I'm surprised there haven't been any protests that I know of at the NRA headquarters, especially after the Newtown and Las Vegas shootings. There have been walkouts since the shooting in Florida, but the NRA puts out the same response along the lines of "if its gun control then it violates the 2nd Amendment and we don't support it."

I live faraway from Washington D.C. so you won't see me starting a protest, but if enough people think progress isn't being made and we're still in the status quo could a mass protest erupt at the NRA HQ? It seems like with this shooting politicians are really being pressured from their constituents to find a solution and not take a penny from the NRA, but if nothing comes to fruition would people think its time to visit the source of this status quo?

I would have no problem if a peaceful (thats the key word) mass protest happened at the NRA HQ, but I'm sure security would be extreme and would likely lead to rioting. And even if there are no riots I'm afraid the NRA will turn a blind eye no matter how many people there are.

A quick search on Google shows that this is their HQ-https://www.google.com/maps/search/national+rifle+association/@38.863093,-77.3352021,290m/data=!3m1!1e3

That's a long way to go and an expensive area to organize, transport, feed, and house a Rent-A-Mob. George Soros would be happy to foot the bill however.

Brick wrote:

That's a long way to go and an expensive area to organize, transport, feed, and house a Rent-A-Mob. George Soros would be happy to foot the bill however.

Who do you think has been footing the bill for all of this so far?

(Aren't you lovely?)

When people are angry enough, protests will happen. Will anything change? Probably not. NRA makes a lot of money. They will simply use "reports" off 4Chan and Breitbart and Info Wars to claim they are the victims. See all those people shouting? They are so violent because of the chanting and sign holding! They must be stopped!

The NRA's HQ is in a suburban area of Northern Virginia outside of DC. I believe that there is very little 'public right of way' around it and if tried to shut down the roads it would lead to massive police crackdown and drivers revolting for tying up traffic. Better might be to target the NRA's annual convention in Dallas in early May.

seb146 wrote:

When people are angry enough, protests will happen. Will anything change? Probably not. NRA makes a lot of money. They will simply use "reports" off 4Chan and Breitbart and Info Wars to claim they are the victims. See all those people shouting? They are so violent because of the chanting and sign holding! They must be stopped!

Are you implying the NRA might fund counter protesters or disinformation campaigns on a grand scale? You mean it's not just George Soros?!

I love how snowflakey the NRA gets when people bring up gun control and what can be done to improve things when a shooting happens. "Oh, my! You are exploiting the situation! Oh my word, I'm feeling faint!" I am surprised they are so delicate.
But again I guess I should not be surprised. The NRA knows the 2nd Amendment is written differently than it is being currently interpreted and that only "judicial activism" has kept it so loose. They are just one ruling away from firearms being managed differently.

They are basically a cornered animal in many ways. And will do or say anything to keep things status quo.

Tugg

ltbewr wrote:

The NRA's HQ is in a suburban area of Northern Virginia outside of DC. I believe that there is very little 'public right of way' around it and if tried to shut down the roads it would lead to massive police crackdown and drivers revolting for tying up traffic. Better might be to target the NRA's annual convention in Dallas in early May.

...which I'm sure like the CPAC going on now, is a gun free zone. Cuz reasons.

The downfall of the NRA will come in one of two ways:
1. The gun culture loses it sway in the US (meaning people will not be looking to get a gun)
2. A moderate NRA group is founded...one that has some common sense in approaching the issue and does not engage in fear mongering or rating politicians. If I really vote against well prepared candidate only because they support gun control (ie. if guns are the only thing that matters in an election), I'm part of the problem.

The gun culture can slowly die away, but I put better odds on option 2 happening. There IS a way to be pro-gun and be practical and sensible.

seb146 wrote:

When people are angry enough, protests will happen. Will anything change? Probably not. NRA makes a lot of money. They will simply use "reports" off 4Chan and Breitbart and Info Wars to claim they are the victims. See all those people shouting? They are so violent because of the chanting and sign holding! They must be stopped!

What I don't quite understand is your obsession with the NRA. The NRA has nothing to do with our rights. If you think if there wasn't an NRA people wouldn't fight for their rights to bear arms you are horribly misinformed.

Americans are going to continue to vote in people that will fight the forces that want us to be Europe and have no guns. NRA or no NRA. They are just a strawman and target of the far left activists that always seize on the knee jerk reaction every time there is a mass shooting.

