Gunboards Forums banner
1 - 20 of 85 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,503 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
This is just despicable.
`
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/38500.html


"The proposal would exempt organizations that have more than 1 million members, have been in existence for more than 10 years, have members in all 50 states and raise 15 percent or less of their funds from corporations... The NRA, with 4 million members, will not actively oppose the DISCLOSE Act, according to Democratic sources."

http://gunowners.org/a061610.htm
Free Speech Gag Bill Moving in House
-- -- -- Please contact your Reps again
Wednesday, June 16, 2010

The ability of American citizens to communicate with their elected officials is one of the most important rights that help preserve our freedoms. In fact, of all the forms of speech protected by the First Amendment, political speech is at the top of the list.

This is exactly what the Supreme Court said earlier this year, in Citizens United v. FEC, when it ruled unconstitutional huge portions of the McCain-Feingold law, otherwise known as the Incumbent Protection Act.

Now, in an effort to undo the victory at the Supreme Court, liberals in Congress are attempting to pass the so-called DISCLOSE Act, which would severely limit the ability of GOA to communicate to our members and the general public.

This unconstitutional bill could come to the floor of the House as early as Thursday.

Sadly, as we reported yesterday, some in the pro-gun community have abandoned the principle of protecting the free speech rights of all Americans, so long as their ox is not being gored in this instance.

The NRA, which had previously opposed the DISCLOSE Act, has now accepted a deal to exempt that organization from the bill.

This is a startling about-face by the association.

When the Supreme Court ruled in favor of political speech in Citizens United, NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre praised the decision, saying, "This ruling is a victory for anyone who believes that the First Amendment applies to each and every one of us.... This is a defeat for arrogant elitists who wanted to carve out free speech as a privilege for themselves and deny it to the rest of us." (Emphasis added.)

That's a far cry from the NRA statement to Congress this week regarding legislation specifically designed to undo that Supreme Court decision.

"On June 14, 2010, Democratic leadership in the U.S. House of Representatives pledged that H.R. 5175 [DISCLOSE Act] would be amended to exempt groups like the NRA, that meet certain criteria, from its onerous restrictions on political speech," reads the statement.

"As a result, and as long as that remains the case, the NRA will not be involved in final consideration of the House bill."

Apparently it's ok to "carve out" a little free speech if you're in the role of the "elitists."

But the misguided NRA exemption will leave millions and millions of gun owners and sportsmen belonging to dozens of different organizations out in the cold.

We cannot allow this to happen. An attack on our First Amendment rights is a direct assault on our Second Amendment rights. After all, if GOA can't alert you about legislation affecting your Second Amendment rights, then we cannot protect those rights.

Of course, that's precisely what the politicians in Washington want. Shut out the voices of the "commoners" like gun owners and Tea Party activists who are coming to -- in the words of Senate candidate Rand Paul of Kentucky -- "take our government back!"

There's a reason the Bill of Rights is considered as an entire unit, and an attack on one part of the Constitution poses a threat to the whole document.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,631 Posts
Oh Mouser. How many mis-statements in one incomplete sentence. And that's just the title! The NRA didn't allie with anyone. That includes the Marxists. Yeah, I know what C.M. wrote (you don't, but I do, and I'm not helping you as you scamper to Google, hairless tail between your legs). Poor victimized GOA -- NOW they wanna cooperate and rely on the NRA!? Wow. Anyway, the NRA at least isn't trying to stifle anyone nor anything. That includes the 1st amendment. You can stop the, um, well, less than factual bloviating.

It is understandable the NRA is not fighting this anymore, tho sad. But they put their two cents in (which is why they were catered to). At the end of the day they are a pro second-amendment organization and not, obviously, affected and so probably SHOULDN'T comment any longer. That said, the Disclose Act is reprehensible, so, if u have an even partially not-as-Marxist-as-the-average-Democrat Representative, call them!

