In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Do I have this right???.......
Wagon Wheel
Member Posts: 633 ✭✭✭✭
Congressional Gag On Free Speech Supported By NRA???
"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."
Do I have this right???....... As long as the NRA has a guarantee that "THEY" (The NRA) serve as the publics "mouth-piece" for all things guns, they will not oppose a Congressional Gag Order being placed on individuals and their RIGHTS To "Freedom Of Speech" when/where exercised in defending their 2nd Amendment rights are concerned?????????
Original Message
From: NRA-ILA_Alerts
Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 5:47 PM
Subject: 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:
The National Rifle Association believes that any restrictions on the political speech of Americans are unconstitutional.
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---
"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."
Do I have this right???....... As long as the NRA has a guarantee that "THEY" (The NRA) serve as the publics "mouth-piece" for all things guns, they will not oppose a Congressional Gag Order being placed on individuals and their RIGHTS To "Freedom Of Speech" when/where exercised in defending their 2nd Amendment rights are concerned?????????
Original Message
From: NRA-ILA_Alerts
Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 5:47 PM
Subject: 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:
The National Rifle Association believes that any restrictions on the political speech of Americans are unconstitutional.
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---
Comments
I'm WELL aware of my rights.
The question is does the NRA know what my rights are??. OR, are they saying they are willing to compromise away my 1st Amendment Rights as an individual so they are they sole voice in support of (or compromising away) my 2nd Amendment rights. A "pay to play" representation that makes my voice as an individual mute without the NRA????
I'm looking for someone to tell me that's NOT what this "Alert" is suggesting and that I'm having a reading comprehension problem here!!!
Otherwise...yeah...you read it exactly right.
Congressional Gag On Free Speech Supported By NRA???
"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."
Do I have this right???....... As long as the NRA has a guarantee that "THEY" (The NRA) serve as the publics "mouth-piece" for all things guns, they will not oppose a Congressional Gag Order being placed on individuals and their RIGHTS To "Freedom Of Speech" when/where exercised in defending their 2nd Amendment rights are concerned?????????
Original Message
From: NRA-ILA_Alerts
Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 5:47 PM
Subject: 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:
The National Rifle Association believes that any restrictions on the political speech of Americans are unconstitutional.
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---
Please provide a link to this, I need this to educate a few[:D] thanks in advance..........
I subscribe to the NRA Alerts and received this as an e-mail. I cut and pasted everything except the NRA Banner. It didn't have a Volume Number to track it back to and since you asked for a link I went to NRA-ILA :: http://www.nraila.org/ but the entire content of the e-mail is not posted there.
But it is listed under "News Releases": http://www.nraila.org/News/Archives/NewsReleases.aspx
HERE:
NRA-ILA :: STATEMENT FROM THE NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION ON H.R. 5175, THE DISCLOSE ACT -- Tuesday, June 15, 2010
http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/NewsReleases.aspx?ID=13902
You can also read the opposition letter (Link is below) they sent that apparently earned them an exemption if they'll roll over, WHICH THEY DID according to the e-mail they sent to me and posted above!!!!
NRA-ILA :: NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris W. Cox's Letter to Members of Congress on H.R. 5175, the Disclose Act
http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=5888
It was MY Pleasure. Good Luck!!!
June 16, 2010
(GunReports.com) -- The Gun Owners of America group is claiming that the NRA has worked to exempt itself from the requirements of the DISCLOSE Act (HR 5175), which aims to suppress speech of groups which oppose liberal House Democrats.
Read the GOA release and 6 Comments Here:
GOA Claims NRA is Dealing with the Devil on DISCLOSE Act
http://tinyurl.com/2g8w5e7
Edited ONLY to shorten the link.
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.
Link to the full statement:
NRA-ILA :: Statement From The National Rifle Association On H.R. 5175, The Disclose Act
http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/NewsReleases.aspx?ID=13913
It is trite to say that things often are not what they seem, but sometimes they are so much "not what they seem" that discovery creates in the newly informed, initial disbelief. This disbelief will sometimes be followed by shock and then outrage and then inertia resulting from a general disgust. - John Loudon
The NRA's Deal with the Devil
By Mark J. Fitzgibbons ---- June 18, 2010
Disappointment does not come from opponents; it comes from friends.
