Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

House Democrats have offered to exempt the National Rifle Association from a sweeping campaign-finance bill, removing a major obstacle in the push to roll back the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling.


The NRA had objected to some of the strict financial disclosure provisions that Democrats have proposed for corporations and politically active nonprofits and that had kept moderate, pro-gun Democrats from backing the legislation.


But if the NRA signs off on the deal, the bill could come to the House floor as early as this week. The NRA said it would not comment until specific legislative language is revealed.

Equal protection anyone? This stinks and perfectly illustrates back door deals. I thought they had more morals. They are perfectly willing to throw out the principle. I'm so glad they aren't getting any more money from me.

AZGrizFan wrote:They are LOBBYISTS. It's what they DO. And it's because of shenanigans like this that the NRA has never gotten a DIME of my money.

93henfan wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:They are LOBBYISTS. It's what they DO. And it's because of shenanigans like this that the NRA has never gotten a DIME of my money.

+1, and I'm about as wacko pro-gun as it gets.

AZGrizFan wrote:

93henfan wrote:
+1, and I'm about as wacko pro-gun as it gets.

As am I...

mainejeff wrote:I own guns in case any of you come to my door uninvited.

93henfan wrote:

mainejeff wrote:I own guns in case any of you come to my door uninvited.

Mainejeff: right-wing nut job.

Col Hogan wrote:

93henfan wrote:
Mainejeff: right-wing nut job.

Just remember....most anti-2A folks aren't against owning guns themselves...they just don't want anyone else to own them...

mainejeff wrote:

Col Hogan wrote:
Just remember....most anti-2A folks aren't against owning guns themselves...they just don't want anyone else to own them...

NO ONE is taking MY guns!

native wrote:Now, as a liberal, can you shoot?

Are you willing to pul the trigger?

AZGrizFan wrote:

93henfan wrote:
+1, and I'm about as wacko pro-gun as it gets.

As am I...

mainejeff wrote:

native wrote:Now, as a liberal, can you shoot?

Are you willing to pul the trigger?

Come on over (unannounced) and you'll find out.

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
As am I...

Great, another bunch of white, crazy rednecks with guns...............

93henfan wrote:

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:

Great, another bunch of white, crazy rednecks with guns...............

Let me make sure I have all your name-calling tallied from your various posts:

1. I'm a white, crazy redneck because I own a gun.
2. I'm a racist black because I voted for Obama.

You'll see in another thread where I admit I shop at Wal-Mart, so I guess I'm a penny-pinching Jew too?

93henfan wrote:

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:

Great, another bunch of white, crazy rednecks with guns...............

Let me make sure I have all your name-calling tallied from your various posts:

1. I'm a white, crazy redneck because I own a gun.
2. I'm a racist black because I voted for Obama.

You'll see in another thread where I admit I shop at Wal-Mart, so I guess I'm a penny-pinching Jew too?

Statement From The National Rifle
Association On H.R. 5175, The Disclose Act

The National Rifle Association believes that any restrictions on the political speech of Americans are unconstitutional.
In the past, through the courts and in Congress, the NRA has opposed any effort to restrict the rights of its four million members to speak and have their voices heard on behalf of gun owners nationwide.
The NRA's opposition to restrictions on political speech includes its May 26, 2010 letter to Members of Congress expressing strong concerns about H.R. 5175, the DISCLOSE Act. As it stood at the time of that letter, the measure would have undermined or obliterated virtually all of the NRA's right to free political speech and, therefore, jeopardized the Second Amendment rights of every law-abiding American.
The most potent defense of the Second Amendment requires the most adamant exercise of the First Amendment. The NRA stands absolutely obligated to its members to ensure maximum access to the First Amendment, in order to protect and preserve the freedom of the Second Amendment.
The NRA must preserve its ability to speak. It cannot risk a strategy that would deny its rights, for the Second Amendment cannot be defended without them.
Thus, the NRA's first obligation must be to its members and to its most ardent defense of firearms freedom for America's lawful gun owners.
On June 14, 2010, Democratic leadership in the U.S. House of Representatives pledged that H.R. 5175 would be amended to exempt groups like the NRA, that meet certain criteria, from its onerous restrictions on political speech. As a result, and as long as that remains the case, the NRA will not be involved in final consideration of the House bill.
The NRA cannot defend the Second Amendment from the attacks we face in the local, state, federal, international and judicial arenas without the ability to speak. We will not allow ourselves to be silenced while the national news media, politicians and others are allowed to attack us freely.
The NRA will continue to fight for its right to speak out in defense of the Second Amendment. Any efforts to silence the political speech of NRA members will, as has been the case in the past, be met with strong opposition.