NIKV69 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

When people are angry enough, protests will happen. Will anything change? Probably not. NRA makes a lot of money. They will simply use "reports" off 4Chan and Breitbart and Info Wars to claim they are the victims. See all those people shouting? They are so violent because of the chanting and sign holding! They must be stopped!

What I don't quite understand is your obsession with the NRA. The NRA has nothing to do with our rights. If you think if there wasn't an NRA people wouldn't fight for their rights to bear arms you are horribly misinformed.

Americans are going to continue to vote in people that will fight the forces that want us to be Europe and have no guns. NRA or no NRA. They are just a strawman and target of the far left activists that always seize on the knee jerk reaction every time there is a mass shooting.

The NRA has the money to BUY the elected officials off that take the money . So they are a target.

The fact that they have such leaders as Wayne Lapierre is a sign that they are nothing more than a front for full power with no restrictions. At some point , the drive for absolute freedom to own guns runs in the face of the life and liberty of citizens minding their own business. ASSAULT rifles are exactly what should not be allowed. They are designed for Assault. Not defense.

As long as the NRA continues to push for such firepower in the face of the recent trend in mass shootings, they should be considered as a target of those looking for ways to reduce mass shootings.

NIKV69 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

When people are angry enough, protests will happen. Will anything change? Probably not. NRA makes a lot of money. They will simply use "reports" off 4Chan and Breitbart and Info Wars to claim they are the victims. See all those people shouting? They are so violent because of the chanting and sign holding! They must be stopped!

What I don't quite understand is your obsession with the NRA. The NRA has nothing to do with our rights. If you think if there wasn't an NRA people wouldn't fight for their rights to bear arms you are horribly misinformed.

Americans are going to continue to vote in people that will fight the forces that want us to be Europe and have no guns. NRA or no NRA. They are just a strawman and target of the far left activists that always seize on the knee jerk reaction every time there is a mass shooting.

Like George Soros?

I'm an NRA Endowment level member (one step above life) and I have been to many NRA national meetings. There are always protests at the event, but sometimes often times the new crews film them at angles to make them appear like there are a lot more than there are. I recall in Pittsburgh at the '04 meeting I was in the top floor of the convention center and looking down on the protesters. There was probably 50 of them, but on the news that night it looked like there were a lot more. Low angles and lots of close ups made it look like a lot of people were there. The next day a buddy and I were crossing the street at a crosswalk and a guy tried to run us down in his van. We did nothing to provoke him. He was actually stopped and when he saw our NRA tags around our necks gunned his engine and almost hit us.

There are sometimes groups protesting at the NRA meeting that you wouldn't expect. A few years ago in Indy there was a group protesting gay marriage (which I don't think the NRA has an opinion on) I took some of their literature; they were so extreme that they equated childless couples and unmarried men/women to be as evil as gays.

casinterest wrote:

The NRA has the money to BUY the elected officials off that take the money . So they are a target.

They get a lot of that money from people like me; just regular working people.

NIKV69 wrote:

he NRA has nothing to do with our rights. If you think if there wasn't an NRA people wouldn't fight for their rights to bear arms you are horribly misinformed.

The NRA is a lobby group for its members. If there was no NRA (or similar organization) people would still want to be stand for their rights, but may not have the means to do so. Organizations like the NAACP and ACLU also provide the voice where the single individual won't be heard.

casinterest wrote:

The NRA has the money to BUY the elected officials off that take the money . So they are a target.

The fact that they have such leaders as Wayne Lapierre is a sign that they are nothing more than a front for full power with no restrictions. At some point , the drive for absolute freedom to own guns runs in the face of the life and liberty of citizens minding their own business. ASSAULT rifles are exactly what should not be allowed. They are designed for Assault. Not defense.

As long as the NRA continues to push for such firepower in the face of the recent trend in mass shootings, they should be considered as a target of those looking for ways to reduce mass shootings.

Oh yea I forgot you blame every election loss on money and refuse to accept people out there actually want their rights protected.

It's not the money. People are not going to tolerate any person that says I want to ban semi automatic guns. Money or not that person will lose. CNN has done a great job in making people think the majority of the country is with them but they are not.

I mean for almost two years in 2009-10 Dems had total and complete control in congress and didn't produce one bill to do anything about mass shootings. NRA with all their money couldn't stop any bill.

I wonder why.

NIKV69 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

The NRA has the money to BUY the elected officials off that take the money . So they are a target.

The fact that they have such leaders as Wayne Lapierre is a sign that they are nothing more than a front for full power with no restrictions. At some point , the drive for absolute freedom to own guns runs in the face of the life and liberty of citizens minding their own business. ASSAULT rifles are exactly what should not be allowed. They are designed for Assault. Not defense.

