Comments by "SmallSpoonBrigade" (@SmallSpoonBrigade) on "Is the NRA Being Sued Out of Existence? | LegalEagle’s Real Law Review" video.

Keep in mind that even if they are dissolved, the 2nd Amendment Foundation will be engaged in the same extremist rhetoric and lobbying that the NRA was. Those two are pretty much always the two sources for quotes about how we can't have any limits placed on the sale or purchase of firearms because freedom to slaughter entire office buildings of people is more important than the right to not be slaughtered in a mass shooting.
22
It's worth noting that if every NRA member that disapproved of the NRA's positions would have simply moved their contribution to a different organization, it would have folded years ago. The NRA's positions are not popular, even amongst members, its' just that so many people equate them with gun rights that other, more responsible, organizations don't get that money. For those that support reasonable gun restrictions, want hunting rights preserved, for gun safety classes to be free or affordable, there are plenty of organizations that do that, just without the extremist ideology.
20
The vast majority would. Why would you assume that just because the right has no ethics, morals or any identifiable form of integrity that the left must also be so bereft of it? Yes, there's a few holdouts on the right that do have ethics and integrity, but at this point they're mostly corporatist Democrats.
17
This is true. Even amongst their membership their hardline stance against even the most basic of restrictions on buying, like background checks, aren't popular. Most members realize that the kind of unlimited access isn't good for anybody except the manufacturers of the weapons. Most of the members want their hunting rights preserved, access to firearms preserved and for people to have access to high quality gun safety resources. To that end, there are plenty of organizations that advocate for those issues without also advocating for allowing access to firearms for domestic terrorists and those with known mental health issues. There's a special place in hell for them as well as for the leadership of the 2nd amendment foundation.
12
@Mrich775 You do realize that there are literally dozens of other nonprofits that support reasonable restrictions on firearms and fight against government over-regulation, right? It's not like the NRA is the only organization that's fighting to defend the 2nd amendment against undue restriction. That's the part that's always puzzled me, most NRA members do not agree with the extremist views of the organization, but they continue to support the organization with financial contributions even though there are other nonprofits that more closely align with the NRA's stated goals.
10
@jeff86ing Most likely, it's going to be the 2nd Amendment Foundation, they're usually the only other clowns that they can find to quote when they need somebody to be against gun regulations. That being said there are tons of other organizations that advocate for reasonable restrictions on firearms and the other things that the NRA claimed to support.
9
To be fair, a lot of the Boomers were probably donating prior to the take over of leadership and simply never realized how bad it's gotten or assume that other gun rights outfits are as bad. That being said, my dad owns a half dozen firearms and would never give them money because of their extremist ideology, even though he supports hunting rights, right to have firearms and gun safety classes. He just doesn't buy into this notion that we need to have assault rifles for hunting gophers as he served in Vietnam and is well aware of just how comicaly overpowered those weapons are. Even with the limits that are currently in place, they're still ridiculously overpowered for civilian use.
3
It would be diluted, it's pretty much the NRA and the 2nd Amendment Foundation when you need an asshole to speak negatively about gun regulations like background checks and limiting the capacity of a magazine. Most other organizations realize that small things like that are more likely to preserve at least some of their rights than allowing the slaughter of innocents due to not having any substantive measures in place to stop it.
2
There's a lot of better groups out there that support safety and reasonable efforts to keep weapons out of the hands of people that would misuse them and then prosecute those that do.
1
@jaycobarbogast That's the thing. It puzzles me that people keep giving them money, only about a third of their members support their extremist ideology, most of them are willing to accept reasonable restrictions as long as they can still get the hardware they want. Most of the members are OK with background checks and efforts to keep firearms out of the hands of terrorists, criminals and individuals who have mental illnesses that make them likely to misuses the weapons they buy. And there are literally dozens of organizations that would make better use of the money to that end than the NRA has.
1
@warrenlehmkuhleii8472 The National Firearms Act is most certainly not unconstitutional. Or are you seriously suggesting that anything that qualifies as a weapon is fair game? I'm sure there are some folks out there that have genetically modified anthrax for "duck hunting" if you know where to look. You should seriously look into the shenanigans that were happening prior to the act being passed. That was in response to such notables as Bonnie and Clyde, Baby Face Nelson, John Dillinger and "Machine Gun" Kelly were running amok with the use of the weapons that the law banned. I realized that the uneducated don't understand that constitutional amendments all have limits, but are you seriously suggesting that we should permit criminals to purchase military hardware that easily?
1
If they do return from the dead, they'll probably be at most 1/3 of their current size as it would require everybody that had been giving them money to sign up again and there are a lot of other gun rights organizations out there without the baggage of the NRA. Many of them are OK with reasonable measures like background checks and limitations on the number of rounds you can have in a magazine in order to preserve more important firearm related freedoms. It's also worth keeping in mind that the 2nd Amendment can be revoked or modified at any time through the amendment process. It wouldn't be the first amendment to be changed in that fashion and at some point people are going to get fed up with the mass shootings and they may just demand more restriction than what you can do without an amendment.
1
It's worth nothing that the NRA deserves to be dissolved if for no other reason than the fact that it is advocating for policies which go against the majority of the membership. Most of the members don't want people to get their hands of firearms that aren't going to use them responsibly or that have a criminal record. The NRA as an organization is just absolutely repugnant and repulsive, they advocate for policies that ensure that criminals will be able to easily get their hands on firearms and that the ones available are far more powerful than what one would reasonably need outside of an actual combat zone. Lastly, for those that do support the purported goals of the NRA as indicated by the charter, there are tons of other nonprofits that are faithfully protecting hunting rights and access to firearms that are appropriate for self-defense and that fund classes to learn to responsibly handle and shoot firearms. The money should go to them, not an extremist organization that is fighting hard to ensure that mass murderers and terrorists will always be able to get their hands on powerful weaponry.
1