New York sues to break up NRA, accuses it of corruption

[Logosone]

34 minutes ago, Phoenix Rising said:

You're claiming categorically that "this compelling evidence not exist". You're not implying this, you're stating it as a fact.

Are you gonna back up your claims or should I regard it as your personal opinion disguised as facts?

I have of course done no such thing, I have merely asked people if they have evidence of the NRA's supposed money laundering. I note not a single poster, not one, could adduce any credible evidence the NRA engaged in money laundering. Not one.

 

I have never said such evidence does not exist, but asked if anyone had evidence of NRA money laundering. Nobody did.

 

So, given that the NRA has not been convincted of any crime of money laundering so far and no evidence has been adduced so far, the position seems clear.

 

 

[Logosone]

33 minutes ago, Phoenix Rising said:

LOL, you seem to think that those are valid arguments for the present gun laws. You're wrong.

 

"You seem to think that people can't get hold of guns heroin against the law. You're wrong."

 

Still a valid argument?

Of course it's still a valid argument.

 

I'm a libertarian and view the current drug laws as in dire need of reform. 

 

The fact that despite a blanket ban heroin is still a major problem proves very clearly that the over-restrictive laws some mental midgets want to put in place for guns would not make guns disappear, just as the blanket drugs ban has not made drugs disappear.

 

Just look at Portugal who handles the issue very sensibly.

[stevenl]

19 hours ago, Logosone said:

You are wrong as always. He did:

 

"Oh, I see.  You mean the NRA is like a shell corporation laundering money."

 

Is what he wrote. Now the NRA is not laundering money. And it certainly is not a corporation.

 

Maybe read the thread before you post nonsense.

 

7 minutes ago, Logosone said:

I have of course done no such thing, I have merely asked people if they have evidence of the NRA's supposed money laundering. I note not a single poster, not one, could adduce any credible evidence the NRA engaged in money laundering. Not one.

 

I have never said such evidence does not exist, but asked if anyone had evidence of NRA money laundering. Nobody did.

 

So, given that the NRA has not been convincted of any crime of money laundering so far and no evidence has been adduced so far, the position seems clear.

 

 

So when you said "the NRA is not laundering money" you didn't claim the NRA didn't launder' money. All clear.

[animalmagic]

10 minutes ago, stevenl said:

  19 hours ago, Logosone said:

You are wrong as always. He did:

 

"Oh, I see.  You mean the NRA is like a shell corporation laundering money."

 

Is what he wrote. Now the NRA is not laundering money. And it certainly is not a corporation.

 

Maybe read the thread before you post nonsense.

My words of 'you mean the NRA is like a shell corporation laundering money' was, even in the absence of a question mark, quite clearly a question to you to clarify if the NRA was indeed like a shell corporation laundering money.  It was not a claim nor was it an allegation requiring evidence to be produced to an investigator.

Similarly, your comment of 'Now the NRA is not laundering money.'  is also not a claim but more a statement of fact from you.

As you provided the categorical statement of fact that the NRA is not laundering money, please do provide your evidence.

[Bkk Brian]

4 hours ago, Logosone said:

 

It is absolutely wonderful that there are so many gun shows in the US. Indeed there are many thousands of gun shows world wide, in every single country in the world, from Sweden to Japan to Ireland to Hong Kong.

 

I have been to many gun shows have you ever gone to one? Wonderful affairs with rare and beautiful rifles guns, knives, swords and sabres, with knowledgeable experts and buyers looking at old historic weapons, new and innovative companies showing off their latest new inventions. You don't know what you're missing.

 

Of course there should be gun fairs because many millions of people collect guns and use guns for sport. What would give you the idea that gun shows are a problem or somehow related to gun crime? They are not, every gun sold at a gun show is documented and sold only to people who have the required paperwork to own guns.

 

You seem to think that it's a free for all in terms of gun ownership in the US. Nothing could be further from the truth.

 

Here is a list of just the federal laws regulating gun ownership, distribution and manufcature in the US:

 

So, yes, there is very sensible legislation in place in the US.