As long as the NRA continues to push for such firepower in the face of the recent trend in mass shootings, they should be considered as a target of those looking for ways to reduce mass shootings.

Oh yea I forgot you blame every election loss on money and refuse to accept people out there actually want their rights protected.

Talk about a strawman. Only Republicans "actually want their rights protected."

Republicans cannot win an election without surgical gerrymandering, race-baiting, telling people only they speak on behalf of God, spreading conspiracy theories, telling people that socialists are coming for them, telling people that if they lose an election, it's rigged, restricting access to voting, essentially outright lying every day. Oh yeah, and a lot of money to spread the lies and trash. Even then it's a stretch, but because of the disparity in voter participation rates amongst rural versus urban voters, you guys are hanging on to power.

Do you really think that if there were 100% voter participation (i.e. a real democracy) Republicans would win?!

NIKV69 wrote:

It's not the money. People are not going to tolerate any person that says I want to ban semi automatic guns. Money or not that person will lose. CNN has done a great job in making people think the majority of the country is with them but they are not.

You are living in LaLa Land.

NIKV69 wrote:

I mean for almost two years in 2009-10 Dems had total and complete control in congress and didn't produce one bill to do anything about mass shootings. NRA with all their money couldn't stop any bill.

I wonder why.

Yeah, I wonder why.

falstaff wrote:

I'm an NRA Endowment level member (one step above life) and I have been to many NRA national meetings. There are always protests at the event, but sometimes often times the new crews film them at angles to make them appear like there are a lot more than there are. I recall in Pittsburgh at the '04 meeting I was in the top floor of the convention center and looking down on the protesters. There was probably 50 of them, but on the news that night it looked like there were a lot more. Low angles and lots of close ups made it look like a lot of people were there. The next day a buddy and I were crossing the street at a crosswalk and a guy tried to run us down in his van. We did nothing to provoke him. He was actually stopped and when he saw our NRA tags around our necks gunned his engine and almost hit us.

There are sometimes groups protesting at the NRA meeting that you wouldn't expect. A few years ago in Indy there was a group protesting gay marriage (which I don't think the NRA has an opinion on) I took some of their literature; they were so extreme that they equated childless couples and unmarried men/women to be as evil as gays.

casinterest wrote:

The NRA has the money to BUY the elected officials off that take the money . So they are a target.

They get a lot of that money from people like me; just regular working people.

NIKV69 wrote:

he NRA has nothing to do with our rights. If you think if there wasn't an NRA people wouldn't fight for their rights to bear arms you are horribly misinformed.

The NRA is a lobby group for its members. If there was no NRA (or similar organization) people would still want to be stand for their rights, but may not have the means to do so. Organizations like the NAACP and ACLU also provide the voice where the single individual won't be heard.

Sorry to hear about the idiot driver. He probably shouldn't have a drivers license if he's going to use his vehicle as a weapon for anyone who differs from his viewpoints.

As for money donations, whether you're rich or poor, I don't think it should be used and stand in the way of facts but unfortunately it does in our society. For example, as much as I support public transit and the majority conservative representation in state and local government threatening to cut funding I don't want to donate my money to public transit lobbying groups. These groups should have the facts to show politicians why they shouldn't cut public transit funding. All of this applies to any topic including guns and the NRA.

today, while in a restaurant, there was a family of three mother and father and young daughter the parents were open carrying. There was also a black man open carrying, not sure what happened, but the black man started a screaming match at the family that was open carrying, for some slight. The father of the family became unhinged and started pushing the black guy around.

At that point the restaurant patrons started to clear out, and me and my husband just sat there like dummies. Finally i got up to leave after seeing other people leave.
I have no idea what was wrong with me to just sit there and watch it.

Shock, horror, or perhaps i didn't expecting them to pull out their guns.
i was wrong, they both pulled out their guns like they were in high school and playing chicken, Finally the father told the black guy in a sarcastic tone, have a nice day, and him and his family turned their back and left.

All i could think, is why oh why is it always the people with short fuses that buy guns. obviously it gives them a sense of power, when they really don't have any power but to kill someone just because they were annoyed by other people's short comings. This is so messed up.

DLFREEBIRD wrote:

today, while in a restaurant, there was a family of three mother and father and young daughter the parents were open carrying. There was also a black man open carrying, not sure what happened, but the black man started a screaming match at the family that was open carrying, for some slight. The father of the family became unhinged and started pushing the black guy around.