Of course, this website will be gone soon enough... The FCC declared it has determined the Internet is a public utility and needs to be controlled by them. Just as the Disclose Act is designed to shut down grass-roots opposition to tyranny, "Net Neutrality" has such a wonderful Big Brother name. They're looking out for us you see. Well, except for you Mouser: not even the Obama Administration can pretend to care about you either.

Alden

PS: Wait! Not that I trust her as far as I could throw her but Pelousy has stated they have taken the Disclose Act off the agenda for a vote tomorrow. The Blue Dog Democrats said there aren't enough exemptions given (the unions got them already!) and the Congressional Black Caucus complained that there were any, so, neither would support the arguably unconstitutional legislation and the dog-n-pony-n-smoke-n-mirrors Democrat Marxist game continues...

Whadoes the law say? "...requiring the names of multiple donors to be recited in ads (thus shrinking the time spent on actual speech), requiring the CEO of a corporate donor to personally appear in campaign-related ads, expanding the coverage period to virtually the entire election year, and including myriad other rules that theNRA described last month as "byzantine" and an "arbitrary patchwork of reporting and disclosure requirements."
 

·
Silver Bullet member
Joined
·
36,239 Posts
My post from a forum which has banished the Boy:

NRA Exemption Wrecking Anti 1st Amendment Bill

And yet more crumbling of this horrible bill, thanks to the NRA working out its own exemption with the evil and foolish Democrats who are writing it. At the end of this process the only way to make it constitutional will be to water it down so it becomes strictly symbolic, nothing but requiring a reference on commercials to a website with major contributors names. This would negate the original evil intent of the bill to wreck freedom of speech and control elections and politics by making issue ads impossible, thus protecting sitting politicians and candidates selected by the parties.


June 17, 2010
Loopholes Grow in Bill to Offset Ruling on Campaigns
By CARL HULSE New York Times

WASHINGTON — Congressional Democrats are pushing hard for legislation to rein in the power of special interests by requiring more disclosure of their roles in paying for campaign advertising — but as they struggle to find the votes they need to pass it they are carving out loopholes for, yes, special interests.

In a deal that left even architects of the legislation squirming with unease, authors of a bill intended to counter a Supreme Court ruling allowing corporations and unions to pour money directly into campaign commercials provided an exception this week for the National Rifle Association, one of the most powerful lobbying groups in Washington.

The resulting uproar over special treatment for the pro-gun group led Democrats on Thursday to expand the exception to cover even more interest groups as they tried to secure votes for the measure, which is opposed by most Republicans. But with other powerful groups also weighing in and no assurance that Democrats had the votes they need, House leaders decided late Thursday to put off a planned Friday vote on the campaign bill, increasing doubts about whether Congress can enact it in time for this year’s elections.

The episode has highlighted again the difficulty President Obama has had in fulfilling his promise to diminish the power of lobbyists and interest groups, and how deeply entrenched the groups are in the process of shaping policy proposals into detailed legislation. Mr. Obama has sought to make the effort to fight back against the Supreme Court ruling — which could allow corporations, industry groups and unions greater opportunities to sway voters — a key part of his party’s platform for this year’s midterm elections.

Backers said the N.R.A. deal was the only way to win enough support among House Democrats, many of whom refuse to take any action that could rile the gun lobby, and impose regulations they say are necessary to prevent corporations and other organizations from hiding behind front groups and flooding the airwaves in this year’s elections.

“It is not the bill I would have written, but it is better than nothing,” said Representative Jim McGovern, Democrat of Massachusetts. “If we are going to be Swift-boated, we should be able to know who is doing it.”

Even as authors watered down the measure, moderate Democrats expressed concern about crossing another high-powered advocate, the United States Chamber of Commerce, which is strongly opposed to the bill and is threatening to rate lawmakers on what position they take on it. At the same time, members of the Congressional Black Caucus were questioning how the measure might fall on groups like the N.A.A.C.P.

Representative Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, head of the House Democratic campaign arm, developed the measure in response to the court ruling this year in Citizens United vs. the Federal Election Commission, which found that the government may not ban political spending by corporations in candidate elections. The proposed legislation would subject corporations, unions and other nonprofit groups that engage in political activity to significant new disclosure rules.

