[Mac2411]

Tuesday June 22nd. Here's the latest email, with NRA contact information, from the National Association for Gun Rights:


Though the pressure activists placed on Congress and the NRA last week made Nancy Pelosi postpone the vote on the DISCLOSE Act, she's now scheduled a vote for this Wednesday.

It's vital that every Second Amendment activist understand what's at stake here, and act today!

We're not just talking about legislation that would shut down groups in Washington, D.C.

The DISCLOSE Act will kill off every state-level association and group in the entire country, while keeping major left-wing radical groups intact - (and, with their exemption, the NRA).

This is not only counterproductive to our liberties, but tactically it's just plain stupid.

The enemies of freedom will kill off, one by one, every pro-freedom group in America, until there is only one.... and then they'll kill them off, with no one left to defend the Second Amendment.

Any kind of "deal" (NRA Executive V.P. Wayne LaPierre admitted the deal on the Lars Larsen radio show) with Pelosi, Reid, and Schumer isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

They are only attempting to divide the gun community (which the NRA exemption deal does) in order to conquer us.

And why are the Dems so anxious to pass this bill?

It's the best way they can pass gun control. Remove gun owners' voices from the fight and it means there's nothing stopping a repeal of your gun rights.

Why did Democrat leadership cut the deal with the NRA? There's only one reason -- they didn't have the votes to pass it.

And now that the NRA has it's exemption (from the draconian free speech limits of the DISCLOSE Act), Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer believe they can pass this outrageous restriction of your rights to free speech.

Again: the only weapon gun owners have to save their gun rights is their First Amendment right to free speech.

No amount of gymnastics by NRA leadership nor by politicians can smooth over this absolutely traitorous deal with the devil.

What can you do?

First, call the NRA (even if you called them last week) to tell them you don't support their despicable deal on the DISCLOSE Act.

You can reach some of these leaders at the NRA directly:


Ronald L. Schmeits, NRA President:
18 Private Road #2001ST
Raton NM 87740
575-445-5836, 575-445-2080 fax


Charles L. Cunningham, Director, NRA-ILA Federal Affairs:
4864 Oakcrest Drive
Fairfax VA 22030
703-352-3245, 202-651-2570 fax


David A. Keene, NRA 1st Vice President:
5602 Dawes Avenue
Alexandria VA 22311-1102
703-671-5602


James W. Porter II, NRA 2nd Vice President:
215 21st Street N #1000
Birmingham AL 35203-3710
205-322-1744


You can call your member of Congress at this number:
202-224-3121

Or you can e-mail them by clicking here.

Tell your Congressman to oppose the DISCLOSE Act -- regardless of the NRA's deal -- at every turn.

How is this legislation going to "kill off every state-level association and group in the entire country"? Seriously, I'm not asking to defend the bill- I want to know what part of the legislation you're referring to. Do you believe that once folks must identify themselves when making campaign ads or donating certain sums of money that they will stop doing that? I'm not convinced.

 

[restoring]

I've received two emails advising that pelosi might be setting another vote for the DISCLOSE act today, June 24, 2010.

Has anyone else heard anything about it?

 

[1stGenerationAmerican]

Restoring - from your other thread, it looks like you've already found that Pelosi slipped it through and it was narrowly passed.

Mac2411 - I'm a Scout Master for my son's Troop and preparing for a camp out so sorry for the delay. I'm opposed to any legislation that excludes a group from voicing their opinion - such as this does by requiring certain groups that don't fall into a predetermined classification to jump through hoops of intimidation. Also, being from Chicago, I have witnessed first hand what vague legislature verbiage has allowed the corrupt politicians in Chicago to get away with. (I know never end with a preposition but I'm pressed for time.) All too often a well-meaning Bill, or one that doesn't look all that bad, can have devastating affects because of what it doesn't say and thus allows for interpretations. Think of it this way. Let's say that the majority of the subscribers here at SIGARMS556.COM have listed their general location on their profile and the minority hasn't. (I"m using this example because I see that you have decided not to even list a general, or any, location.) Currently we all have equal rights to voice our opinions regardless of giving our location or not. But all of a sudden, SIGARMS556.COM says that moving forward, unless you have listed your location you will not be able to leave comments on this board. And if you were in the minority and want to leave comments, you'll now have to not only list your location but exact address and phone number. Remember this board is great and allows wonderful exchange of ideas and important information - both political and 556 specific. But with the new "where do you live and what's your phone number" requirement, I'm sure some great political and gun specific minds would opt out of signing up to this board.