At that point the restaurant patrons started to clear out, and me and my husband just sat there like dummies. Finally i got up to leave after seeing other people leave.
I have no idea what was wrong with me to just sit there and watch it.

Shock, horror, or perhaps i didn't expecting them to pull out their guns.
i was wrong, they both pulled out their guns like they were in high school and playing chicken, Finally the father told the black guy in a sarcastic tone, have a nice day, and him and his family turned their back and left.

All i could think, is why oh why is it always the people with short fuses that buy guns. obviously it gives them a sense of power, when they really don't have any power but to kill someone just because they were annoyed by other people's short comings. This is so messed up.

Well I suppose it’s “logical” that if you’re in constant fear of being attacked you probably own a gun. (The fear is typically illogical.) There are other behavioral traits that are probably well correlated, e.g. short fuse, but hey I have one of those and I don’t own a gun!

By that same standard it’s “logical” that the whackadoodles who really think that the government is out to get them, get their guns, and take away their “freedom,” probably all have stockpiles of automatic weapons. (Granted, at the same time these people can be considered to be “responsible gun owners” and aren’t responsible in any way for the mass shootings.)

Thankfully the irrational paranoia of the few gets to dictate policy in the country.

We’ve got people who have said:

NIKV69 wrote:

People are not going to tolerate any person that says I want to ban semi automatic guns

stratosphere wrote:

But you are not going to confiscate Americans guns so you better come up with a new plan.

NIKV69 wrote:

I mean for almost two years in 2009-10 Dems had total and complete control in congress and didn't produce one bill to do anything about mass shootings.

This somehow flew over my head the first time.

You mean the Democrats had every opportunity in the world to getcher guns and THEY DIDN’T?!

How do you conspiracy junkies explain that?!

NIKV69 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

The NRA has the money to BUY the elected officials off that take the money . So they are a target.

The fact that they have such leaders as Wayne Lapierre is a sign that they are nothing more than a front for full power with no restrictions. At some point , the drive for absolute freedom to own guns runs in the face of the life and liberty of citizens minding their own business. ASSAULT rifles are exactly what should not be allowed. They are designed for Assault. Not defense.

As long as the NRA continues to push for such firepower in the face of the recent trend in mass shootings, they should be considered as a target of those looking for ways to reduce mass shootings.

Oh yea I forgot you blame every election loss on money and refuse to accept people out there actually want their rights protected.

It's not the money. People are not going to tolerate any person that says I want to ban semi automatic guns. Money or not that person will lose. CNN has done a great job in making people think the majority of the country is with them but they are not.

I mean for almost two years in 2009-10 Dems had total and complete control in congress and didn't produce one bill to do anything about mass shootings. NRA with all their money couldn't stop any bill.

I wonder why.

I want my RIGHT to life protected from short sighted trigger happy idiots that can't understand the difference between Assault and protection. The GOP is full of cowards who demand their own individual right to pollute, tell other people how to live their lives, and take money from the poor to give it to the RICH. The GOP has not idea of personal rights. They only know how to take them away for selfish PERSONAL interests. Not for the good of a family and not for the good of the country.

falstaff wrote:

I'm an NRA Endowment level member (one step above life) and I have been to many NRA national meetings. There are always protests at the event, but sometimes often times the new crews film them at angles to make them appear like there are a lot more than there are. I recall in Pittsburgh at the '04 meeting I was in the top floor of the convention center and looking down on the protesters. There was probably 50 of them, but on the news that night it looked like there were a lot more. Low angles and lots of close ups made it look like a lot of people were there. The next day a buddy and I were crossing the street at a crosswalk and a guy tried to run us down in his van. We did nothing to provoke him. He was actually stopped and when he saw our NRA tags around our necks gunned his engine and almost hit us.

There are sometimes groups protesting at the NRA meeting that you wouldn't expect. A few years ago in Indy there was a group protesting gay marriage (which I don't think the NRA has an opinion on) I took some of their literature; they were so extreme that they equated childless couples and unmarried men/women to be as evil as gays.

casinterest wrote:

The NRA has the money to BUY the elected officials off that take the money . So they are a target.

They get a lot of that money from people like me; just regular working people.

NIKV69 wrote:

he NRA has nothing to do with our rights. If you think if there wasn't an NRA people wouldn't fight for their rights to bear arms you are horribly misinformed.

The NRA is a lobby group for its members. If there was no NRA (or similar organization) people would still want to be stand for their rights, but may not have the means to do so. Organizations like the NAACP and ACLU also provide the voice where the single individual won't be heard.

