Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There can be no denying the message the NRA is sending here. It's hard to believe they are allowed to maintain a tax-exempt nonprofit status for promoting violence against lawmakers who disagree with them.
Swalwell, and anyone else who interprets the article in the way he did is a complete idiot, or is fearmongering beyond redemption because they know readers of twitter have the attention span (or intelligence) of a gnat. Call for violence - what a complete moron.
Anyone actually read the article to see what the NRA is really clamoring about this time?
Isn't the initiative to try and close firearm transfer loopholes? Like me being able to sell any of my firearms to any Joe Blow with a pulse without needing to go thru an FFL?
What's so horrible about THAT?
Because people who shouldn’t have access to guns would actually be stopped from that access
Which would “limit” the 2nd amendment they claim to protect
In fact—everyone at time of the US Constitution could have been called to belong to a militia
There was no standing army basically and towns didn’t really have police forces
Times were different then
But no one wants to take that into account
Heaven forbid there should be an acknowledgement that times have changed since the Constitution was written and the purpose for the 2nd amendment might not be as clean at the NRA purports...
And if such picture was published by a liberal gun owners group and had Trump in it you guys would be calling for mass arrests..
in short Todd, you know you are making excuses solely to defend your "side". You know it , I know it ever poster here INCLUDING trump supporters know it.
I'm not defending anything I'm just saying that the headline grabs your attention and then it is up to the reader to actually read the article and then consider an opinion based on what was written and the message conveyed.
I still say that Pelosi and the Dems are taking aim at gun owners. I don't think you have to be a Trump supporter to realize that because it has been going on for decades.
Is taking aim a new naughty phrase that we are not supposed to mutter?
Trump is taking aim at settling the dispute in North Korea and bringing the country into the 21 century.
Oh crap there is a knock on the door and it looks like the SS is here to collect me for threatening the President.
"Taking aim" is a phrase no more no less and it is only the paranoid that thinks it is anything but. It is certainly not a threat or a subliminal call to deadly action. it is a call to read the article and become informed about the latest Democrat attack on the Second Amendment.
What should the NRA magazine editor have used instead?
Taking aim is hardly a cross hair or a red dot on Pelosi's forehead. Now that would be something to be angry about.
Because people who shouldn’t have access to guns would actually be stopped from that access
Which would “limit†the 2nd amendment they claim to protect
In fact—everyone at time of the US Constitution could have been called to belong to a militia
There was no standing army basically and towns didn’t really have police forces
Times were different then
But no one wants to take that into account
Heaven forbid there should be an acknowledgement that times have changes since the Constitution was written
And please tell me how enforcement would be accomplished with no gun registration?
Dumb Dumb. But hey the NRA leaders are not brightest cookies in the world.
It certainly will reinforce the notion that many of us have re the current NRA as they are the publishers of this magazine, American Rifleman. They border on terror tactics with their ugly rhetoric and they lobby with hatred and impunity, IMO.
This appears to be an intentional, outrageous criminal incitement, meant to stop common-sense gun violence prevention.
Not a LOL matter as many posters have implied.
Pelosi and Giffords have been targeted for their political work. In 2011, Giffords was shot in the head in a failed assassination attempt in Arizona during a meeting with community members. ( A child and others in attendance were killed)
Pelosi, has faced numerous threats, including one just earlier this month from Christopher Hasson, a self-proclaimed “white nationalist” who according to federal prosecutors was plotting an attack on Democratic lawmakers. He was stockpiling firearms.
This current shameful large print headline in the NRA magazine is not the first time the NRA has faced deserved widespread criticism. They were outrageous in their media approach to the survivors of the high school massacre in Parkland Florida on their TV site and other outlets and prolific with social media slandering.
They once were a responsible public type safety group that provided instruction. Now they are linked to Russian money laundering and propaganda. Despicable organization at present.
To be tax-exempt, an organization is supposed to promote social welfare, further the common good and general welfare, civic betterment, social improvements, and so forth.
NRA does none of this.
NRA is a political lobbying front for gun manufacturers.
Does that mean that a donation to them is tax deductible? I know when I donate to the Sierra Club it is not tax deductible because of the amount of lobbying they do.
For starters someone I know has given me a gun on loan and it would be illegal under that law. Secondly there is no details in that bill such as what the fee will be. Any such bill would need to specify any fees charged will be no more than to cover expenses which should be no more than a few dollars.
To be tax-exempt, an organization is supposed to promote social welfare, further the common good and general welfare, civic betterment, social improvements, and so forth.
NRA does none of this.
NRA is a political lobbying front for gun manufacturers.
It's a non-profit. Any non-profit does not need to have good intentions to be a non-profit.
I do think the NRA is being dumb by using violent terminology in its support of gun ownership, though. The article could have had a more neutral headline.
When people who are possible targets for violence only see the headline and don't read the article, the headline alone could make them fearful, and more active in banning guns than they were before.
Very stupid for an organization that is losing members and hemorrhaging money.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
