[Coal Miner]

Good. Because of the NRA we have criminals roaming our streets armed to the teeth. The lives this cost and the money we spend for law enforcement is a shame.

[jimbo2012]

It is strictly a political move in an election year that has already backfired!

It maybe unprecedented that a DA seeks to dissolve a corp for the alleged acts of it's officers.

It's officers that should be indited.

THe NRA has already counter sued, they have the resources to take on the legal battle.

They spend about $400 million a year in their programs

I'm not a member, but fully support the 2nd Amendment.

30-40% of Americans own a gun(s)

[stadry]

Originally Posted by tophcfa

No responsible firearms owner needs assault type rifles. The reason these firearms are protected is because they are a line of defense against the moonbats going after hand guns and hunting rifles. Once the anti-gun moonbats get rid of assault rifles they will set their sights on their next target, and then the next, and the next, until only criminals possess firearms.

Responsible firearm owners would gladly have assault type weapons become illegal if it came with an iron clad agreement to end all further crusades against other types of firearms.

kind of an argument against yourself, isn't it ? 'responsible firearms owner' shouldn't own a simple rifle ? ar15's one of the most reliable rifles, no ?

just say you don't like the looks of them - that i understand,,, so coming after the ar15's ok but nothing after that ? where have we heard that refrain previously ? how does 1 'shave off' part of a constitutional amendment ? which part of the 2nd amendment offends thee ? what about the right to demonstrate peacefully ? should that also be constrained ?

i owned them in atl for protection,,, i own them here because i want them - shotguns, rifles, handguns - makes no difference,,, have thought about buying an ar15 because ( just because ) they may soon be outlawed w/o reason

it seems to me your argument's invalid based on logic and most anti-gun arguments are in the same camp

[jbrown132]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

I don't own a firearm but I do support 2A, and I support the responsible ownership of firearms by responsible owners.

I also supported the NRA until 1993 when they lobbied for the Dickey amendment, which prohibits the CDC from using its funds to research gun violence in the USA.

I've been against the NRA ever since. The "organization" is nothing more than a very profitable lobby group now. And apparently a corrupt one that has put membership money into the pockets of its officers instead of spending it on its own causes. They never should've gotten their non-prof status in the first place. They can re-create themselves if they are dissolved, but their current incarnation is spoiled and unrecoverable, in my opinion.

The same can be said for many non profit organizations. Are we going to dissolve them all?

[Challenger]

I am a gun owner and strong supporter of the 2A . The NRA has for years abused the laws and privilege of operating as a 501c3, organization. Sic em.

[swooner]

Originally Posted by retiredguy123

It sure seems like a bogus lawsuit with an agenda to me. There are thousands of nonprofit organizations that are just as corrupt or more corrupt than the NRA. Why isn't the NY attorney general suing them?

Duh. Maybe because they are not chartered in NY like the NRA is.

[crash]

Originally Posted by retiredguy123

It sure seems like a bogus lawsuit with an agenda to me. There are thousands of nonprofit organizations that are just as corrupt or more corrupt than the NRA. Why isn't the NY attorney general suing them?

Maybe they will after they get evidence of wrong doing. They already did shut down the Trump foundation for very similar actions.

[Heyitsrick]

As has been reported, the NRA has been a big lobbying organization for those they see as more likely to support second amendment rights.

No coincidence that this suit is happening now, right around get-out-the-vote time.

Having to divert financial resources to fight off this legal battle takes away from their ability to make their case to the public this fall.

Nah, no politics involved here. Why, it's the purely politically objective State of NY we're talking about. All's good.

[NotFromAroundHere]

Originally Posted by stadry

how does 1 'shave off' part of a constitutional amendment ? which part of the 2nd amendment offends thee ? what about the right to demonstrate peacefully ? should that also be constrained ?

Almost all of the freedoms in our constitution are constrained, already. Freedom of religion, speech, the press, peaceful assembly. Keeping and bearing arms. Unreasonable search and seizure, etc., etc., etc.

Unrestrained freedom is anarchy.

[Cheapbas]

Originally Posted by jimbo2012

It is strictly a political move in an election year that has already backfired!

It maybe unprecedented that a DA seeks to dissolve a corp for the alleged acts of it's officers.

It's officers that should be indited.

THe NRA has already counter sued, they have the resources to take on the legal battle.

They spend about $400 million a year in their programs

I'm not a member, but fully support the 2nd Amendment.

30-40% of Americans own a gun(s)

This move is not about amendment rights, taking your guns away,the media or politics

It’s financial mismanagement.

There is a nonprofit and a foundation involved, people donate money to be used for a specific cause and the folks in power take it for their own benefit or the benefit of their friends.

Their was a guy in NY who did that and his foundation was shut down. Another case, wounded warriors spending donations on a lavish party for their employees.

Get the idea, you donate your hard earned cash to support your constitution rights and the officials take it for a $50k private flight to the Bahamas. It’s not cool, it’s against the law, and you should be b.s. they are doing this with your money

[alfredpopcorn@gmail.com]

Support your NRA . Only defense with have against tyranny.
lock and L
ASMS

[alfredpopcorn@gmail.com]

When they start coming for your second amendment rights next .who’s going to defend you . Fake news and NYS . Lol

[davefin]

And, so it begins. First step in the masterplan to get our guns away from us!

[oneclickplus]

Originally Posted by tophcfa

No responsible firearms owner needs assault type rifles. The reason these firearms are protected is because they are a line of defense against the moonbats going after hand guns and hunting rifles. Once the anti-gun moonbats get rid of assault rifles they will set their sights on their next target, and then the next, and the next, until only criminals possess firearms.

Responsible firearm owners would gladly have assault type weapons become illegal if it came with an iron clad agreement to end all further crusades against other types of firearms.

No, we wouldn't.

[noslices1]

Maybe she should go after the US Congress. They’ve been doing that for decades.