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: 2
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 27 2019 @ 08:06 AM
link   
All I see is an attempt by the anti-freedom crowd to remove a perceived obstacle in their war against armed citizens. If indeed there is enough evidence that some in the NRA have colluded with Russian agents, arrest them, indict them, replace them, and move on. I see no reason at this point to revoke their tax-exempt status without sufficient evidence to prove they have breached its limitations without recourse.

Destroying the NRA will not negate the constitutional right of American citizens to bear arms. The NRA is an advocacy group. One among many. The largest yes, but not the only.

If you want to overturn the second amendment, do it the way our founding documents prescribe, or get over it.




posted on Mar, 27 2019 @ 08:06 AM
link   
Darn that NRA.

Did you know they fought at the very beginning to give equal rights to former slaves to be able to own firearms like every other free white citizen after the Civil War when many states outlawed it?

Did you know they also helped FDR draft the 1934 National Firearms Act and the 1938 Gun Control Act, in particular machine guns, sawed off shotguns and silencers?

Did you know they worked with nine states to enact gun permit laws and extra jail time if a gun was used in a crime?

Did you know they formed to increase marksmanship proficiency in urban northerners and popularized recreational shooting because they found urban Union soldiers to be weak in their outdoor skills and blamed that for the Civil War lasting as long and being so bloody?

Did you know that lack of familiarity with firearms and unsafe handling can be corrected by education? And the NRA has qualified instructors that can give that education?



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

originally posted by: butcherguy

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?


Luckily, the Supreme Court interpreted the 2nd Amendment to mean it does NOT only apply to militias. When I first read it, that's what I thought. But I know the gun nuts lover their guns so I'm okay with the Supreme Court interpretation of it.

As I said in the OP, where the line is drawn is more interesting. Should there be a legal limit on any type of firepower and why? Should someone be able to sell stinger missiles on the side of the road near Newark Airport in New Jersey? What's the worse that could happen?



posted on Mar, 27 2019 @ 08:12 AM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015

Imagine you go out to an event, a baseball game or a concert or just an outing to somewhere downtown or shopping at the mall, and about 60% of the population is armed and trained.

Btw, I have no issues with requiring more extensive training, but it should just mandatory for every citizen to have a comprehensive understanding of firearms and how they work. It shouldn't be something you have to pay for or something only some people can afford or something you can skip out on. It's already paid for by taxes.

I want to know everyone has held a gun, fired a clip, and worked the mechanisms, taken it apart, cleaned and oiled, reloaded a clip, taken the class, heard the reasons, the examples, before they open up their fat mouths. We've had nothing but nonstop saturation of the CONS, now maybe it would be Okay to make people have to hear some PROS?

Ok, so imagine over half the population is armed and trained. Do you think any wise ass is gonna try anything? Of course not. THEY ONLY STRIKE SOFT TARGETS. So we take away their soft targets.

Obviously, right?

No? You want to give them More soft targets? Why in the world would you EVER want to do that? You think everyone in the world is just gonna put down their guns if only we set the example? Dream on, this the real world... brains and guts are gonna splatter, the only question is who's brains and guts are they gonna be... ours or theirs, and that's all there is to it. They want what we have. They dont know how to maintain what we have or else they'd have built it for themselves. But they're too stupid to see that. Like a teenager from the ghetto dreaming of a Lambo and not thinking about the cost of insurance, gas, or God forbid a repair or even just basic maintenance... They're only thinking of that first cruise.



posted on Mar, 27 2019 @ 08:13 AM
link   
Neat thing about freedom and rights.

You can actually use your 1st Amendment right to express a desire to infringe on others 2nd Amendment rights.

Hell, some use their 1st Amendment rights to infringe on others 1st Amendment rights!

A free society isn't always a safe society. A safe society isn't always a free society.




posted on Mar, 27 2019 @ 08:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
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?


Why do you think missiles and tanks should be illegal? Whatever the reason, isn't those reasons the very same ones interpolated to cover all types of weapons?

