Should the NRA be banned as a terrorist organization?

Should the NRAbe banned?


  • Total voters
    11
Jun 2019
73
44
CA
I wouldn't call the NRA a terrorist org. I think they should be stopped from their political activities, but terrorism is something else. I could be wrong though.
You're right about them not being a terrorist organization. It's an abuse of the English language to say they are. You are free to disagree with their views, but they have every right under the First Amendment to express them.

There has been talk of being able to pass laws that end the powers of Citizens United. One possibility includes a declaration that speech is verbal, vocal, and printed words, and that money is not speech.
That's going to be tough to do, given that the Supreme Court has already ruled that policial contributions are free speech. I don't agree with that, but I understand the difference between my opinion and what the law is. Passing a law won't cut it; it would take a constitutional amendment to change it. I don't see that happening.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gdjjr
Sep 2019
695
194
NYC
The only thing the NRA terrorizes is my mailbox.


It is the height of anti-americanism to declare the oldest civil rights group terrorists.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gdjjr
Feb 2018
614
286
Oregon
You're right about them not being a terrorist organization. It's an abuse of the English language to say they are. You are free to disagree with their views, but they have every right under the First Amendment to express them.
The 1st Amendment applies to PEOPLE. The NRA is not a person.

That's going to be tough to do, given that the Supreme Court has already ruled that policial contributions are free speech. I don't agree with that, but I understand the difference between my opinion and what the law is. Passing a law won't cut it; it would take a constitutional amendment to change it. I don't see that happening.
People much more knowledgeable of law than you or I have said laws could correct it.
 
Sep 2019
695
194
NYC
The 1st Amendment applies to PEOPLE. The NRA is not a person.
So the NAACP has no right to free speech?

Insert any other civil rights group.... these are groups, groups of... wait for it... people. The people in the groups make the statements... they have 1st amendment protections.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gdjjr
Jun 2019
73
44
CA
The 1st Amendment applies to PEOPLE. The NRA is not a person.
This is a pretty weak argument, considering that SCOTUS has already ruled that corporation's cash contributions are covered by free speech. By your argument, the NAACP, the ACLU, the Democratic National Committee do not have a right of free speech, yet clearly they do.

It's easy to recognize the right of free speech for organizations you agree with. The true test of one's commitment to free speech is recognizing that organizations you disagree with have it too.

People much more knowledgeable of law than you or I have said laws could correct it.
"They" said so is also pretty weak. How about some citations and supporting arguments?
 
  • Like
Reactions: LTP
Feb 2018
614
286
Oregon
This is a pretty weak argument, considering that SCOTUS has already ruled that corporation's cash contributions are covered by free speech.
But we know that's bullshit. And that is one part of Citizens United that can be overridden by a new law.

By your argument, the NAACP, the ACLU, the Democratic National Committee do not have a right of free speech, yet clearly they do.
So my argument isn't perfect, but I have no doubt that legislators can produce a law the gets it done.
 
Jun 2019
73
44
CA
But we know that's bullshit. And that is one part of Citizens United that can be overridden by a new law.
We agree that unlimited corporate political spending is a bad idea, but that's just our opinion. The Citizens United case challenged an existing law, the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, that limited such spending. SCOTUS ruled that the law was unconstitutional, that corporate political spending was free speech. That's how it stands now, our opinions notwithstanding. A new law to do the same thing would be just as unconstitutional.

So my argument isn't perfect, but I have no doubt that legislators can produce a law the gets it done.
What you seem to be looking for is free speech only for organizations that you agree with. It doesn't work like that. Free speech applies to everybody, including the NRA.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gdjjr
Aug 2019
571
512
Albuquerque, NM
No, but their tax exempt status has to go. NO only are tehy influential in politics, they even worked with foreign adversary.
 
  • Like
Reactions: se7en
Jun 2019
73
44
CA
No, but their tax exempt status has to go. NO only are tehy influential in politics, they even worked with foreign adversary.
The NRA only has a tax exempt status for the gun safety and marksmanship branch. There are separate organizations for lobbying and political contributions that are NOT tax exempt.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gdjjr
Feb 2018
614
286
Oregon
We agree that unlimited corporate political spending is a bad idea, but that's just our opinion. The Citizens United case challenged an existing law, the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, that limited such spending. SCOTUS ruled that the law was unconstitutional, that corporate political spending was free speech. That's how it stands now, our opinions notwithstanding. A new law to do the same thing would be just as unconstitutional.


What you seem to be looking for is free speech only for organizations that you agree with. It doesn't work like that. Free speech applies to everybody, including the NRA.
Bullshit. I'm looking to solve problems.