Its difficult to debate with a Libertarian and one who promotes guns. Coming from the UK, I have a very different cultural background on this and that obviously gives me a general bias to the whole gun ownership debate. However setting that aside I'm happy with that bias as I really don't believe the US gun laws are in any way shape or form appropriate.

 

Gun shows for the masses that they have in the US are a very different thing than military/defense equipment shows that are displayed worldwide.

 

I do believe indeed that there is a correlation between these gun shows and the purchase of guns for crime. The "Gun Show Loop Hole" should give you a clue to this. All you need is cash and ID, no declarations and you can buy a gun, as many as you want. If anyone wants a gun they can get it and bypass then normal and lax declaration that normally has to be filled out.

 

However those that pass the declaration conditions and buy weapons legally are still the ones that inflict the most mass shootings in the US https://www.statista.com/statistics/476461/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-legality-of-shooters-weapons/

 

If the gun laws were so good why are the amount of gun related murders increasing yearly? https://www.statista.com/statistics/249783/percentage-of-homicides-by-firearm-in-the-united-states/

 

Here's a BBC vid showing a typical US gun show and how easy it is to buy weapons with no declaration, just cash and a driving license.

 

 

 

 

 

[Phoenix Rising]

51 minutes ago, Logosone said:

I have of course done no such thing, I have merely asked people if they have evidence of the NRA's supposed money laundering. I note not a single poster, not one, could adduce any credible evidence the NRA engaged in money laundering. Not one.

 

I have never said such evidence does not exist, but asked if anyone had evidence of NRA money laundering. Nobody did.

 

So, given that the NRA has not been convincted of any crime of money laundering so far and no evidence has been adduced so far, the position seems clear.

 

 

"I have of course done no such thing, I have merely asked people if they have evidence of the NRA's supposed money laundering. I note not a single poster, not one, could adduce any credible evidence the NRA engaged in money laundering. Not one."

 

Are you actually asking posters on a forum for evidence only the prosecutor in the case will have? What's the point. increasing your post count??

 

"So, given that the NRA has not been convincted of any crime of money laundering so far and no evidence has been adduced so far, the position seems clear."

 

What position is that? That the NRA is technically innocent until proven guilty in a court of law? We all know that but that doesn't mean no evidence exists and that they won't be found guilty so again, what's your point?

 

 

[RANGER55]

On 8/7/2020 at 5:16 PM, unblocktheplanet said:

About <deleted> time! The NRA has been responsible for more 'legal' unregistered gun sales than any other group, including automatic & assault weaponry, including silencers. This is not a Constitutional argument. The need for private citizens or militias to bear arms ended in the 19th century.

Wrong, it’s virtually impossible to legally own an automatic weapon. You may be confusing semi with auto. The checks and money you have to go through is almost impossible. Any reason, even a DUI, the ATF will decline your request.

Same for a silencer, Florida: You pay a gun shop $200 just to submit the application. It goes to the ATF, again they may or may not approve, if disapproved you lose your $200. It goes with a specific gun and same rules apply with sale/ transfer as an automatic weapon. I went to my local shop and inquired about a silencer for my 22 auto rife. Use to hunt coyotes and hogs. After he went over the application, plus a 12 month or more back log with the ATF I said not worth it even with my Florida CC permit.

 

 

Maybe you are confusing when the AG for Obama, Holder was sending thousands of automatic weapons (Operation Fast and Furious), to include 50 cal. To the Mexica drug cartel. Holder lied under oath May 3. 2011, saying he just found out about it. Come to find out he had discussed it at least 10 months prior. They let him go back and correct his testimony and not charge him for lying under oath. Go figure!

 

Federal Law

The National Firearms Act defines a machine gun as a weapon that can fire more than one shot for each pull of the trigger. The law took effect on Nov. 1, 1981 and said, in effect, that no one could buy a new machine gun after that date. A number of citizens already owned machine guns. The law said that those individuals had to register their weapons with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF). The law states that the citizen who owns a machine gun legally must get ATF approval in order to sell it or carry it over state lines. An excise fee of $200 must be paid whenever a legally owned machine gun is sold or transferred to another person.