The leaders of entities covered by the law, including the chief executives of corporations that engage in campaign advertising, would have to appear at the end of the advertisements and make the now familiar statement that they approve the message. In addition, when the advertisements come from advocacy groups, the top five contributors to the cost of the ads covered under the new rules would have to be listed.

Even if the House can approve the measure, it faces an uncertain future in the Senate, where the agenda is crowded and the Republican leader, Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, is a fervent opponent of campaign finance restrictions. But top Democrats have assured their House counterparts that they could pass a bill, which if signed into law would most likely face immediate constitutional challenges.

“I think that the way that they’ve carved out some people and left others under the law again clearly violates the Constitution and violates what the court made clear that Congress should not do,” Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the Republican leader, said Thursday.

Democrats say the proposal does not infringe on speech, but simply allows the public a better idea of who is financing the advertising campaigns, a principle they say that Republicans formerly supported.

“I don’t know why, if they’re so proud of their point of view, they don’t want to stand by their ads,” Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday about groups objecting to the measure.

But moving ahead with the measure has proved vexing, and the decision to provide an exemption for the N.R.A. to win the votes of one group of Democrats was particularly hard for many other lawmakers to accept, making it difficult for House leaders to secure the required votes.

“The remedy does not treat the sickness; it only creates another ill,” said Representative Mike Quigley, Democrat of Illinois.

Under the initial compromise, a provision was added to the measure that, without naming the N.R.A., was clearly tailored to fit it and other advocacy goliaths like AARP. The provision was to apply to select nonprofit groups that have existed for more than 10 years, have more than one million members with some in each state, and get no more than 15 percent of their financing from corporations or unions.

Critics said the authors were picking winners and losers. “Guns for all, free speech for some,” said R. Bruce Josten, a top Chamber of Commerce official who called the measure blatantly political and an effort to protect Democratic incumbents.

Responding to the outcry, the N.R.A. compromise was changed Thursday to exempt groups with 500,000 or more members, further diminishing the reach of the legislation even as it appealed to supporters of additional advocacy groups.

Still, to many liberals, the N.R.A. deal rankled.

“I just thought we were making the N.R.A. too powerful,” Representative Raúl M. Grijalva, Democrat of Arizona and a leader of the House Progressive Caucus, said of the initial deal. “I understand if we don’t do anything we are going to get drowned with corporate money in this election, but at the same time, it kind of gnaws at you.”

Representative Michael N. Castle of Delaware, one of two House Republicans backing the campaign act, said partisanship had overtaken what he initially considered a fairly straightforward measure.

“To me, it is a relatively simple request to make corporations, unions and nonprofits go through the same steps that political parties go through,” he said. “And yet it is running into all kinds of opposition.”


In summary: The NRA is a lot smarter than Rep. Castle or Mauserboy.
 

·
Platinum Bullet Member
Joined
·
8,104 Posts
Is this from the Minefield? I remember when he went down there. He lasted about as long as Van Der Sloot will last in general population. LMAO.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,017 Posts
Mouseboy - you always fail to comprehend and/or read-between-the-lines.

Everything is black or white to you. Which is noble in many situations, but clearly "dumb" in most others.

I truely hope you failed out of school as the rumours say. I would hate to imagine yoiu teaching anyone.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,631 Posts
I have one question...
How and why the hell do we have a "Representative Raúl M. Grijalva, Democrat of Arizona and a leader of the House Progressive Caucus"? He's being quoted by the NY Times as though he has some pedigree and I'm just thinkin' "guilty."

THAT is why we must remember in November!

Alden

Bring Back HUAC!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,503 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
Mouseboy - you always fail to comprehend and/or read-between-the-lines.

Everything is black or white to you.
Actually, no it isn't.

This is the NRA making deals with the government to squash 1st Amendment rights.

I truely hope you failed out of school as the rumours say. I would hate to imagine yoiu teaching anyone.
Actually, I seem to be the only one around here with a higher education, or at least proof of it.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,631 Posts
Actually, no it isn't.

