NRA is supporting 5175 now!!!

[Prometheus]

Ok folks here it is from their mouths:

NRA-ILA :: STATEMENT FROM THE NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION ON H.R. 5175, THE DISCLOSE ACT

STATEMENT FROM THE NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION ON H.R. 5175, THE DISCLOSE ACT​

Tuesday, June 15, 2010


The National Rifle Association believes that any restrictions on the political speech of Americans are unconstitutional.

Great but then here comes the part where they compromise away everyone elses rights and do and will support an unconstitutional bill:

In the past, through the courts and in Congress, the NRA has opposed any effort to restrict the rights of its four million members to speak and have their voices heard on behalf of gun owners nationwide.
The NRA’s opposition to restrictions on political speech includes its May 26, 2010 letter to Members of Congress expressing strong concerns about H.R. 5175, the DISCLOSE Act. As it stood at the time of that letter, the measure would have undermined or obliterated virtually all of the NRA’s right to free political speech and, therefore, jeopardized the Second Amendment rights of every law-abiding American.
The most potent defense of the Second Amendment requires the most adamant exercise of the First Amendment. The NRA stands absolutely obligated to its members to ensure maximum access to the First Amendment, in order to protect and preserve the freedom of the Second Amendment.
The NRA must preserve its ability to speak. It cannot risk a strategy that would deny its rights, for the Second Amendment cannot be defended without them.
Thus, the NRA’s first obligation must be to its members and to its most ardent defense of firearms freedom for America’s lawful gun owners.
On June 14, 2010, Democratic leadership in the U.S. House of Representatives pledged that H.R. 5175 would be amended to exempt groups like the NRA, that meet certain criteria, from its onerous restrictions on political speech. As a result, and as long as that remains the case, the NRA will not be involved in final consideration of the House bill.
The NRA cannot defend the Second Amendment from the attacks we face in the local, state, federal, international and judicial arenas without the ability to speak. We will not allow ourselves to be silenced while the national news media, politicians and others are allowed to attack us freely.
The NRA will continue to fight for its right to speak out in defense of the Second Amendment. Any efforts to silence the political speech of NRA members will, as has been the case in the past, be met with strong opposition.

---nra---

The problem is, they have struck a deal with Pelosi and Ried to specifically exempt the NRA... and no one else!

From the GOA to JPFO, SAS, SAF, NAGR and all others.​

Keep in mind the NRA is barely 4 million strong out of approx 80 million gun owners. In no way does the NRA represent any significant portion of gun owners, please remember that.​

Call your congressmen and urge them to vote against it. Call the NRA as well @ 800-672-3888 and demand they not support it under any circumstances.​

I just got off the phone with the NRA and they WILL support thsi bill if the NRA gets a special exemption... which means everyone else is SCREWED!​

Call! NOW!​

 

[infidel]

But they are the largest group of gun advocates in America. Wouldn't it be better to get behind them no matter what? Surely they have gun owner's interests at heart and don't sell out their followers and compromise with anti-American Constitution haters.

 

[indykid]

I guess everyone else doesn't have the gonads to speak up for their rights and join the NRA in fighting for them. While I agree that it would be nice if it was a "class action" trying to repeal that abuse of the first amendment, if no one else wants to join, then I applaud the NRA for taking it on by themselves, and in the face of no support, for themselves.


Unless I read it wrong.

 

[Bill of Rights]

From my read, NRA currently opposes this bill. They will withhold their opposition and neither support nor oppose it if they get the narrowly tailored exemption being crafted.

The message I got from GOA spells out the exemption. It's not that the other groups don't have the 'nads, it's that the other groups don't have the numbers nor income. NRA is, as has been said, the 800# gorilla in the room. We want that gorilla on our side, however, the problem is that when the gorilla decides that it's out for itself alone, we run into problems. As I'm sure Prometheus will point out, NRA has compromised gun owner rights many times in the past. Their reasoning has always been that they would, to use an analogy, prefer a big, thick, juicy steak, but would settle for a good hamburger. If they can't have the good hamburger, they'll take McDonalds, and if they can't have that, they'd prefer White Castle rather than go hungry.

