• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should the NRA be dissolved if they laundered Russian money for Trump?

The point is they can ban him from running any charity for 10 years. We could do the same with the NRA.

That would violate the 1st Amendment.
 
What is insane is the NRA laundering money for Russian oligarchs.

NRA did that? That's serious. Why no convictions or even indictments?
 
I believe that collusion with an foreign adversary in order to affect the outcome of a U.S. presidential election is a pretty damned good reason to prohibit the NRA from entering the Capital to lobby Congressmen.

Well, HumblePi, I would say it is a good reason to investigate, arrest, try and convict any member of the organization who actually engaged in criminal activities. But I see no reason whatsoever for the government to be given the authority to dissolve a free association of individuals publicly engaging in free speech activity in support of gun ownership rights. Just because you may personally disagree with the organization's absolutist view of the Second Amendment

The NRA took $30 million of Russian oligarch money to buy Congressmen to help elect Trump. After the Parkland massacre, multiple companies have pulled their support of the NRA and that literally is the main reason they're in deep financial trouble now. The mass murders of innocent people aren't helping their popularity, 'bad press' and all that. Here's a list of VALID mainstream websites that clearly state that the NRA is in deep financial straits.

https://nypost.com/2018/08/03/nra-says-its-broke-and-on-the-verge-of-collapse/

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/new-york-other-states-are-targeting-nra-s-bottom-line-n898981

https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-nra-is-losing

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/nra-financial-trouble-706371/

I do not disbelieve this. But what does the NRA's present financial difficulties have to do with past potential criminal activity of some of the organization's leadership?

NRA spokesperson and Super-Nazi Dana Loesch who has referred to journalists as "the rat bastards of the earth" may soon be looking for other jobs to supplement her NRA salary. She's doing commercials now and has been doing spots for a product called 'SuperBeets' which is a beet juice supplement. It's certainly bizarre to me anyway that a woman that defends anyone's rights to own a dozen assault rifles that murdered 158 people at a concert in Las Vegas should be promoting a beet supplement for 'healthy nutrition'.



First, I believe it was 58, not 158. I'll chalk that up to a typo. Second, I have no indication that Dana Loesch is a Nazi, regular, super or otherwise. Unless you simply use the term "Nazi" as a placeholder term to describe anyone you dislike and not as an actual indication of one's ideology.

That aside, I must ask, HumblePi, let us pretend for the sake of argument that none of this possible collusion occurred. Would you still want the NRA as an organization (or any other gun rights lobbying organization) banned or dissolved? Or do you feel this is necessary only because of potential criminal activity by some of their members, and you would call for the same treatment of any organization, including ones you liked, if their members committed the same or similar criminal activities? I ask because this push seems purely pretextual. Am I wrong in my presumption?
 
Well, HumblePi, I would say it is a good reason to investigate, arrest, try and convict any member of the organization who actually engaged in criminal activities. But I see no reason whatsoever for the government to be given the authority to dissolve a free association of individuals publicly engaging in free speech activity in support of gun ownership rights. Just because you may personally disagree with the organization's absolutist view of the Second Amendment



I do not disbelieve this. But what does the NRA's present financial difficulties have to do with past potential criminal activity of some of the organization's leadership?



First, I believe it was 58, not 158. I'll chalk that up to a typo. Second, I have no indication that Dana Loesch is a Nazi, regular, super or otherwise. Unless you simply use the term "Nazi" as a placeholder term to describe anyone you dislike and not as an actual indication of one's ideology.

That aside, I must ask, HumblePi, let us pretend for the sake of argument that none of this possible collusion occurred. Would you still want the NRA as an organization (or any other gun rights lobbying organization) banned or dissolved? Or do you feel this is necessary only because of potential criminal activity by some of their members, and you would call for the same treatment of any organization, including ones you liked, if their members committed the same or similar criminal activities? I ask because this push seems purely pretextual. Am I wrong in my presumption?

Although I consider them to be in violation of U.S. Law regarding conspiracy, I do have to wonder how harsh the penalties for such treachery should be. I simply feel that any traitor, whether it's a president or a big organization like the NRA, should at the very least be sanctioned in some way. In 1953 Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were put to death by electrocution after their convictions for conspiracy to commit espionage against the U.S.

Obviously times have changed and it seems that because of the weakness of the government to take acts of conspiracy and espionage as seriously as it did in 1953, the outcomes can only be harmful and threatening to a democracy. It's quite obvious that if none of these things actually occurred there is no crime and the question of punishment would become a moot point.
 
Back
Top Bottom