This is the NRA making deals with the government to squash 1st Amendment rights.


Actually, I seem to be the only one around here with a higher education, or at least proof of it.
Poor Mouser;
Awww, that's no way to talk to people you disagree with. And how would you possibly know? Associates Degree from a suburban paper-mill really workin' for ya? No: you just now starting to realize you have NO prospects. And that Mom won't fit into that gold metallic dress and the matching pumps much longer. What to do, what to do...

It wants, hopes, to convince someone, anyone, NRA is part of the Ron Paul Build-a-Bear conspiracy. The dust must be kicking in again, poor little Libertarian. Shame anything you have is worthless and everything you have is meaningless. But at least you have the courage of your convictions to quote your neo-Nazi muse again...

Alden
 

·
Diamond+ Bullet Member
Joined
·
1,651 Posts
THis was posted to NRA employees (Field reps)

From: Parsons, Rachel
To: #All NRA Employees
Sent: Fri Jun 18 16:08:19 2010
Subject: UPDATED: NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris W. Cox's Message on H.R. 5175
NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris W. Cox's Message on H.R. 5175
I received your email regarding the NRA's position on H.R. 5175, the "DISCLOSE Act". Regrettably, our position has been misstated by some and intentionally misrepresented by others. I hope you'll allow me to provide the proper context.
The U.S. Supreme Court's Citizens United decision was a significant victory for free speech and the Constitution. The NRA filed a strong brief in that case, which the Court specifically cited several times in its opinion. The DISCLOSE Act is an attempt to reverse that victory and that's why we told Congress we oppose it.
The NRA has never supported--nor would we ever support -- any version of this bill. Those who suggest otherwise are wrong.
The restrictions in this bill should not apply to anyone or to any organization. My job is to ensure they don't apply to the NRA and our members. Without the NRA, the Second Amendment will be lost and I will do everything in my power to prevent that.
We believe that any restriction on political speech is repugnant. But some of our critics believe we should put the Second Amendment at risk over a First Amendment principle to protect other organizations. That's easy to say--unless you have a sworn duty to protect the Second Amendment above all else, as I do.
The NRA is a single-issue organization made up of millions of individual members dedicated to protecting the Second Amendment. We do not represent the interests of other organizations. Nor do all groups fight all issues together. For example, we didn't support the U.S. Chamber of Commerce when it backed amnesty for tens of millions of illegal aliens and we did not join the Chamber in its support of President Obama's stimulus bill. And we've been in direct opposition when the Chamber has tried to restrict Second Amendment rights in publicly accessible parking lots.
Rather than focusing on opposing this bill, some have encouraged people to blame the NRA for this Congress's unconstitutional attack on free speech. That's a shame. If you oppose this bill, I hope you will contact your Member of Congress and Senators so they can hear from you.
 

·
Diamond+ Bullet Member
Joined
·
1,651 Posts
More NRA from the horses mouth

More comments from NRA ILA FOlks:


From: Lloyd, Victoria
To: #Advancement
Sent: Thu Jun 17 14:22:34 2010
Subject: UPDATE: NRA Statement on H.R. 5175, The Disclose Act
Statement From The National Rifle Association On H.R. 5175, The Disclose Act
http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/NewsReleases.aspx?id=13913
Thursday, June 17, 2010

We appreciate some NRA members' concerns about 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. The initial version of H.R. 5175 would effectively have put a gag order on the NRA during elections and threatened our members' freedom of association, by forcing us to turn our donor lists over to the federal government. We would also have been 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 made a commitment to exempt us from its draconian restrictions on free speech. If that commitment is honored, we will not be involved in the final House debate. If that commitment is not fully honored, we will 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 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 – 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.
 

·
Diamond+ Bullet Member
Joined
·
1,651 Posts
This is what I sent to my AMGA members when one said he was questioning his membership in the NRA on this issue:

I think what NRA was doing was to ensure that non-profit citizens’ groups still have a voice. Unions & corporations are another story, especially since they tend to foment an anti-gun stance .