Edited August 8, 2020 by RANGER55

[RANGER55]

On 8/7/2020 at 2:01 PM, J Town said:

OK. You must be right and the NYAG must be wrong. Thank you for straightening all this out.

One think for sure, she is sticking to her election promise which was only one, GET TRUMP.

She can’t be to bright, even the democrats are saying this was absolutely a stupid move months before the election. All those democrats and independents in those swing states that own guns. She may please NY but its not in play. Keep it up, You morons are going to get Trump reelected yet!

 

She needs to worry about NY, murders, car jacking, robbery's, needles on the street. Some crimes up 200%. Looks like she needs to work on that. Then the governor Cuomo would not have to make a commercial literally bagging the millionaires to come back to NY. Last week, commercial (come-on back, let me buy you a cup of coffee or lunch, come back to NY!!!!!!

 

Out of her!

[J Town]

13 minutes ago, RANGER55 said:

One think for sure, she is sticking to her election promise which was only one, GET TRUMP.

She can’t be to bright, even the democrats are saying this was absolutely a stupid move months before the election. All those democrats and independents in those swing states that own guns. She may please NY but its not in play. Keep it up, You morons are going to get Trump reelected yet!

 

She needs to worry about NY, murders, car jacking, robbery's, needles on the street. Some crimes up 200%. Looks like she needs to work on that. Then the governor Cuomo would not have to make a commercial literally bagging the millionaires to come back to NY. Last week, commercial (come-on back, let me buy you a cup of coffee or lunch, come back to NY!!!!!!

 

Out of her!

"You morons are going to get [45] elected"

Lets face it - people who will vote for 45 will not be dissuaded, regardless of evidence provided to them.

As well, people who will vote against 45 cannot be dissuaded by any means.

 

So the target audience to sway one way or the other is those on the fence. If it is shown that supporters of 45 are criminal in their intent, they may be persuaded to vote their conscience. 

[Cryingdick]

2 hours ago, J Town said:

"You morons are going to get [45] elected"

Lets face it - people who will vote for 45 will not be dissuaded, regardless of evidence provided to them.

As well, people who will vote against 45 cannot be dissuaded by any means.

 

So the target audience to sway one way or the other is those on the fence. If it is shown that supporters of 45 are criminal in their intent, they may be persuaded to vote their conscience. 

 

People as always will vote for what is best for them economically. That doesn't bode will for Biden in the swing states reliant on energy. He has done his best to tell them he will put them out of jobs. There are large regions of the country that the green narrative is a disaster for and much of it is swing states. 

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

7 hours ago, Cryingdick said:

 

People as always will vote for what is best for them economically. That doesn't bode will for Biden in the swing states reliant on energy. He has done his best to tell them he will put them out of jobs. There are large regions of the country that the green narrative is a disaster for and much of it is swing states. 

 

 

And yet the polls show the swing States swinging towards Biden.

 

 

[cmarshall]

I applaud NY AG Tish James for breaking up the NRA, but in the long run the gun manufacturers whose funding enabled the NRA to serve as their propaganda arm, will create some other "independent, non-profit" organization to carry their water for them.  

 

It's hard to stop the influence of money in a plutocracy.

[Stargeezr]

If the NRA has not fired its ecxecs and other corrupt people, then the organization is corrupt and should be dissolved or shut down for that alone.  Being too powerful and swaying voters is another form of corruption as well. Bye NRA.

Geezer

[Greenside]

On 8/7/2020 at 8:43 PM, Logosone said:

The NRA is not a company.

 

And of course that's completely false. When Carlos Ghosn was accused of misappropriating funds it was him personally that was indicted, not Nissan.

You're right (but nitpicking): using charity assets for personal gain in any way is, if anything, even worse and the decisive factor is whether the organisation knew and approved whatever is cited as misuse. 

[Scott]

Off-topic post and reply removed.