Since so many people are hell-bent on guns and I'm a bit of anarchist I'm okay with it. I just think we probably need some kind of regulation of clip size, fire power, and rate of fire. I'm just not an expert on where the line needs to be drawn. I would hope gun nuts would police themselves and figure out a reasonable place to where the line should be. Maybe the gun nut consensus is there should be absolutely no restrictions and people have the right to carry stinger missiles. I don't know. I'm not smart enough to know the truth.



posted on Mar, 27 2019 @ 08:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Ahabstar

Yeah how dare they call themselves "charitable"? They armed the gosh darned slaves for goodness sake! Oh wait that's a good thing isnt it? Oh I dont know I'm just so confused! Can someone just tell me what to believe, please??? /sarc



posted on Mar, 27 2019 @ 08:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Klassified

California, Delaware, Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, West Virginia, and Wisconsin do not have a specific guarantee to arms in their constitutions. The other 39 do.

Going to take more than just amending the Second, because even though those 11 states do not guarantee a right to arms, those other 39 states allow them to own with this despite the Second Amendment and their own State Constitution. To deny ownership due to their residency would a violation of civil rights.


Article 4, Section 2.

The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.



posted on Mar, 27 2019 @ 08:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ahabstar
Darn that NRA.

Did you know they fought at the very beginning to give equal rights to former slaves to be able to own firearms like every other free white citizen after the Civil War when many states outlawed it?

Did you know they also helped FDR draft the 1934 National Firearms Act and the 1938 Gun Control Act, in particular machine guns, sawed off shotguns and silencers?


Why would the NRA support someone's right to have machine guns, sawed off shotguns, and silencers? That seems extreme to me but I could be persuaded to think otherwise with a good argument.



posted on Mar, 27 2019 @ 08:20 AM
link   
a reply to: 3n19m470

And to think, I am not even a lifetime member. In fact my membership may have lapsed.



posted on Mar, 27 2019 @ 08:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy

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?


Certain people should not possess nuclear weapons or rocket launchers. "Arms" is more than firearms, right? Cross bows, knives, swords, even lethally trained hands are weapons/armaments.

"Well regulate" means just that. Ordinary untrained members of the population should have limited access to a regulated supply of weaponry, as members of a well regulated militia.



posted on Mar, 27 2019 @ 08:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Ahabstar

New Jersey. When you live in New Jersey there's only Heaven.



posted on Mar, 27 2019 @ 08:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Klassified

So I think you are on the side of the of the camp that doesn't believe any type of regulations whatsoever.



posted on Mar, 27 2019 @ 08:25 AM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015

I find it interesting when people cannot properly read the 2nd Amendment. Here is a linguistic breakdown that most grade schools try to teach us.

"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."

There are two subjects in the sentence and two dependent clauses. First subject is "[a] well regulated Militia," which is followed by the first dependent clause "being necessary to the security of a free State... ." Second subject is "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms." The second dependent clause is "shall not be infringed." "[S]hall not be infringed" applies to the separate and distinct subjects: 1. a well regulated Militia; and 2. the right of the people to keep and bear Arms." An example may help.

A freshly picked orange, high in vitamin C, Apples that taste great, are fruits. Orange and Apples are independent of one another but the phrase "are fruits" pertains to both and classifies each of them as a fruit. Therefore another way of reading the first subject of 2nd Amendment is: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, shall not be infringed. And another way of reading the second subject of the 2nd Amendment is: "[t]he right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

Therefore, as the OP argues that "regulated" applies to people's right to keep and bear arms is not linguistically correct and therefore wrong in terms of a legal constitutional analysis. However, the real point of contention has always been what "Arms" means. Does it mean people should have access to bombs, weapons of mass destruction, etc.? Of course not. Please don't ask me what type of weapons people should/shouldn't have access to. I don't make the decisions.

Btw, most federal laws and regulations find their constitutional basis and thus their constitutionality in the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, including gun laws and regulations.

So you gun hating liberals out there, might want to go back to your 6th grade grammar book and have a look before you start breaking down the meaning of constitutional amendments.


edit on 27-3-2019 by ThorItis because: grammar error



posted on Mar, 27 2019 @ 08:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha




"Well regulate" means just that. Ordinary untrained members of the population should have limited access to a regulated supply of weaponry, as members of a well regulated militia.


No it doesn't.

Geezus effing christ.

Read it slowly.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, (Separate but equal)

the right of the people to keep and bear arms,(Separate but equal)

shall not be infringed.

Militia's, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

SHALL NOT be infringed.


Shall not be infringed means the same thing as Deny, and Disparage in the ninth.