My take on it is that the NRA isn’t perfect, but they are most certainly still pulling for us. It would be a mistake to terminate your membership. NRA is the 800 lb Gorilla of the 2nd amendment advocates. They’re trying to keep RTKBA friendly conservative Democrats voting in our favor. That being said, as an NRA member, you should definitely voice your concerns to the NRA leadership. That’s what democratic process is all about.

The other gun rights groups may take a “No compromise of any kind” approach. “Line in the sand”, if you will. That’s fine too. That’s why it’s good to have a number of gun rights organizations. I think that we as gun owners should belong to as many groups fighting for the right to keep and bear arms as we can. Everyone of them brings something different to the table. All of these groups together are working for our benefit.

I think the dissenting opinions of NAGR, CCRKBA, GOA, and others may push the NRA into a different stance on this issue. Or at the very least, let them know not every gun owner agrees with the NRA program 100%. That’s what politics are all about. Pressure from different groups and causes get decision makers to change their tune.

Again, as an NRA member, you should definitely voice your opinion to the NRA on this issue.. “The squeaky wheel gets the grease”. It’s good that you question and are concerned!



President, Alaska Machine Gun Association
Patron Life Member,NRA
Board Member, Birchwood Recreation & Shooting Park
www.amga.net

"The gun has played a critical role in history. An Invention which has been praised and denounced, served hero and villain alike… and carries with it moral responsibility. To understand the gun is to better understand history." - Tales of the Gun
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,631 Posts
Oldfart;
Slopes are not the NRA's charge. And, by the way, look at the turmoil the NRA has been a bulwark against since you planted your flag in 1971 and what DIDN'T just happen with this unamerican legislation. I can understand the initial reaction, but, it is not justified. You should thank them for our freedoms! Your off the cuff thoughts are more akin to what inexperienced light-weights like Mouser, who doesn't understand anything but was anxious to start a post, and an anti-gun leftist plant spinner (yes, we hear he's a spinner) like Stark, would say...
Alden
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,503 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
In any case, the dims dropped any exemption for the NRA and are going to try pushing this through. I believe they are going to be on the losing end as even dimocrats are unhappy with Peloulsy's "let them eat cake' crap
Well hopefully the NRA did in fact wise up. In any case, the act itself is an assault on free speech. Liberals claim to be the timless defenders of free speech....except when they are in power.
 

·
Platinum Bullet Member
Joined
·
8,104 Posts
Well hopefully the NRA did in fact wise up. In any case, the act itself is an assault on free speech. Liberals claim to be the timless defenders of free speech....except when they are in power.
Look, the mouses's bike has a back pedal. LMAO.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11 Posts
How do y'all not see that every popular organization today is merely a distraction from what is actually going on...

You are losing your rights, people. That is all there is to it. No group or any of that crap is going to save your rights. All it was ever intended to do was keep you hopeful, and the founders rich.

So, indeed... As Bernays said, and this is a rough quote, "Propaganda is a way for political figures to impart their will on others, as opposed to being the will-less servants of the people."

Yeah, you need to get your politicians off the TV, and have TV shows on TV not be the mouthpiece of propagandists everywhere.

No more noise on mass-comms!


Furthermore, you will experience just exactly as much tyranny as you will put up with. It is clear that the majority of Americans will put up with the same dumb ass ideas replayed over and over and over and over for decades, so there isn't much hope there, but you see where I'm coming from..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,017 Posts
Mouseboy is truely incapable of understanding politics, history, or economics.

I really cant say I have ever read an intelligent post from him. No deep thought. No cause and effect. It really must be due to a lack of life experience. He is only capable of regurgitating the propaganda that he is fed on whatever other web sites he haunts.

If he actually could piece together a fifty word paragraph that states an "actual thought" he had developed himself - I would be amazed.

Maybe we could just buy him another video game cartridge. Anything at all that will reduce the amount of drivel he puts out.
 

·
Platinum Bullet Member
Joined
·
8,104 Posts
Tom, I think you're going A Bridge To Far.
 
1 - 20 of 85 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top