The part of the statement that should throw everyone into a fit, however, is this:
There are those who say the NRA has a greater duty to principle than to gun rights. It's easy to say we should put the Second Amendment at risk over some so-called First Amendment principle.
So-called? That's a despicable phrase for an organization claiming to support the Bill of Rights and a Bill of Rights defender. We expect the First Amendment to be called "so-called" by congressional Democrats, crusty old Washington left-wingers, and the liberal faux good government groups composed of '60s retreads such as the League of Women Voters.
Source Page:
American Thinker: The NRA's Deal with the Devil
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/06/the_nras_deal_with_the_devil.html
This Link (based upon the above article) generated 15 Comments:
The NRA's Deal with the Devil
American Thinker ^ | June 18, 2010 | Mark J. Fitzgibbons
Posted on Friday, June 18, 2010 4:29:43 AM by Neil E. Wright
Skip to comments.
Source Page:
The NRA's Deal with the Devil
http://www.freerepublic.com:80/focus/f-news/2537134/posts
I'm sooooo.. Happy they cleared that up!!!!!
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.
Link to the full statement:
NRA-ILA :: Statement From The National Rifle Association On H.R. 5175, The Disclose Act
http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/NewsReleases.aspx?ID=13913
quote: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.
First, I will say that it isn't just the wako progressives that have taken off the "masks". It is even those that CLAIM to be on "our side".
Secondly WTH is THAT statement all about? People in their organization care ONLY about ONE issue? That is the STUPIDEST excuse I have ever seen.
quote:freemind Posted - 06/18/2010 : 11:11:43 AM
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.
First, I will say that it isn't just the Wako progressives that have taken off the "masks". It is even those that CLAIM to be on "our side".
Secondly WTH is THAT statement all about? People in their organization care ONLY about ONE issue? That is the STUPIDEST excuse I have ever seen.
All I can say about that is: If that statement doesn't open the eyes of NRA membership nothing ever will!!!
You and I know the 2nd Amendment has been under attack for 100 years now. It's been an easy target and the NRA has built a Financial Empire working WITH the Progressives to slowly but surely undermine it through countless compromises and at times they have even generated their own suggestions and legislation to meet that end. Pickenup had a wonder thread here that documented YEARS of abuse of power by the NRA as the so-called defenders of the 2nd Amendment. The list of events was documented the very fact that the NRA is not what they appear to be. I don't have the URL handy by I'm sure someone will re-post the URL for those who may have missed it.
The amazing thing now is they will "willingly and with prior knowledge" throw any and all other 2nd Amendment Advocate Organizations, such as GOA and JPFO, not to mention any "unrepresented individual's", 1st Amendment rights under the bus just to maintain their status, power, clout, AND financial empire. It wouldn't hurt my feelings one bit to see a mass exodus, similar to what AARP experienced, toward GAO/JPFO, or even a brand new organization. These Die-Hard NRA supporters will be the death of the 2nd Amendment and, from the looks of things the 1st also!!!!
Freemind:
quote:freemind Posted - 06/18/2010 : 11:11:43 AM
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.
First, I will say that it isn't just the Wako progressives that have taken off the "masks". It is even those that CLAIM to be on "our side".
Secondly WTH is THAT statement all about? People in their organization care ONLY about ONE issue? That is the STUPIDEST excuse I have ever seen.
All I can say about that is: If that statement doesn't open the eyes of NRA membership nothing ever will!!!
You and I know the 2nd Amendment has been under attack for 100 years now. It's been an easy target and the NRA has built a Financial Empire working WITH the Progressives to slowly but surely undermine it through countless compromises and at times they have even generated their own suggestions and legislation to meet that end. Pickenup had a wonder thread here that documented YEARS of abuse of power by the NRA as the so-called defenders of the 2nd Amendment. The list of events was documented the very fact that the NRA is not what they appear to be. I don't have the URL handy by I'm sure someone will re-post the URL for those who may have missed it.
