NY Attorney General Moves To Dissolve The NRA

[D Luniz]

*snip*

That is for their members to decide.

HAHAHHA, no
You lost the ability to hide behind "that's for the members to decide", like anyone would believe your "I have no opinion as to if the NRA did nothing" answers, when you claimed the case was only due to politics

So answer the question, or by refusal give a succinct answer, admit you either think they did nothing wrong (based on your constant claims that nothing should be happening to the NRA) or you just that you lack the conviction to speak for yourself by hoping that you can use the NRA membership as a shield.

so as I asked before,

Do you feel the NRA managed all the money properly?

[Kellhound]

*LOUD ANNOYING BUZZER*

Still didn't read the NY AG's post, I see. The one that says "these are the laws that were broken".

When a state AG brings a court case, they don't just go up to the judge and say "vendetta". The point to statute, with specific examples.

You are claiming they're not allowed to do that.

Stop defending literal fraud.

Yes , you are usually as grating as a loud annoying buzzer.

1: Why they are doing it matters, as does the extent they go to destroy a target.
2: I am saying they shouldn't be able to do it. I have no issues going after people, I do not agree with going after an entire organization unless it can be shown the only reason it exists is fraudulent.
3: I am defending an organization's right to exist.

[postman1782]

Yes , you are usually as grating as a loud annoying buzzer.

1: Why they are doing it matters, as does the extent they go to destroy a target.
2: I am saying they shouldn't be able to do it. I have no issues going after people, I do not agree with going after an entire organization unless it can be shown the only reason it exists is fraudulent.
3: I am defending an organization's right to exist.

Considering that the only reason that organization still exists, is because of gullible people think that the government is coming for their guns and taking in donations, for their board members to use illegally, then yean they need to be shut down. The fact that they didn't return the $30+ million that Russia gave them, to help get Trump elected in 2016, means they DESERVE to be bankrupted, shutdown, and probably have the people like La Pierre lucky he might not end up in jail for the shit he did with the money illegally.

[Kellhound]

The good old "Free market will handle it!"

Did you just like, not take history class? Or is your memory retention that bad?

Carpet baggers and other dubious salesmen would hawk snake oil and other shit products onto their customers, who were convinced that it worked even when it really didn't. There were even cases where these phony merchants would sell stuff like toothpaste that rotted your teeth, but the people using it were dumb enough to hang onto it because they felt a "loyalty" to this product or person, and attributed their malady to someone else.

Sorry, your ideals of "The magic hand of the free market" or whatever you call it here, being a remedy to everything, is not just wrong but disgusting as well. People are getting scammed, but their loyalty to a political cause is making them line up to defend their scammers. Why should a scamming organization be able to continue to operate, simply because their members are too stupid to realize they've been scammed?

The only reason YOU'RE saying NY is doing it for political reasons, is because you defend the NRA purely for political reasons. If this was some left wing organization scamming people, you'd be all for the government shutting them down, and we know it. Stop carrying water for scammers purely because of political reasons. But again, that's how Republicans operate. They project their own shortcomings on everyone else. Simply because YOU'RE motivated by political agendas doesn't mean everyone else is. Stop projecting your faults onto others.


You remember all of those hundreds of posts where you've said you're for law and order? Yeah, we all get to sit here and laugh at you for being a political tool. The NRA is COMMITTING CRIMES and you don't want the government to shut them down for it. So much for law and order.

We get to point to this thread as one of the single cases in the massive pile where it's clear you don't give two shits about law and order when it's politically inconvenient for you.

I have not said individuals should not be held accountable for breaking the law.

If you get what you wanted out of a transaction, can you actually be scammed?

If it was a left wing organization, I would defend its right to exist as well. Cuomo has made it well know his desire to destroy the NRA, hard to claim it is a non-partisan action when that is exactly what the state is trying to do.

I do believe in law and order, with personal responsibility being the key. I am not one to attack an organization for destruction because of the actions of individuals unless the sole purpose of the organization is criminal.

- - - Updated - - -

How are you holding these people responsible? What did NRA do, to the perpetrators?

Hmmm.... by not objecting to NY taking action against individuals?

