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?