It's on right now.
Oh no, they did not. They are a wholesome organization, looking out for our best interests. They do not exist only to make huge sums of money in a very profitable business. They are a true, grassroots organization who is hurting for money, and needs more just to stay afloat. Because they are fighting the good fight. All for us. Frenchie Boy and Chris Cocks are just trying to make a decent living so they can get up every day with a clear conscience that they are not duping a whole bunch of very gullible people who keep merely lining their pockets.
I disagree. Fool is defined as "a person who acts unwisely or imprudently". I think it's a fitting word for those who continue to fund the NRA.I've not renewed in a while. I probably think you should curb your verbal assault on the good members here who have chosen to support them. Calling them fools is not a good thing.
I prefer think of them as gullible, rather than the harsh and hurtful word foolish. Last time I joined the NRA, it was just to up their membership roster by one, for political clout. Not to give them money, which they most certainly do not need. But I have come to realize that me lining their pockets further goes against my principles too much. Especially when they sell us out, just so they can make more money. But that is one of the things that made America - getting rich by convincing people to fall for gimmicks.I disagree. Fool is defined as "a person who acts unwisely or imprudently". I think it's a fitting word for those who continue to fund the NRA.
Your money is being used to undermine gun rights. You're no fool, but funding an organization actively working with the President, ATF and DOJ to institute a new ban as the solution for mass shootings is fool-ish.I am an NRA member. No, I do not support everything the NRA, especially the NRA-ILA does. I don't send extra donations to the NRA-ILA.
I do support them for their support of the Boy Scouts, training programs, safety programs, and competitions.
This does not make me a fool.
Presidential Memorandum on the Application of the Definition of Machinegun to "Bump Fire" Stocks and Other Similar Devices
Issued on: February 20, 2018
After the deadly mass murder in Las Vegas, Nevada, on October 1, 2017, I asked my Administration to fully review how the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives regulates bump fire stocks and similar devices.
Although the Obama Administration repeatedly concluded that particular bump stock type devices were lawful to purchase and possess, I sought further clarification of the law restricting fully automatic machineguns.
Accordingly, following established legal protocols, the Department of Justice started the process of promulgating a Federal regulation interpreting the definition of "machinegun" under Federal law to clarify whether certain bump stock type devices should be illegal. The Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was published in the Federal Register on December 26, 2017. Public comment concluded on January 25, 2018, with the Department of Justice receiving over 100,000 comments.
Today, I am directing the Department of Justice to dedicate all available resources to complete the review of the comments received, and, as expeditiously as possible, to propose for notice and comment a rule banning all devices that turn legal weapons into machineguns.
Although I desire swift and decisive action, I remain committed to the rule of law and to the procedures the law prescribes. Doing this the right way will ensure that the resulting regulation is workable and effective and leaves no loopholes for criminals to exploit. I would ask that you keep me regularly apprised of your progress.
You are authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal Register.
DONALD J. TRUMP
May be fitting but possibly alienating also considering the fact that we here are assumed to be on the same page in regards to gun rights. I guess you can put forth some alternatives to the NRA rather than just calling NRA supporters fools.I disagree. Fool is defined as "a person who acts unwisely or imprudently". I think it's a fitting word for those who continue to fund the NRA.
I get it, people don't want to be called a "fool" since apparently it's a "harsh" and "hurtful" (Really? If so, this is pussification to the highest level), but if you were to say, "it is unwise to support the NRA" or "it is imprudent to support the NRA", is the meaning different? I don't think that it is. I am not going to argue semantics and I don't think the word "fool" is alienating. We all do support gun rights...that doesn't mean that we will agree on how that accomplished.May be fitting but possibly alienating also considering the fact that we here are assumed to be on the same page in regards to gun rights. I guess you can put forth some alternatives to the NRA rather than just calling NRA supporters fools.