>spends millions lobbying for gun companies
>buys republican congressmen to stop even the very study of gun violence
>tells people if you take our guns we'll kill you
>leadership is against background checks even as NRA members are for background checks
If someone tries to take my guns I'm going to defend myself. Period.
If you don't want me to have guns then go ahead and get rid of the second amendment, faggot.
>>77850070
How can you defend supporting the infringement of my rights?
>>77850070
>>77850207
>>77850300
>>77850434
You can have your guns but how can you defend the NRA paying politicians and putting pressure on Republicans to make sure they can't even approve a study in gun safety?
>>77850070
the amount of money that the NRA spends on lobbying a fucking drop in the bucket compared to other industries. Politicians have been bought and paid for 100 times over before the NRA gets to them.
>>77850676
>NRA paying politicians
Show me your proof of bribes.
You referring to not funding the cdc study?
>Claims to be pro-gun
>Does fuckall to turnover the NFA, GCA (was actually supported by them), Hughes Amendment
>Took the Pink Pistols to get DC v Heller done, no thanks to the NRA
More like the National Fudds Association.
>>77850676
Those studies are inevitably used as justification for leftist hatred of the second amendment. As their only purpose is to express hatred, publishing such studies constitutes hate speech and therefore is not protected by the first amendment. :^)
>>77850880
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/storyline/wp/2015/01/14/why-the-cdc-still-isnt-researching-gun-violence-despite-the-ban-being-lifted-two-years-ago/
>>77851138
Hate speech is protected under the first amendment.
>>77851215
What business is gun safety to the cdc?
Are you next going to suggest the irs study aquatic life?
>>77851404
Why are you dodging the subject?
The NRA won't allow the CDC to do a simple study. How is this justifiable? They're not taking anyone's guns.
>>77851727
Why should the cdc study that topic?
They make so many people I despise have incurable political ass pain.
Can I join the NRA as a non American?
>>77851727
The CDC stands for Center for Disease Control not Center for Distressed Cuckolds.
>>77851886
How about to find out if gun violence is increasing or decreasing?
>hurr durr we already know more guns = less crime
Okay then why are you so scared of letting the CDC find this out?
Who cares if it's the CDC or the IRS. They should be allowed to do a simple study and the fact that you desperately don't want them to do this shows that there's a problem you don't want being brought to light.
>>77850070
>study of gun violence
Wew. It would be more efficient to study the violence from minorities.
>>77851234
And it's time to get with the times. Update the constitution, and do away with this regressive gun control nonsense. It's 2016, you should be able to open carry an M60 in the white house without restriction.
>>77852118
Could have something to do with the fact that the last CDC study Obama ordered backfired
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cdc-study-use-firearms-self-defense-important-crime-deterrent
>>77852118
Why does this shit, inevitably biased study require public funding?
>>77850070
With many, many guns.
>>77850676
That is literally what their membership pays them to do you liberal tard.
>>77851727
It is justifiable because the CDC does want to take you guns away. They are bias against guns. That is the reason the Republicans stop them from doing gun research because they were doing bias and bogus studies.
http://thefederalist.com/2015/12/15/why-congress-cut-the-cdcs-gun-research-budget/
>However, his successor and director of the CDC National Center of Injury Prevention branch Mark Rosenberg told Rolling Stone in 1993 that he “envisions a long term campaign, similar to tobacco use and auto safety, to convince Americans that guns are, first and foremost, a public health menace.” He went on to tell the Washington Post in 1994 “We need to revolutionize the way we look at guns, like what we did with cigarettes. It used to be that smoking was a glamour symbol — cool, sexy, macho. Now it is dirty, deadly — and banned.”
Why the fuck do you want these people doing gun research?
>>77852118
>How about to find out if gun violence is increasing or decreasing?
The FBI already provides this information. Having the cdc do it is redundant and a waste of time and money.
>>77851215
And yet in 2013 the CDC did a study on gun violence.