The amazing thing now is they will "willingly and with prior knowledge" throw any and all other 2nd Amendment Advocate Organizations, such as GOA and JPFO, not to mention any "unrepresented individual's", 1st Amendment rights under the bus just to maintain their status, power, clout, AND financial empire. It wouldn't hurt my feelings one bit to see a mass exodus, similar to what AARP experienced, toward GAO/JPFO, or even a brand new organization. These Die-Hard NRA supporters will be the death of the 2nd Amendment and, from the looks of things the 1st also!!!!
+1, bothers me that I cannot get a grasp on how members can stay in this group. I try to be honest and respectful enough to at least try and look at the other sides arguement/point of view. On this one I can't even get close to seeing an honest opposing point of view.
The NRA has only it's own power and coffers in mind, not the best interest of its members.
With all due respect, buffolobo, the time of respecting NRA members that insist upon defending the leadership is OVER...for our own protection.
We no longer can afford to believe that we 'all' stand on the same side of this issue...not at all.
The people that intend enslaving us...along with their handmaidens..(the trfoxes, the whiteclouders, the danoes) USE that decency against us to destroy all that we hold dear.
Buff, I know that you are fully aware of all that...I just used your words to illustrate a point.
Original Message
From: Georgia Campaign for Liberty
Sent: Friday, June 18, 2010 5:59 PM
Subject: Are you willing to be silenced?
June 18, 2010
Dear Fellow Georgian,
The DISCLOSE Act, which should be renamed the "Establishment Protection Act," is yet another attack on our free speech and political liberty. This act affects ALL people and organizations. The bill, sponsored by Maryland Representative Chris Van Hollen, has moved out of committee and currently has 114 Cosponsors. It has been delayed for a vote, but we cannot assume it has yet been withdrawn.
HR 5175 is written to ensure freedom groups cannot rally their members by forcing them to disclose their membership rosters and donor lists. These mandates apply to individuals and groups which make independent donations or promote their favored candidate outside the realm of the official campaigns, namely Grassroots activism.
HR 5175 Amends the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971.
Title I, Section 103 of the bill defines "contributions" as:
- any payments by any person (except a candidate, a candidate's authorized committee, or a political committee of a political party) for "coordinated communications"
What are "coordinated communications"? Section 103 clarifies:
- a publicly distributed or disseminated communication referring to a clearly identified candidate for federal office which is made during a specified election period in cooperation, consultation, or concert with, or at the request or suggestion of, a candidate, a candidate's authorized committee, or a political committee of a political party;
- any communication that republishes, disseminates, or distributes, in whole or in part, any broadcast or any written, graphic, or other form of campaign material prepared by a candidate, a candidate's authorized committee, or their agents.
So, Title I changes the definition of the term contribution to mean a donation by the average American or political grassroots supporter to an unaffiliated organization who intends to act on merely a suggestion of a candidate.
Title II, Subtitle A, Sec. 201:
Revises the definition of "independent expenditure" in the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to mean:
- an expenditure that, when taken as a whole, expressly advocates the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate, or is the functional equivalent of express advocacy.
- Requires that any person making "independent expenditures" exceeding $10,000 must file a report electronically within 24 hours, or if you make an "independent expenditure" over $1,000 less than 20 days before an election.
Meaning, if you or your organization pay for a billboard, take out an ad, or promote your own online web campaign for or against a candidate that exceeds $10,000, or $1000 20 days before a campaign, you will have to file a report with the FEC within 24 hours.
Title III, Sec. 301:
- Requires organizations to disclose to shareholders, members, or donors information on disbursements for campaign-related activity.
- Requires organizations that maintain an Internet site to post a hyperlink from its homepage to the location on the FEC website containing information required to be reported with respect to public independent expenditures, including disbursements for electioneering communications.
What this means is the Government wants to create a list of all people who donate to all organizations who support political campaigns so they can post it on the FEC website. Then the organization has to link to the respective information, on the FEC website, from their site.