The NRA is not a good organization. They have tiptoed over the line of what is good of the individual and the good of society. There should always be a balance., and the NRA and the blind donations their followers give, have passed that line. Even the hardworking folks that just blindly give every day.

NIKV69 wrote:

The NRA has nothing to do with our rights. If you think if there wasn't an NRA people wouldn't fight for their rights to bear arms you are horribly misinformed.

If the NRA didn't exist, maybe politicians would listen to the people who voted them into power rather than the organisation who put the most money in their pocket? Shocking, I know.

If that happened, who knows, maybe there'd be a sensible debate about sensible gun controls that don't deny people their 2nd amendment rights? Whatever next, reduced gun death rates?

jetero wrote:

.



Yeah, I wonder why.

Probably because they would lose their election in the mid terms. Thanks to a horrible health care bill many did in 2010. It is also the reason the Dems did absolutely nothing on DACA or immigration when they had the white house, Senate and House with no fear of filibuster or veto. Knowing that passing amnesty would mean heavy losses in the midterms.

It's not hard to see that is of course if you want to see it.

NIKV69 wrote:

Oh yea I forgot you blame every election loss on money and refuse to accept people out there actually want their rights protected.

Haha... that even Trump wasn´t told "uphold the right to bear arms" by his inner circle, but "don´t piss of the NRA because they donated 30 Million to your campaign" is some pretty good evidence that "rights" play no role in either the governments nor the NRAs position. If the current interpretation of the 2nd was in line with what it is supposed to mean, there would be no need for the NRA to pour millions of US$ into Judges campaigns, they would get the rulings they want anyways. They know they need to bribe those judges to get their "right" to make a buck on the death of Americans.

And you know perfectly well that the right to bear arms doesn´t refer to weapons. Languages don´t tent to have that kind of redundancies without a district different meaning in the past.

The 2nd Amendement simply means a) we need a well regulated militia and b) everybody can be an officer in this militia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_he ... _bear_arms

You don´t have any right to own and carry a gun anywhere by any other way that simple law, and if the government ever decided to ban guns for good (unlikely, not even Japan did that), that would be totally within the confines of your constitution.

It is just that right wing activist judges have decided to make law instead of applying it correctly in spirit and language to the current situation. That they can do that was clearly demonstrated with their same sex marriage and abortion decisions.

I mean for almost two years in 2009-10 Dems had total and complete control in congress and didn't produce one bill to do anything about mass shootings. NRA with all their money couldn't stop any bill.

I wonder why.

There was a global financial crisis going on and Iraq was a mess with Bush Jr. just having withdrawn the US troops, they had things on the agenda that had a slightly higher priority and a health insurance to deliver.

You know, they had to fix the GOP mess once more. Just like they did after the Reagan/Bush years, and right after they will have to after Trump.

best regards
Thomas

NIKV69 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

When people are angry enough, protests will happen. Will anything change? Probably not. NRA makes a lot of money. They will simply use "reports" off 4Chan and Breitbart and Info Wars to claim they are the victims. See all those people shouting? They are so violent because of the chanting and sign holding! They must be stopped!

What I don't quite understand is your obsession with the NRA. The NRA has nothing to do with our rights. If you think if there wasn't an NRA people wouldn't fight for their rights to bear arms you are horribly misinformed.

Americans are going to continue to vote in people that will fight the forces that want us to be Europe and have no guns. NRA or no NRA. They are just a strawman and target of the far left activists that always seize on the knee jerk reaction every time there is a mass shooting.

I would argue that if there were no NRA that we would have fewer mass shootings because we would have common sense legislation. As it stands, NRA "donates" money to (mostly) Republicans and keeps feeding this false narrative that high power, high capacity firearms need to be carried by everyone.

This lie that Europe has no guns needs to stop. They have guns in Europe. They also have common sense legislation that makes mass shootings far less likely. Stop lying.

NIKV69 wrote:

jetero wrote:

Yeah, I wonder why.

Probably because they would lose their election in the mid terms. Thanks to a horrible health care bill many did in 2010. It is also the reason the Dems did absolutely nothing on DACA or immigration when they had the white house, Senate and House with no fear of filibuster or veto. Knowing that passing amnesty would mean heavy losses in the midterms.

It's not hard to see that is of course if you want to see it.

If you say so, Nikky V.

But I don't know why I'm arguing. They should have done something.

The fact that they "didn't" (and we both know it wouldn't have gone anywhere) sure the hell isn't reason to vote Republican.