitable organization seems ironic.

Why the National Rifle Association Is Under Fire Like Never Before

I know many of you gun nuts want unlimited freedom and liberty when it comes to regulating guns. And many of you think any part of "A well regulated Militia" in terms of regulation is a complete violation of your 2nd Amendment rights, but there are many people who think "regulated" means regulated.

I'm always fascinated where people who think any regulation at all of their 2nd Amendment rights is unacceptable. Where do people draw the line and why? If the latest Bushmaster assault rifle is capable of firing 500 rounds per minute of armor piercing bullets should it be allowed or legal to be sold? If not, then why?

And what do you think of the article's comment the NRA is a “a terrorist organization" ? I'm telling you MS-NBC and CNN are right wing.


edit on 27-3-2019 by dfnj2015 because: (no reason given)



+28 more 
posted on Mar, 27 2019 @ 07:27 AM
link   
NRA and Russia?

Man you people are desperate.



posted on Mar, 27 2019 @ 07:31 AM
link   
Didn't know the NRA represents semi automatic and assault weapons. Also wasn't aware that they regularly do business with organized crime syndicates. Tbh I thought that was the military's job. Hmmm.


+22 more 
posted on Mar, 27 2019 @ 07:32 AM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015

Criminalizing otherwise legal behavior in the hopes of effecting change in an already deranged minority seems just about as dumb as it comes.

Should people be allowed to have missiles and tanks? Probably not, and lawfully controlling ordinance doesn't seem to be too hard to institute to control such actions. But should I be able to take a recreational hand held firearm onto a range and safely utilize it for said recreational activities? I cannot think of a single reason why not, other than a misguided desire to prevent said deranged minority from taking my recreational activities out of the simulation and into the real world. In reality, however...how do you actually stop these deranged individuals? And why should their derangement create a "bad apple spoils the whole bunch" mentality where I suffer for their shortcomings as if i were once again a child?


+12 more 
posted on Mar, 27 2019 @ 07:33 AM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015

What about the people who live in Alaska, Montana, Texas, and Appalachia just to name a few, who are in areas far from law enforcement or help for that matter.

Those environments have wild life and dangers that are real. It may be easy to say "it's 2019, not the wild west", but that statement isn't true for everyone.


+5 more 
posted on Mar, 27 2019 @ 07:37 AM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015

Sorry, it's not us "gun nuts" that want freedom. It's the 2nd amaendment, Kinda like breathing. You don't have to have a gun to live, but for freedom you need a gun to keep it.

What does "shall not be infringed" mean. Does it mean background checks? Does it mean wait a few weeks, months. does it specify capacity? what DO those words mean.

When the Bill of Rights was written, men allegedly had integrity. I know that is not the case today. Why have we lost our collective integrity?

We want freedoms, but are unwilling to accept personal responsibility for them.


+4 more 
posted on Mar, 27 2019 @ 07:40 AM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015




posted on Mar, 27 2019 @ 07:43 AM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015

I don't mind having extended background checks or ending loopholes like gun shows etc. Even a mental check. But liberals who know nothing about guns want a list of gun owners, banning semi automatic scary looking guns and basically halt people from having self protection.

You cant treat people like criminals if they don't commit a crime. The NRA is needed to stop democrats from banning our 2nd amendment rights and is worth it as a buffer from emotional democrats.



posted on Mar, 27 2019 @ 07:43 AM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015
I have guns I use for target practice and for protection, if ever it's needed. What I don't need is some douche-bag politicians telling me I'm a criminal because I have them. Regulated is fine to a degree but over-regulation is a real danger especially with certain idiots these days. If the latest Bushmaster is capable of that it should be sold to people who at least have experience enough to use the weapon, but trying to outlaw the gun for everyone is a slippery slope. The "Terrorist Organization" comment is a typical whiny cringe comment from liberal types that don't want others to be able to protect themselves because it scares them. Lastly MS-NBC and CNN are "NOT" right wing. They swing heavily to the left and I don't see that changing.



posted on Mar, 27 2019 @ 07:44 AM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan




... And why should their derangement create a "bad apple spoils the whole bunch" mentality where I suffer for their shortcomings as if i were once again a child?


Hmmm, that sounds like a form of collective punishment.

Is that not a potential breach of your human rights?

I guess I'm being facetious, but you make an excellent point.



+2 more 
posted on Mar, 27 2019 @ 07:44 AM
link   
NRA not charitable organization but a terrorist organization

Do they fight for the right to make pressure cooker bombs in our mothers basement?

No.

EPIC FAIL.



posted on Mar, 27 2019 @ 07:45 AM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015




I'm always fascinated where people who think any regulation at all of their 2nd Amendment rights is unacceptable.


"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I just don't get it either. The military doesn't arbitrarily arm its members. Their armament is well regulated. Why shouldn't the general populations armament also be "well regulated"?

As far as the NRA not being a "charitable organization", that's just a non profit tax status. They accept tax deductible donation that they spend to further their cause. I don't like their cause or their methods, and I think they go too far. But I don't think they should lose their tax exempt status over ideology and free speech. Over fraud and misappropriation of funds, sure. If they violate incitement laws, sure, they should be punished and lose their tax exempt status.


+6 more 
posted on Mar, 27 2019 @ 07:46 AM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015



I'm always fascinated where people who think any regulation at all of their 2nd Amendment rights is unacceptable.

I am always fascinated with people that do not understand the very simple words put down in the Second Amendment to the US Constitution.



posted on Mar, 27 2019 @ 07:50 AM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

Simple words like "well regulated" that has been debated ad nauseam?



posted on Mar, 27 2019 @ 07:52 AM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015

Just to be clear you are saying CNN and MSNBC do not go far enough in their efforts to remove the 2nd amendment and so they are right wing? And Mother Jones is a TRUE left wing source because they speak the truth, which is that the NRA is a terrorist organization?

Is this basically what you are saying?



posted on Mar, 27 2019 @ 07:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: butcherguy

Simple words like "well regulated" that has been debated ad nauseam?

Well regulated describes the military.
And the militia is but a reason for “the right of the people” not a certain group of people... the people. What is to debate there?
“To keep and bear arms” Have any trouble understanding that part?
“Shall not be infringed “ Hard to find a workaround on this one, isn’t it?
edit on b000000312019-03-27T07:58:05-05:0007America/ChicagoWed, 27 Mar 2019 07:58:05 -0500700000019 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2019 @ 07:57 AM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

"Certain people" should not be in possession of certain weaponry.



posted on Mar, 27 2019 @ 08:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: butcherguy

"Certain people" should not be in possession of certain weaponry.

Correction: Certain people should not be in possession of any weaponry.
Convicted violent felons and the insane.
Yet those people can legally possess lethal weapons.... except for firearms.
Make any sense to you?



posted on Mar, 27 2019 @ 08:03 AM
link   
Yay!
Another gun debate.

People seem to like arguing about guns until they are blue in the face when in actual truth, guns aren't really a big problem.
Way to much time is spent on a non factor.



posted on Mar, 27 2019 @ 08:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: 3n19m470
a reply to: dfnj2015

Just to be clear you are saying CNN and MSNBC do not go far enough in their efforts to remove the 2nd amendment and so they are right wing? And Mother Jones is a TRUE left wing source because they speak the truth, which is that the NRA is a terrorist organization?

Is this basically what you are saying?


I'm not smart enough to know what truth is. All I am saying is CNN and MSSNBC are tame compared to truthout.org and Mother Jones.




top topics



 
10
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join