This will be an excellent way to build a list and keep track of political opponents for future targeting and harassment. HR 5175 creates yet another list, alongside the other lists the government keeps, like the terrorist watch list and the no-fly list.
So, what do we need to do? It's time to rally the troops and TAKE ACTION! Please urge your congressman to vote against HR 5175.
Please, sign the petition and forward to your contact list. We will be delivering this petition to the U.S. Congress and make our voices heard.
Yours in Liberty,
Ike Hall
Interim State Coordinator
Campaign for Liberty
This is the link to the "sign the petition" page above:
Campaign For Liberty - H R 5 1 7 5 G A .php county, Georgia
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/usa/GA/HR5175GA.php
In it they referenced the following article which I can only suppose is meant to convince us that the NRA is opposed to H.R. 5175 and in some manner exonerates their decision to throw us under the bus if they could get an exemption from compliance, EVEN though they know it's Un-Constitutional!!!
Efforts to curb special interests in elections fizzle
Updated 5h 38m ago
By Fredreka Schouten, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON - A high-profile effort by President Obama and top Democrats to clamp down on special-interest spending in elections has faltered, nearly six months after a Supreme Court ruling cleared the way for unlimited corporate and union spending on independent campaign ads.
Action on a bill in Congress that aims to shine more light on such spending stalled after top House Democrats agreed to exempt the powerful National Rifle Association and other large non-profits from new disclosure rules. Organizations such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Sierra Club complained, and the bill was pulled from the House floor in recent days.
Attempts to place more restrictions on campaign spending have been unsuccessful in recent weeks.
The Supreme Court, for instance, barred the state of Arizona this month from distributing public funds to candidates running against wealthy, self-funded opponents. The move blocks a key component of the state's 12-year-old "Clean Elections" law while the high court decides whether to hear a challenge from the law's opponents.
Last week, acting U.S. Solicitor General Neal Katyal, who argues the government's cases before the Supreme Court, decided not to appeal a lower court ruling that allows independent groups to raise as much as they want to support or oppose candidates.
In addition, the Federal Election Commission recently sided with Citizens United, a conservative advocacy group, and ruled that it would not have to publicly disclose its spending on movie projects. It was the second major victory for Citizens United this year. The legal battle over the group's critical film about Hillary Rodham Clinton in the 2008 presidential campaign led to the Supreme Court's sweeping decision in January to allow unlimited corporate and union funding on political ads.
"There is a slow dismantling of the regulation of money in politics at the federal level," said Kenneth Gross, a former Federal Election Commission official who is an expert in campaign-finance law. Democrats in Congress working to rein in special-interest spending, he said, are "swimming upstream, both legally and politically."
Disclosing donors:
Democratic leaders, including the bill's chief architect Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., have made the campaign-disclosure bill a top issue for the party and have sought to move quickly to put rules in place before November's midterm elections for Congress. In his State of the Union address in January, Obama assailed the Supreme Court ruling as opening "the floodgates for special interests" and urged Congress to pass legislation quickly.
The bill would require non-profits, corporations and unions that broadcast campaign ads to disclose their top five donors. CEOs and union chiefs would be required to appear in political advertising they fund, and companies with government contracts worth $10 million or more and corporations with 20% or more foreign ownership would be barred from political spending.
Furor erupted last week after the bill's authors exempted the powerful National Rifle Association and other groups with membership of more than 1 million or that rely on corporations for less than 15% of contributions from the disclosure requirements. The bill has since been changed to exempt groups with membership of more than 500,000.
That has not quelled criticism from the U.S. Public Interest Research Group (PIRG), which has withdrawn its backing, and other critics. "We support the disclosure that's at the heart of the bill," said Lisa Gilbert of PIRG. "But we think it's a problem to set up a dual system: one set of rules for certain groups and a different set of rules for everyone else."
Opposition to bill:
The NRA, which has lobbied aggressively against the bill, remains opposed, despite the exemption.
