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: 5
10
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 27 2019 @ 11:01 AM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker

In the end, gun ownership is better than those advocating for the banning of private ownership for one reason alone: Nearly every gun owner advocates for the freedom of choice to own or not to own depending on your personal beliefs and convictions. Those for banning cannot claim the same moral high ground and are oppressive by definition.




posted on Mar, 27 2019 @ 11:04 AM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015

The NRA should be busted up.

1) Separate civilian marksmanship and safety program supported by tax deductible donations.

2) Separate politician buying, dark foreign money laundering, political action committee....

Come to think of it, maybe 2) can just be dispensed with.



posted on Mar, 27 2019 @ 11:16 AM
link   
Doesn’t this OP poster (or a couple of his/her sycophants) try this same nonsense about once every week or two (a veiled attack on 2A in the interest of creating yet more divisiveness). 2A is logically broken down for them every time, yet here we are again.

Whatever happened to not feeding the trolls?



posted on Mar, 27 2019 @ 11:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Lab4Us

You are right, but it is better to feed them a bitter sandwich each time than to let them think they achieved something.



posted on Mar, 27 2019 @ 01:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
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.







"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."

Keep reading the Constitution until you get it.




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"?

I agree you dont get it
The Second Amendment to the Constitution has absolute zilch to do with the US military
Read my statement over and over until you have memorized it

Just as the Leftists takes Jefferson's statement as a "separation of Church and State" as a Constitutional amendment
(there is no part of the Constitution that has ANYTHING to do with a separation of Church and State) , folks can take the reasoning from Jefferson's words why the people of this country should be armed . To prevent an unlawful takeover of government and/or to put an end to an oppressive government established in the US.

You know , something like the Democrat Socialists(the Progressive Liberals v2.1) want to bring about . And are trying to at every turn.

You have a long way to go to know this country .
I shall be here to assist when I can

Denying ignorance
Why ?
I love the US

edit on 3/27/19 by Gothmog because: (no reason given)

edit on 3/27/19 by Gothmog because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2019 @ 01:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: dfnj2015
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.



I think you've spent too much time with your face plastered against the microwave door as a child, waiting for your popcorn to be ready... and it shows.



posted on Mar, 27 2019 @ 03:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: willzilla
Armed citizenry IS the militia. You do not have to be in a group to be considered militia. If circumstances happens to arise, I assure you; people will form groups for protection in numbers.


thought the wording was simple?

says well regulated

what you are saying does not sound well regulated


OP i am basically with you

it is most certainly not as simple as these righties are making it sound.
if it were so simple these debates would not exist.
there would be no constitutional law

things like that



posted on Mar, 27 2019 @ 03:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: TinySickTears
says well regulated

what you are saying does not sound well regulated


The most recent SCOTUS rulings on the topic, Heller vs DC, embraced the historically accurate position that "well regulated" in 1776 and in a document which has an openly declared purpose of defining clear limits on the federal government's powers rather than identifying powers they actually have, actually means "in good working order." The term was intended to ensure every able bodied American possessed a well regulated (in good working order) military firearm, making them equipped to defend their home, their community, and their nation.



posted on Mar, 27 2019 @ 03:40 PM
link   
Dont have much use for the NRA anymore... but terrorist organization, someone would have to be certifiable or high as a kite...or as bright as a box full of broken bulbs.
edit on 27-3-2019 by Irishhaf because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2019 @ 03:54 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

If such a simple and easy thing to understand i wonder these cases even happen...

oh thats right

it's not simple at all



posted on Mar, 27 2019 @ 04:06 PM
link   


The most recent SCOTUS rulings on the topic, Heller vs DC, embraced the historically accurate position that "well regulated" in 1776 and in a document which has an openly declared purpose of defining clear limits on the federal government's powers rather than identifying powers they actually have, actually means "in good working order." The term was intended to ensure every able bodied American possessed a well regulated (in good working order) military firearm, making them equipped to defend their home, their community, and their nation.


Nice spin attempt...….

The Second Amendment, author Michael Waldman goes back to the creation of the Bill of Rights for answers. He found that the Second Amendment was among the least debated provisions by Congress. In the House, he wrote, “Twelve congressmen joined the debate. None mentioned a private right to bear arms for self-defense, hunting, or for any purpose other than joining the militia.” As for what constitutes a militia, the founders were purposely vague, leaving it to Congress to define.

What the NRA doesn’t like to admit is that guns were regulated in early America. People deemed untrustworthy — such as British loyalists unwilling to swear an oath to the new nation — were disarmed. The sale of guns to Native Americans was outlawed. Boston made it illegal to store a loaded firearm in any home or warehouse. Some states conducted door-to-door registration surveys so the militia could “impress” those weapons if necessary. Men had to attend musters where their guns would be inspected by the government.

www.vox.com...