GSUhooligan wrote:Here is the NRA's message to its members:

Statement From The National Rifle
Association On H.R. 5175, The Disclose Act

The National Rifle Association believes that any restrictions on the political speech of Americans are unconstitutional.
In the past, through the courts and in Congress, the NRA has opposed any effort to restrict the rights of its four million members to speak and have their voices heard on behalf of gun owners nationwide.
The NRA's opposition to restrictions on political speech includes its May 26, 2010 letter to Members of Congress expressing strong concerns about H.R. 5175, the DISCLOSE Act. As it stood at the time of that letter, the measure would have undermined or obliterated virtually all of the NRA's right to free political speech and, therefore, jeopardized the Second Amendment rights of every law-abiding American.
The most potent defense of the Second Amendment requires the most adamant exercise of the First Amendment. The NRA stands absolutely obligated to its members to ensure maximum access to the First Amendment, in order to protect and preserve the freedom of the Second Amendment.
The NRA must preserve its ability to speak. It cannot risk a strategy that would deny its rights, for the Second Amendment cannot be defended without them.
Thus, the NRA's first obligation must be to its members and to its most ardent defense of firearms freedom for America's lawful gun owners.
On June 14, 2010, Democratic leadership in the U.S. House of Representatives pledged that H.R. 5175 would be amended to exempt groups like the NRA, that meet certain criteria, from its onerous restrictions on political speech. As a result, and as long as that remains the case, the NRA will not be involved in final consideration of the House bill.
The NRA cannot defend the Second Amendment from the attacks we face in the local, state, federal, international and judicial arenas without the ability to speak. We will not allow ourselves to be silenced while the national news media, politicians and others are allowed to attack us freely.
The NRA will continue to fight for its right to speak out in defense of the Second Amendment. Any efforts to silence the political speech of NRA members will, as has been the case in the past, be met with strong opposition.

GSUhooligan wrote:

93henfan wrote:
Let me make sure I have all your name-calling tallied from your various posts:

1. I'm a white, crazy redneck because I own a gun.
2. I'm a racist black because I voted for Obama.

You'll see in another thread where I admit I shop at Wal-Mart, so I guess I'm a penny-pinching Jew too?

No, if you shop at Wal-Mart you're still either a crazy redneck or a racist black... Or a mexican with a house full of 20 other mexicans to feed.

mainejeff wrote:

GSUhooligan wrote:
No, if you shop at Wal-Mart you're still either a crazy redneck or a racist black... Or a mexican with a house full of 20 other mexicans to feed.

Or a white fiscally conservative, socially moderate Northeastern lib living in socially conservative San Diego trying to save a few bucks on Chinese imports.

mainejeff wrote:...Or a white fiscally conservative, socially surrealistically leftist Northeastern lib living in socially conservative San Diego trying to save a few bucks buying my Homeland products.

Col Hogan wrote:
Only thing I buy at Walmart on a regular basis is ammo...best prices around, and its all made in the USA...

93henfan wrote:

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:

Great, another bunch of white, crazy rednecks with guns...............

Let me make sure I have all your name-calling tallied from your various posts:

1. I'm a white, crazy redneck because I own a gun.
2. I'm a racist black because I voted for Obama.

You'll see in another thread where I admit I shop at Wal-Mart, so I guess I'm a penny-pinching Jew too?

mainejeff wrote:

GSUhooligan wrote:
No, if you shop at Wal-Mart you're still either a crazy redneck or a racist black... Or a mexican with a house full of 20 other mexicans to feed.

Or a white fiscally conservative, socially moderate Northeastern lib living in socially conservative San Diego trying to save a few bucks on Chinese imports.

mainejeff wrote:

GSUhooligan wrote:
No, if you shop at Wal-Mart you're still either a crazy redneck or a racist black... Or a mexican with a house full of 20 other mexicans to feed.

Or a white fiscally conservative, socially moderate Northeastern lib living in socially conservative San Diego trying to save a few bucks on Chinese imports.