Then comes along the 14th amendment.

NO state shall make or enforce any law that abridges( same thing as shall not be infringed,Deny,Disparage) the privleges or immunities.

And stop trying to bring nukes to a gun fight.



posted on Mar, 27 2019 @ 08:27 AM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015
You can fly a drone into the engine of a jetliner at an airport if you decide that is a really necessary thing to do.
Do you need a license to fly a drone?
Shouldn’t they be banned? You know, since they certainly can be used to target an airliner full of people? You don’t have a thread asking for the number of RC flying Associations to be called terrorist organizations or asking for them to have any tax exempt status be pulled.
You know if an RC hobbyist had a mind to, he could have a swarm of drones flying off a single joystick and target a single airliner?
If you don’t get my point... you don’t care about the people in airliners... you want to ban guns.



edit on b000000312019-03-27T08:30:50-05:0008America/ChicagoWed, 27 Mar 2019 08:30:50 -0500800000019 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2019 @ 08:34 AM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015

Actually they now support free ownership of suppressors (silencers) for hearing protection reasons.

As for private ownership of other weapons of war. Even during the Civil War, many ships and cannon were privately owned. Much of the arms and ammo of the solders were also privately owned, especially in the South. War of 1812, quite a bit was privately owned.

Firearms are a tool. Some tools are used incorrectly like screwdrivers to open paint cans and stir the paint. I own many wrenches, both SAE and Metric. I will even let people use them while I am present, but I don’t loan out my 9mm and instead I encourage people to buy their own. Because I don’t want my tools used improperly.



posted on Mar, 27 2019 @ 08:36 AM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015

My question to you is this.

You live in New Jersey where you can't buy the bushmaster you spoke of (to my knowledge, at least with high magazine capacity).

So why do you care if a rancher in Texas can buy it?

If wild boars are a threat to their lively hood and safety, why can't they counter that?
edit on 27-3-2019 by CriticalStinker because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2019 @ 08:37 AM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015

How do you define terror/terrorism?
Is it something like this: "the act of using fear and/or violence to achieve political/religous aims"?

Ex. If you where to say "we have to ban weapons or else our kids are gonna die in school shootings" you would use fear (terror) to promote your ideologies beliefs.
You would have to say something like this to avoid it "should we ban weapons, and would it make us more safe?"

Based on this, i would have to say that most, if not all, politicans/world leaders all around the world, are using terror to promote their ideologies. You could actually argue that most human beings at some point have used some sort of terrorism to get what they want, at some point in their lifes.

If you want to avoid terrorism, shouldnt we look at everybody and have some sort of debate/public lesson about what terror is, and how to avoid it?



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


Cant think of any reasons why it should be illegal, what do you think? you cant use fear of getting shot by it, thats terror, remember?
If it is because of fear of it killing people, we have to ban a LOT of other stuff, like cars, cigarettes, most industries, almost all food, etc. because that stuff kills a LOT of people too.. Life is dangerous, should we ban life then?

It is not the gun that kills people, it is the person using the gun, and their is endless ways to kill people, if people want to kill, theyre gonna figure out a way to do it. So if that is your fear, you have to look at people and the reason they do kill.

In our society, we blame everybody else for all the bad stuff in our lifes. You are deplorable for voting trump, evil for voting hillary and you are just stupid for voting independent or not voting at all. People just pick a side, and thinks everybody else is to blame for all the crap.

There is so much hate everywhere these days, and we keep seing more and more shootings. People get extreme, and think it is okay to attack and bully people on the other side of the fence, and then they dont understand why some of them snap, and goes crazy and kills a lot of people. It just brings more hate, more attacks and bullying, and more dead people...

If you want a safe society, we have to learn to treat each other with respect and dignity, no matter our beliefs or way of life. Taking guns away just spreads more hate, more violence and more death.

WAKE UP PEOPLE, we are ALL in this together!!



posted on Mar, 27 2019 @ 08:38 AM
link   
Something most of you overlook, at the time this was writen, Dueling was a thing, so yeah, "all's fair in love and war".

The worst thing this country did was ban Dueling, imo, it's makes folks polite.

Polite, and respectful, we can agree to disagree, and bet your life on your convictions.

Funny thing too, it kept folks honest.

There was little to no faux outrage.




top topics



 
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join