Denny



posted on Mar, 27 2019 @ 04:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: TinySickTears
a reply to: burdman30ott6

If such a simple and easy thing to understand i wonder these cases even happen...

oh thats right

it's not simple at all


These cases happen because there's never a shortage of assholes looking to strip rights from their fellow Americans. It has nothing to do with the wording... if it were just the wording, then we'd not permit crap like "free speech zone laws" when the Constitution is absolutely abundantly clear "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech" if restricting someone's right to speak to designated zones while turning the majority of an area into a controlled speech zone isn't "abridging" then WTF is?



posted on Mar, 27 2019 @ 04:19 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

To relegate it to designated zones it also hampers freedom to peacefully assembly and petition (verbally) grievances. But that is the gun rule: those with the guns make the rules.



posted on Mar, 27 2019 @ 04:36 PM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015

If the first amendment applies to radio, TV, and internet, then the 2nd applies to modern weaponry and not just muskets.
edit on 27-3-2019 by Wardaddy454 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2019 @ 04:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
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.





Because well regulated in this instance means to be as well armed as any army.

And before anyone says it, the VC managed pretty well against a force with superior weaponry.



posted on Mar, 27 2019 @ 04:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: neo96

I don't think that regulating which members of the population can arm themselves with which type of weaponry/arms is "infringement on the right to bare arms.

And, I don't see those two clauses, separated by a comma, not a period, as separate but equal statements. I see them as codependent and contingent on each other. The Founding Fathers weren't illiterate or grammar ignorant.



Make believe time.

Lets pretend Trump is as bad as you think. We begin regulating who can own what. And he, along with congress and the SC, decide to amend the bill of rights and put a regulation on firearms ownership. Only those that voted for Trump/republicans can own firearms. That''s pretty bad, right?

We're against the precedent that may be set if a basic right is messed with.

Also, you need to study up on grammar.
edit on 27-3-2019 by Wardaddy454 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2019 @ 05:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ahabstar
a reply to: burdman30ott6

To relegate it to designated zones it also hampers freedom to peacefully assembly and petition (verbally) grievances. But that is the gun rule: those with the guns make the rules.


As an aside, but related just the same, the SCOTUS rulling in Warren vs District of Columbia (2006) should come up a lot more in these arguments against frightened imbeciles who want to disarm We the People. The court ruled that the police are under zero specific duty to protect citizens from crimes. That, to me at least, slams shut the door on any posiible further infringements on the 2nd Amendment in this nation. The right of defense of self and property is a fundamental human right, not even open for debate, and in a country where the highest court has said "y'all are on your own here" it is an act of evil to then kneecap the citizens from using whatever tools they personally choose to enact that defense.



posted on Mar, 27 2019 @ 06:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Lab4Us
Doesn’t this OP poster (or a couple of his/her sycophants) try this same nonsense about once every week or two (a veiled attack on 2A in the interest of creating yet more divisiveness). 2A is logically broken down for them every time, yet here we are again.

Whatever happened to not feeding the trolls?


I created the thread in response to an article I read. Is censorship of opinions you do not agree with the new agenda? You did not have to post anything to the thread but you did. Thanks.



posted on Mar, 27 2019 @ 06:23 PM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015

A well regulated Militia has nothing to do with regulation. The second was written to counter a standing army to think the founders in any way wrote the amendment giving power to the federal govt is idiotic.

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788

"On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country."
- James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
- Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
- Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778

"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."
- St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803



posted on Mar, 27 2019 @ 06:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: neo96

I don't think that regulating which members of the population can arm themselves with which type of weaponry/arms is "infringement on the right to bare arms.

And, I don't see those two clauses, separated by a comma, not a period, as separate but equal statements. I see them as codependent and contingent on each other. The Founding Fathers weren't illiterate or grammar ignorant.



Make believe time.

Lets pretend Trump is as bad as you think.


This isn't about Trump, it's about the NRA. And, Trump is as bad as I think and probably a lot worse than I imagine.


We begin regulating who can own what.


Begin? Are you living in pretend time? The government has already regulated the type of weapons an average citizen can own.


And he, along with congress and the SC, decide to amend the bill of rights and put a regulation on firearms ownership. Only those that voted for Trump/republicans can own firearms. That''s pretty bad, right?


Indeed, you are living in a pretend time zone. Nobody is suggesting any such thing. We do, however, regulate what kind of weapons ordinary people have access to, and disallow some people to own weapons at all. And, we continue to regulate, for example, Trump's bump stock ban.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join