Strange that you libtards never want to talk about it...
>>77850070
I used to be a dutch cuck. Anti gun, pro immigration, bluepilled on islam. Now i realise that owning is a fundamental right that i wish we had here in the Netherlands. The country would be safer with no guns, that i agree with. However the idea behind gunownership I love. The people should have a right to stand up against the goverment if they no longer fulfill their duty. If the goverment takes away guns, the people lose power.
>>77852435
Who cares? Are you seriously trying to say that the NRA is absolutely concerned with this drop in the bucket funding?
>>77852434
If the CDC is coming through with studies that show guns deter crime then why are they against anymore studies that might continue to prove the NRA right?
>>77850300
>A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
How well regulated would you say your militia is? Oh you're not in one? Shocking. Well certainly you personally are at least well regula-- what's that? You say it's nearly impossible for lawmakers to even discuss regulating gun ownership in any form? Well this just keeps getting stranger.
If you plan on hiding behind a document you should at least read what's written on it.
>>77852756
Why are so many liberals functionally illiterate?
>>77852821
Try making an actual argument.
>>77850070
Because that's what their members pay them to do.
It's funded by normal American citizens.
>>77852544
>citing what one person said from 20 years ago
>>77851234
Is there anything that isn't protected under the first amendment? Aside from the private business side? Something the government can infringe?
>>77852194
The constitution says nothing about not regulating gun ownership in fact is specifically and explicitly calls for it. There's no need to update it at all, we just need people to actually read the other half of the sentence they keep quoting.
>>77852941
There is no argument. You can't parse a sentence with 27 words. You really have no business discussing politics or voting.
>>77852756
there is no reason to discuss guns. if you have none feel good about yourself. if you have guns feel good that people who want to take your guns have none.
we will kill anyone trying to delete our 2nd amendment. Debate closed.
>>77850070
How can you defend environmentalists?
>Spends millions lobbying against energy and manufacturing industries
>Buys democratic congressmen to stop even studies that don't support global warming
>Tells people if they don't take our oil the planet will kill us
>Leadership is against any kind of nuclear alternative even though it's the safest, cleanest and most efficient power source we have
I just bought a 5 year membership after reading the OP.
Thanks for telling me about all the good shit the NRA has done.
>>77850676
you don't need to study gun safety. the NRA can tell you everything about gun safety that you need to know.
>>77852756
>>A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
>How well regulated would you say your militia is?
Well regulated in 1770s meant to be "well working" or "well working", and considering the populous doesnt have the same adequate armorment as the US government and military has I'd say we aren't doing as well as we should
>hurr durr militia argument
Pic related and shall not be infringed, faggot
>>77850676
If you give an inch to the government they will take a mile.
>>77852944
>It's funded by normal American citizens.
the majority of its funding actually comes from contributions from the gun industry. revenue from program fees and membership dues are pretty irrelevant to them.
thats why you will find that their position is often different from the position of their average member.
>>77853866
Because they're an unbiased source, right?
>>77850070
>spends millions lobbying for gun companies
The amount of money the nra spends on lobbying is a drop in the fucking bucket compared to almost everything else.
>>77853187
>government ambitions with leadership
They did this in 2013 and they failed spectacularly.
>>77852756
The militia is separate from the people. Can't you read? It's saying that a militia is necessary and therefore the people need to be armed in case they need to form a militia.
>>77853241
>Amendment I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
>>77854044
Quit your lies you fucking jew
>>77854147
More unbiased than the MSM.
>>77850070
I just signed up for an NRA membership
>>77853564
>There is no argument
Well that much is clear. That's what I just said.
>>77853663
>we will kill anyone trying to delete our 2nd amendment
Do you believe that's what people are trying to do? We actually agree on a lot more than you think. It's already illegal for you to own, say, a rocket launcher or an attack helicopter and the reasoning behind that is that nobody needs one of those for anything other than mass murder. It's just a matter of where you draw that line and I think that's something the american government can stand to discuss without ideologies getting thrown in with the reasoning.