I cannot fault that reasoning, but I'm not sure they always fight as hard as they can for the steak or even the good burger.

JMHO.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[mrjarrell]

From my read, NRA currently opposes this bill. They will withhold their opposition and neither support nor oppose it if they get the narrowly tailored exemption being crafted.

The message I got from GOA spells out the exemption. It's not that the other groups don't have the 'nads, it's that the other groups don't have the numbers nor income. NRA is, as has been said, the 800# gorilla in the room. We want that gorilla on our side, however, the problem is that when the gorilla decides that it's out for itself alone, we run into problems. As I'm sure Prometheus will point out, NRA has compromised gun owner rights many times in the past. Their reasoning has always been that they would, to use an analogy, prefer a big, thick, juicy steak, but would settle for a good hamburger. If they can't have the good hamburger, they'll take McDonalds, and if they can't have that, they'd prefer White Castle rather than go hungry.

I cannot fault that reasoning, but I'm not sure they always fight as hard as they can for the steak or even the good burger.

JMHO.

Blessings,
Bill

I'm becoming more and more convinced that they're vegetarians.

 

[Thumper]

I warned people years ago.NRA is not your friend unless you give them money and they are very anti class 3.

 

[Bigum1969]

Politics aren't nearly as black and white as many folks here tend to think.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

NRA is acting the Poison Pill which will kill the bill (even the sponsors now say that they will not vote for it).

In acting Poison Pill, the NRA is a White Knight.

I just wished they would have tacked on a complete repeal of all federal gun laws, that would have sent the bill to its grave even quicker.

 

[schafe]

NRA is acting the Poison Pill which will kill the bill (even the sponsors now say that they will not vote for it).

In acting Poison Pill, the NRA is a White Knight.

I just wished they would have tacked on a complete repeal of all federal gun laws, that would have sent the bill to its grave even quicker.

Seems like a reasonable explanation, but for the possibility of it backfiring, and passing anyway. Also, why no explanation to the membership? Or do you think that'll happen after the vote?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

NRA-ILA :: Statement From The National Rifle Association On H.R. 5175, The Disclose Act

Statement From The National Rifle Association On H.R. 5175, The Disclose Act​

Thursday, June 17, 2010


We appreciate the concerns that some NRA members have raised regarding our position on H.R. 5175, the "DISCLOSE Act." Unfortunately, critics of our position have misstated or misunderstood the facts.
We have never said we would support any version of this bill. To the contrary, we clearly stated NRA's strong opposition to the DISCLOSE Act (as introduced) in a letter sent to Members of Congress on May 26 (click here to read the letter).
Through the courts and in Congress, the NRA has consistently and strongly opposed any effort to restrict the rights of our four million members to speak and have their voices heard on behalf of gun owners nationwide. H.R. 5175 would put a gag order on the NRA during elections and threaten our members' freedom of association, by forcing us to turn our donor lists over to the federal government. We would also be forced to list our top donors on all election-related television, radio and Internet ads and mailings—even mailings to our own members. We refuse to let this Congress impose those unconstitutional restrictions on our Association.
The NRA provides critical firearms training for our Armed Forces and law enforcement throughout the country. This bill would force us to choose between training our men and women in uniform and exercising our right to free political speech. We refuse to let this Congress force us to make that choice.
We didn't "sell out" to Nancy Pelosi or anyone else. We told Congress we opposed the bill. As a result, congressional leaders announced they would exempt us from its draconian restrictions on free speech. If that happens, we will not be involved in the final House debate. If it doesn't, we will continue to strongly oppose the bill.
Our position is based on principle and experience. During consideration of the previous campaign finance legislation passed in 2002, congressional leadership repeatedly refused to exempt the NRA from its provisions, promising that our concerns would be fixed somewhere down the line. That didn't happen; instead, the NRA had to live under those restrictions for seven years and spend millions of dollars on compliance costs and on legal fees to challenge the law. We will not go down that road again when we have an opportunity to protect our ability to speak.
There are those who say the NRA should put the Second Amendment at risk over a First Amendment principle. That's easy to say unless you have a sworn duty to protect the Second Amendment above all else, as we do.
The NRA is a bipartisan, single-issue organization made up of millions of individual members dedicated to the protection of the Second Amendment. We do not represent the interests of other organizations. That's their responsibility. Our responsibility is to protect and defend the interests of our members. And that we do without apology.
</SPAN>