- - - Updated - - -

No, they are going after the entire organization because, as you so rightly have pointed out repeatedly, the membership supports criminal acts.

If that is the bar, kiss pretty much every union goodbye.

- - - Updated - - -

HAHAHHA, no
You lost the ability to hide behind "that's for the members to decide", like anyone would believe your "I have no opinion as to if the NRA did nothing" answers, when you claimed the case was only due to politics

So answer the question, or by refusal give a succinct answer, admit you either think they did nothing wrong (based on your constant claims that nothing should be happening to the NRA) or you just that you lack the conviction to speak for yourself by hoping that you can use the NRA membership as a shield.

so as I asked before,

Do you feel the NRA managed all the money properly?

I do not think there is an organization in history that managed all of its money properly.

- - - Updated - - -

Considering that the only reason that organization still exists, is because of gullible people think that the government is coming for their guns and taking in donations, for their board members to use illegally, then yean they need to be shut down. The fact that they didn't return the $30+ million that Russia gave them, to help get Trump elected in 2016, means they DESERVE to be bankrupted, shutdown, and probably have the people like La Pierre lucky he might not end up in jail for the shit he did with the money illegally.

So, the Democrats have no intention of passing any laws that will have a negative impact on legal gun owners?

[postman1782]

So, the Democrats have no intention of passing any laws that will have a negative impact on legal gun owners?

So far, the only thing proposed, is requiring a background check on every purchase or sale. Someone shouldn't be selling guns at a gun show, or someone else without a background check. If you know you can't pass a background check, and go to these shows knowing you can buy a gun, because you have mental illness, then you technically aren't a legal gun owner.

[Kellhound]

So far, the only thing proposed, is requiring a background check on every purchase or sale. Someone shouldn't be selling guns at a gun show, or someone else without a background check. If you know you can't pass a background check, and go to these shows knowing you can buy a gun, because you have mental illness, then you technically aren't a legal gun owner.

So, you are saying the Democrats would agree to make no further laws against firearms so long as they got universal background checks? I'm sure that would win massive bipartisan approval. Why haven't they proposed this????

[draynay]

massive bipartisan approval

What kind of pie-in-the-sky fantasy nonsense is this?

[postman1782]

So, you are saying the Democrats would agree to make no further laws against firearms so long as they got universal background checks? I'm sure that would win massive bipartisan approval. Why haven't they proposed this????

They have proposed this, hell, it was fucking proposed under Obama. And Mitch McConnell literally never heard the bill.

[Lynarii]

If that is the bar, kiss pretty much every union goodbye.

Citation needed. I'd like to see some proof that the current leadership of 'pretty much every union' is committing criminal activities with the knowledge and support of the membership.

And frankly? The ones that are (and I'm sure that there are indeed some that are)? SHOULD be dissolved as well. If a union boss is breaking laws and committing fraud, the membership should absolutely either vote them out or leave the union, not doing either makes them culpable accomplices in the illegal activities. I support unions in general, but I do NOT support criminal organizations, and I don't give criminals a pass if they're on my side of politics.

Also, while Cuomo is indeed not a very good person, he also doesn't get to dictate the results of the investigation and the decisions by the judges. His intentions, pure or not, are irrelevant to the facts of the case.

[Felya]

Hmmm.... by not objecting to NY taking action against individuals?

Aren’t they incorporated?

- - - Updated - - -

So, you are saying the Democrats would agree to make no further laws against firearms so long as they got universal background checks? I'm sure that would win massive bipartisan approval. Why haven't they proposed this????

Oh hell no... that would never happen... no way... no how... it would not only get 0 support from GOP, it might cost Democrats their seats. Munchin would be fucked...

[Kellhound]

What kind of pie-in-the-sky fantasy nonsense is this?

Oh I know it is fantasy that the Dems would agree to this.

- - - Updated - - -

They have proposed this, hell, it was fucking proposed under Obama. And Mitch McConnell literally never heard the bill.

No they haven't. They may have put universal background checks forward, but they have not pledged to go no further.

[Stormspellz]

So, you are saying the Democrats would agree to make no further laws against firearms so long as they got universal background checks? I'm sure that would win massive bipartisan approval. Why haven't they proposed this????

they have, its been blocked literally every time and yes it has massive public bipartisan approval, republican legislators don't care.