>>77854286
feel free to believe an unsourced chart made by the lobbyist most likely.
http://www.businessinsider.com/gun-industry-funds-nra-2013-1
or you could try reading for once.
>today less than half of the NRA's revenues come from program fees and membership dues.
Everybody SHOULD be armed. Everybody SHOULD refuse to turn in their guns. Everybody SHOULD refuse further intrusions and we SHOULD dismantle current background check systems.
>>77850070
You forgot, Oldest Civil Rights Organization in the United States.
>>77854286
Here is the source
https://www.quora.com/Where-does-funding-for-the-National-Rifle-Association-NRA-come-from
Anti guns shills lie and lie and lie
>>77854493
>>77854426
God Bless you.
>>77852010
yes. i joined for one year after sandy hook
By the way, the CDC is not prevented from studying firearms. They are prevented from lobbying for gun control.
That is it.
>>77854493
Yes 44% come from dues you kike
$100,531,465 (44%) from member dues.
$ 58,572,260 (26%) from personal contributions.
$ 20,922,249 (9.2%) from the sale of advertising space
$ 12,573,541 (5.5%) contributions from "related organizations"
$ 11,745,200 (5.2%) came from selling stuff.
$ 11,303,074 (5.0%) came from royalties.
>>77854352
That has what to do with the CDC?
>>77853889
This is what I thought too. If it was only the militia that was meant to keep and bear arms, they would have worded it as "the right of the Militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
Even if liberals use the militia argument, they don't realize that all able bodied men are part of the unorganized militia as defined in the Militia Act of 1903.
>>77852756
>implying the Constitution required for there to be a "militia" in the sense that it needs to be an established organization dedicated to it and wasn't word it precisely so that if the citizens wanted to form one they could without the need for the State to intervene
I donated money to the NRA after this last radical islamic attack. How does that make you feel OP?
>>77854526
uh your page even admits that memmbership dues arent even half of its income.
>gun violence
Pointless term. What you are looking for is "violent crime".
>>77854908
>44% from membership dues
>26% from personal contributions
Your point being?
>>77854855
Since your donated money is nothing compared to the money they make from gun manufactures, and they'll go against your wishes in favor of whatever they want (background checks), I feel pretty good knowing that you've wasted your money.
>>77854273
How does it work out in practice?
I know it was originally intended for white men, and certain things from other constitutions has been removed or altered, such as only gold and silver can be currency and only white non-slaves can come and get rights.
Is that all it says? Or is that the short version with the government having added on things later?
>>77854973
my point being is that its not funded by average americans. they're not the ones making those contributions.
>>77855158
Who the fuck do you think the personal contributions and memberships dues come from? Those are average citizens.
>>77853889
>>77854267
These are actually good points. Thanks for putting the time into a reasoned response to a smug anime face.
I can't say I actually have much exposure to your side of this argument and didn't really realize that until just now.
>>77855262
the membership dues sure. the personal contributions, not likely. average joe isnt dropping 5k to help the nra.
>>77850070
This really makes me think.
Makes me think it's time to pay for that life membership I've been putting off.
Only $1,500 and that's a small price to spite the faggot OP.
Look into it /pol/
>>77855369
The average citizen doesnt have to.
If everyone who has a membership contributed the same that he paid for his membership or even half of what he paid it would make that 26% up easily.
>>77853674
Agreed the environmental groups are now open about using propaganda on children and suppressing any counter narrative via government funds.
>>77852544
(((((((Rosenberg))))))
>>77855157
It's hard to explain. You cannot make certain kinds of threats or do an asshole thing like yell fire in a crowded theatre. There is lots of decisions from the years of people fighting about it.
Shit like kkk marches are as protected as cancer walks.
That doesn't mean there are not social consequences if being a cocksucker though.