"All restriction on political speech is repugnant," Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the gun owners' group, told USA TODAY.
"Am I happy that the NRA's tongue is not cut for the 2010 ... elections? Absolutely," he said. "Do we still think this bill is unconstitutional? Absolutely."
The bill's backers, such as Meredith McGehee of the non-profit Campaign Legal Center, said the legislation is worthwhile because it would unmask the financial support of "anonymous groups that pop up" to influence elections.
"If the NRA runs an ad, everybody knows who the NRA is," she said.
In an interview, Van Hollen defended the concessions. The original bill had no exemptions, he said, but "it became very clear that we needed to make adjustments for this piece of legislation to pass." He predicted the plan would win House approval, despite the "bumps along the road."
The proposal also faces hurdles in the Senate, where it has no Republican sponsors. One Democrat, New Jersey Sen. Frank Lautenberg, called it "the height of irony" to exempt the NRA from a bill designed to limit the role of special interests in campaigns. He has promised to oppose the bill unless the NRA measure is dropped.
Source Page:
Efforts to curb special interests in elections fizzle - USATODAY.com
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2010-06-21-campaign-spending-legislation_N.htm
NRA Issues Gag Order to Its Board Members on Elena Kagan
Posted by Erick Erickson (Profile)
Sunday, June 27th at 12:45PM EDT -- 34 Comments
Internal Senate emails confirmed by NRA Board Members are highlighting just how far the National Rifle Association has fallen.
The organization recently collaborated with the left to obtain a carve out of the DISCLOSE Act, legislation designed to silence bloggers and outside interest groups like tea party activists. This was a first amendment issue and the NRA gladly took a position and campaigned for its members to take a position on the DISCLOSE Act.
One of the NRA's chief arguments was that it needed the carve-out to be effective in its advocacy of Second Amendment issues. But here's the problem: these internal Senate emails confirmed by NRA Board Members show that the National Rifle Association's management team has explicitly and directly told the NRA's board they are prohibited from testifying about second amendment issues during the Elena Kagan confirmation hearings.
That's right: the foremost gun rights lobby in the nation is prohibiting its board from testifying in the Elena Kagan confirmation hearings about the second amendment.
The NRA did issue a statement on Friday after the internal Senate email began leaking out informing people of the gag order. The statement noted Kagan's problematic record on guns, but that's just smoke and mirrors. Don't believe them when they say they are working with Senators to investigate her record. If they were really working with Senators, they would have accepted an invitation to testify on the Kagan nomination when they were invited. The gag order on board members is not limited to providing testimony, but it prohibits board members from coming out against Kagan in their individual capacity.
If the NRA is really working with pro-guns Senators and Kagan is really hostile to Second Amendment rights, which she is, they will score her confirmation vote and actually make the score count this time, unlike they did on the confirmation of Sonya Sotomayor. With Sotomayor, they waited until several days after RedState began demanding a score and then, in effect, announced they'd score it and ignore it.
First they collaborated with the left to get the DISCLOSE Act through the House, now they are blocking their own from speaking out against Elena Kagan. Is this the deal the NRA cut with the left? They get a carveout and shut up their board?
Category: Elena Kagan, National Rifle Association
Source Page:
NRA Issues Gag Order to Its Board Members on Elena Kagan | RedState
http://www.redstate.com:80/erick/2010/06/27/nra-issues-gag-order-to-its-board-members-on-elena-kagan/
JUST HOW LOW WILL THEY GO???
All the way "down" to the bank, with trfaux's money $$$.[:D]
All they have done is positioned themselves to be the federal government's approved defender of the rkba, not the people's. Now anybody with eyes to see and ears to hear has known this for years, but this, IMNSHO, makes it "official". They are now the "Ministry of Privately Held Arms."
I would predict bankruptcy for them in the next 60-90 days, except that their "4 million" members are just the same retards who have always refused to see what was right in front of them. They will do the same now, and keep sending in that check so that they can gleefully say, "I'm doin' my part. (spit) What are you's doin'?"