No they haven't. They may have put universal background checks forward, but they have not pledged to go no further.

oh fuk off with this line of thinking

[Kellhound]

Citation needed. I'd like to see some proof that the current leadership of 'pretty much every union' is committing criminal activities with the knowledge and support of the membership.

And frankly? The ones that are (and I'm sure that there are indeed some that are)? SHOULD be dissolved as well. If a union boss is breaking laws and committing fraud, the membership should absolutely either vote them out or leave the union, not doing either makes them culpable accomplices in the illegal activities. I support unions in general, but I do NOT support criminal organizations, and I don't give criminals a pass if they're on my side of politics.

Also, while Cuomo is indeed not a very good person, he also doesn't get to dictate the results of the investigation and the decisions by the judges. His intentions, pure or not, are irrelevant to the facts of the case.

How many unions charge more than it actually costs to administrate an agreement? Does the actual cost increase with the pay scale of an individual?

- - - Updated - - -

Aren’t they incorporated?

- - - Updated - - -



Oh hell no... that would never happen... no way... no how... it would not only get 0 support from GOP, it might cost Democrats their seats. Munchin would be fucked...

I don't believe in corporations being a "person". It is one of the stupidest things ever.

Oh, it would get massive support from the GOP, but it would be DOA with Dems.

- - - Updated - - -

they have, its been blocked literally every time and yes it has massive public bipartisan approval, republican legislators don't care.



oh fuk off with this line of thinking

When you know the opposition will never stop, you have no incentive to agree to anything.

[Stormspellz]

When you know the opposition will never stop, you have no incentive to agree to anything.

nice roundabout way to excuse obstruction - sounds good until you put 3 sec of thought behind it.

[Kellhound]

nice roundabout way to excuse obstruction - sounds good until you put 3 sec of thought behind it.

Ok, what incentive do they have to agree with it? The knowledge they will have to defend against more anti-gun laws until US laws look like the UK's? There is no give and take, just take.

[Stormspellz]

Ok, what incentive do they have to agree with it? The knowledge they will have to defend against more anti-gun laws until US laws look like the UK's? There is no give and take, just take.

republicans are the last people with any credibility about literally anything, but to answer the question, the overwhelming public bipartisan support for it is enough, if they are afraid of further legislation you know they can obstruct those the same as they obstruct nearly everything they are doing now.

[postman1782]

Oh I know it is fantasy that the Dems would agree to this.

- - - Updated - - -



No they haven't. They may have put universal background checks forward, but they have not pledged to go no further.

Yes, they have. https://www.vox.com/2021/3/11/223197...hompson-murphy

They have literally passed it fucking twice.

[Muzjhath]

How many unions charge more than it actually costs to administrate an agreement? Does the actual cost increase with the pay scale of an individual?

Unions charge more than administrational costs so that they have a slush-fund they can use to pay their members if they ever need to strike. It's the main idea of a union, to use the capital of the union to support the members if they need to strike but still need to pay for food and rent.
The fact that you might not know this just shows that you are uneducated on how unions work and why they exist.

[pathora44]

Oh, it would get massive support from the GOP, but it would be DOA with Dems.

Are you suggesting that GOP political body from the State to the Federal levels would ever sign off on stricter gun control laws of any kind? If you truly believe that then man do I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn. Republicans as a whole will never go for any stricter gun control laws and in fact want to abolish already existing gun control laws. Hell Texas is working on and other states have passed unliscensed open carry laws in there states so people can be strapped wherever they go in the state. Any shooting no matter how big or tragic Republicans refuse to budge. Hell after Sandy Hook and an entire First Grade class was murdered by a single guy with a gun Republicans as a whole shrugged their shoulders and proclaimed to the world "We already offered thoughts and prayers, what more could be done?" then went off to wag their fingers in shame at Democrats for "politicizing" the massacre of an entire First Grade Class.

[Lynarii]

How many unions charge more than it actually costs to administrate an agreement? Does the actual cost increase with the pay scale of an individual

You.... you what mate? You're accusing all unions of being criminal for violating laws that only exist in your head? That isn't how it works. That's not how ANY of this works.