>>77855721
>or do an asshole thing like yell fire in a crowded theatre
AAAAAAAAACTUALLY
Yeah you can totally do that, it 100% qualifies as protected speech. That particular example is a common misconception.
>>77855927
If I am incorrect I graciously convey my apologies.
Further reading from this source https://www.quora.com/Where-does-funding-for-the-National-Rifle-Association-NRA-come-from
>If someone demanded a simple number, I'd say the NRA is 13% corporate-funded. As best I can tell, that's as likely to be too high as too low and no number is more likely to be close.
>Keep in mind that gun corporations are only some part of that something-like-13% figure, probably closer to 7 or 8% of total NRA revenue.
Liberal gun grabbing shits BTFO
The NRA is funded by the will of the people. Not corporate interests. There is no recovery.
>>77850070
They're doing gods work
Bless them
>>77855318
>sensibility
>on /pol/
where do you think you are?
>>77850070
reminder that nogunz spends many times more paying politicians to take away your rights than the nra spends on anything
The NRA is a moderate organization that doesn't defend gun rights nearly as vigorously or completely as they should.
>>77850070
ill defend it with pic related
![1328102012153[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/0YVzWyH.jpg "1328102012153[1].jpg")
>>77850070
>All those claims
Citation needed
>>77850070
They're funded by their members. Absolutely I want them lobbying to protect my rights when I give them money. If corporations are going to do it I'm happy to have someone doing it on my behalf.
>>77850676
Let's say I have this cake. It is a very nice cake, with "GUN RIGHTS" written across the top in lovely floral icing. Along you come and say, "Give me that cake."
I say, "No, it's my cake."
You say, "Let's compromise. Give me half." I respond by asking what I get out of this compromise, and you reply that I get to keep half of my cake.
Okay, we compromise. Let us call this compromise The National Firearms Act of 1934.
This leaves me with half of my cake and there I am, enjoying my cake when you walk back up and say, "Give me that cake."
I say -- again: "No, it's my cake."
You say, "Let's compromise." What do I get out of this compromise? Why, I get to keep half of what's left of the cake I already own.
So, we compromise -- let us call this one the Gun Control Act of 1968 -- and this time I'm left holding what is now just a quarter of my cake.
And I'm sitting in the corner with my quarter piece of cake, and here you come again. You want my cake. Again.
This time you take several bites -- we'll call this compromise the Clinton Executive Orders -- and I'm left with about a tenth of what has always been MY DAMN CAKE and you've got nine-tenths of it.
Let me restate that: I started out with MY CAKE and you have already 'compromised' me out of ninety percent of MY CAKE ...
... and here you come again. Compromise! ... Lautenberg Act (nibble, nibble). Compromise! ... The HUD/Smith and Wesson agreement (nibble, nibble). Compromise! ... The Brady Law (NOM NOM NOM). Compromise! ... The School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement Act (sweet tap-dancing Freyja, my finger!)
After every one of these "compromises" -- in which I lose rights and you lose NOTHING -- I'm left holding crumbs of what was once a large and satisfying cake, and you're standing there with most of MY CAKE, making anime eyes and whining about being "reasonable", and wondering "why we won't compromise" as you try for the rest of my cake.
>>77852095
Underrated
>>77861960
Works better as a cartoon Sempai
>>77855318
>someone admitting they're wrong
>on the internet
Someone needs to redpill the gays about RKBA
>>77852194
Fuck off Britannia , we believe in freedom of expression regardless of controversy you fascist cunt.
>>77854665
Why does the Centers for Disease Control need to study gun safety? Their job is to prevent diseases from spreading and teaching people how to avoid disease. Should the NRA be involved in studies regarding disease prevention?
I'll dump some pic related for the cause
>>77850070
here's another that's more to OP's point
something racially unifying from the old Dred Scott v Sanford case that was overturned later, if I remember correctly.
no time for pants! grab the tactical teddy and go
in summary...
ban assault stairs
Bd-bd-bd-bd that's all folks!