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Also, why no explanation to the membership? Or do you think that'll happen after the vote?

They have explained NRA's position, very firmly to Congress and that position was "NO!". Congress then changed the proposal to exempt NRA. The NRA has been issuing statements on this proposal almost daily.

I think some people have the NRA to be Congress.

Oh, if only . . .

 

[Kirk Freeman]

The problem is, they have struck a deal with Pelosi and Ried to specifically exempt the NRA... and no one else!

Deal? What is this deal? Who was involved, how did it transpire?

NRA told them no, the staffers on the Hill then changed the language of the proposal. How is telling someone NO a "deal"?

 

[schafe]

Congress then changed the proposal to exempt NRA. The NRA has been issuing statements on this proposal almost daily.

Is it your belief that congress unilaterally did this, perhaps hoping to alienate the NRA membership? That sounds like quite the tangled web.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Is it your belief that congress unilaterally did this, perhaps hoping to alienate the NRA membership? That sounds like quite the tangled web.

I don't know what the motive of Congress was in changing the language other than to pass the bill out of the House. Divining motives, especially in politics, is difficult.

But that is what happened. NRA says NO, Congressional staffers modify language to exempt out NRA in order to pass the bill out of the House.

In doing so, with NRA exempted, it has made the Left and the Right angry and even its own sponsors have disowned the bill.

 

[Prometheus]

Deal? What is this deal? Who was involved, how did it transpire?

NRA told them no, the staffers on the Hill then changed the language of the proposal. How is telling someone NO a "deal"?

Did you not read the nra letter you posted?

All your questions are answered in it, and actually half of those are answered in your subsequent post.

On the flip side, it's nice to the nra saying they could give a flying f$%^ about anyone or anything outside of the nra.

I do appreciate the honesty there.

 

[CarmelHP]

I don't know what the motive of Congress was in changing the language other than to pass the bill out of the House. Divining motives, especially in politics, is difficult.

But that is what happened. NRA says NO, Congressional staffers modify language to exempt out NRA in order to pass the bill out of the House.

In doing so, with NRA exempted, it has made the Left and the Right angry and even its own sponsors have disowned the bill.

Stop talking sense Kirk, it will get you nowhere.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Did you not read the nra letter you posted?

Yes and telling someone NO is not a deal.

Why must we always see conspiracies when Occam's Razor shall suffice?

On the flip side, it's nice to the nra saying they could give a flying f$%^ about anyone or anything outside of the nra.

Yes because those outside the NRA care so much for the NRA.

NRA's first duty to to protect the best interests of its members. The free riders, legion in number, may not like this, but politics is ugly.

Look at it this way, Pro, just the mere mention of the NRA will likely sink this horrific proposal.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Stop talking sense Kirk, it will get you nowhere.

I know, I could talk conspiracies but my tin foil hat is at the dry cleaner's.

 

[6birds]

I know, I could talk conspiracies but my tin foil hat is at the dry cleaner's.

Do you still use the cleaners in Broadripple, by the coffee house?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Do you still use the cleaners in Broadripple, by the coffee house?

I did and then an IMPD car screeched to a stop and then they told me "I'm not impressed" over the P.A. and then sped off.