Too willfully ignorant to realize that they have only done their part as a useful idiot, to un-do that which the founders left us for safeguarding ourselves against tyranny. To that end, those of us who really "see" it, are even more to blame.[V]
quote:Originally posted by Wagon Wheel
JUST HOW LOW WILL THEY GO???
All the way "down" to the bank, with trfaux's money $$$.[:D]
[:D][:D][:D]
For the gullible, here's more propaganda from the NRA. I just got this "Alert" TODAY, the 28th at 1:33PM. There is nothing wrong with my e-mail as I've sent and received all morning with a spattering over the weekend. Supposedly it was sent almost 72 hours ago.
I want to share the first three items, all of which seem to abruptly stop before they say anything of substance, or relate any truth about NRA Actions concerning the Kagan Hearing or their sellout on the Disclose Act. WHY DID THEY SEND THIS???
I'm confused. Having full knowledge, they seem to want recipients of these Alerts to know they understand what's going on, YET they fail to do anything about it other than roll-over and let it happen, all the while denying it!!! YET in other outlets they seem to be proud of their actions and brag about it.
Since when does the NRA consider its members (or even those that just monitor their actions) a bunch of USEFUL IDIOTS? We know there are a few on the roll but that's another thread. One would have to be deaf, dumb and blind to not to understand how the NRA has betrayed not only it's own members but every citizen of this country whether they own guns or not!!!! I'm disgusted!!!!
I've come to understand how well this procedure works for the DNC/RNC and MSM but this process and the people sucked in by it, is baffling. There was a major backlash by NRA membership and Masses of other gun-owners that actually defend the 1st and 2nd Amendments. Yet, in the true Congressional spirit of advancing the progressive agenda, they ignored the wishes of those they represent, made no apology AND KEPT THEIR MONEY!!! Do they think this "Alert" will open the floodgate for more donations/new members to "Fight this assault" upon it's members rights?? Again, WHY DID THEY SEND THIS??? Do they have a death wish for their empire????
Original Message
From: NRA-ILA_Alerts
Sent: Friday, June 25, 2010 3:38 PM
Subject: With a Key Supreme Court Decision Pending, NRA Watches the Court's Latest Nominee
NRA-ILA GRASSROOTS ALERT
Vol. 17, No. 25 06/25/10
With a Key Supreme Court Decision
Pending, NRA Watches the Court's Latest Nominee
On Monday, June 28, the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee will begin confirmation hearings on the nomination of Solicitor General Elena Kagan to be an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. With a Supreme Court decision expected that same day in the critical Second Amendment case of McDonald v. City of Chicago and many more Second Amendment cases likely to come, the NRA is following the debate over the Kagan nomination extremely closely.
Because Ms. Kagan has no judicial record and few academic writings, the NRA is carefully reviewing her record in other government posts, including her clerkship for the late Justice Thurgood Marshall and her involvement in formulating anti-gun policies at the Clinton White House. What we've seen to date shows a hostility towards our Right to Keep and Bear Arms, such as her role in developing the Clinton Administration's 1998 ban on importation of many models of semi-automatic rifles; her note mentioning the NRA and the Ku Klux Klan as "bad guy" organizations; and her comment to Justice Marshall that she was "not sympathetic" to a challenge to Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban.
NRA Statement On DISCLOSE Act Passing The U.S. House:
The NRA's sworn duty is to protect the Second Amendment above all else. We face attacks daily from the White House, Congress, state legislatures, city councils, courts, the United Nations, multi-billion dollar media conglomerates and billionaires like Michael Bloomberg and George Soros. Make no mistake; if our political voice is silenced, they will destroy the Second Amendment.
We refused to let that happen. We will continue to fight to protect the Second Amendment against all attacks -- direct or otherwise. And we will never back down from that commitment.
Daley Just Doesn't Get It: In less than a week, 10 people have been killed and more than 60 others wounded by gunfire in Chicago--despite the city's decades-old gun ban. Those not blinded by anti-gun zealotry may come to the reasonable conclusion that this ban has not been effective in preventing gun-related crimes. Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, however, would not be among that group.