You said, "Do you believe that once folks must identify themselves when making campaign ads or donating certain sums of money that they will stop doing that? I'm not convinced." So I guess you'll be moving up from anonymity to posting your exact address and phone number on your profile? Of course that's not a challenge and not to be taken as such, I just use it to make my point. I wouldn't expect that of anyone on this site.

Okay, I'm off to camp so let me hear you say again, "but what's wrong with the Bill?"

 

[Mac2411]

Restoring - from your other thread, it looks like you've already found that Pelosi slipped it through and it was narrowly passed.

Mac2411 - I'm a Scout Master for my son's Troop and preparing for a camp out so sorry for the delay. I'm opposed to any legislation that excludes a group from voicing their opinion - such as this does by requiring certain groups that don't fall into a predetermined classification to jump through hoops of intimidation. Also, being from Chicago, I have witnessed first hand what vague legislature verbiage has allowed the corrupt politicians in Chicago to get away with. (I know never end with a preposition but I'm pressed for time.) All too often a well-meaning Bill, or one that doesn't look all that bad, can have devastating affects because of what it doesn't say and thus allows for interpretations. Think of it this way. Let's say that the majority of the subscribers here at SIGARMS556.COM have listed their general location on their profile and the minority hasn't. (I"m using this example because I see that you have decided not to even list a general, or any, location.) Currently we all have equal rights to voice our opinions regardless of giving our location or not. But all of a sudden, SIGARMS556.COM says that moving forward, unless you have listed your location you will not be able to leave comments on this board. And if you were in the minority and want to leave comments, you'll now have to not only list your location but exact address and phone number. Remember this board is great and allows wonderful exchange of ideas and important information - both political and 556 specific. But with the new "where do you live and what's your phone number" requirement, I'm sure some great political and gun specific minds would opt out of signing up to this board.

You said, "Do you believe that once folks must identify themselves when making campaign ads or donating certain sums of money that they will stop doing that? I'm not convinced." So I guess you'll be moving up from anonymity to posting your exact address and phone number on your profile? Of course that's not a challenge and not to be taken as such, I just use it to make my point. I wouldn't expect that of anyone on this site.

Okay, I'm off to camp so let me hear you say again, "but what's wrong with the Bill?"

Look, my point in posting in this thread was to try to get folks to actually think and read for themselves and not spout off sound bytes from various special interests. I don't think I succeeded (maybe I should stop trying). I didn't come here to get in a pissing match. But anyway. . .

You still didn't answer my question, which was why you believe that this bill "will kill off every state-level association and group in the entire country, while keeping major left-wing radical groups intact " Please explain that-I want to know where you're coming from on this. For the record, I'll again state that I oppose exempting any organizations from the requirements of this law should it be passed. I'll also say that I don't think we're any better or worse off in a constitutional sense if it is passed or not passed. However, if one has a profound distrust of all things government, then I can see why he or she might not like this bill. As I've said, I have a healthy skepticism when it comes to governmental action, but I'm not to the point that some are-thus my position on this bill. I'm neutral exept for the exemption provisions.

As for my profile on this forum-nice try. Your point is fallacious at best. In the first place, the right to post on this forum is not "free" The private owners reserve the right to censor anything they want. Further, there is an obvious difference between putting my contact information out on a public internet forum for every troll, internet nut, and spammer to see and providing it to the FEC, which is required by law to protect that information,

Most importantly though, I am not trying to influence the outcome of an election through the use of mass media. Thus, having my identity does not serve any purpose and my right to privacy outweighs any concerns in that regard. When one voluntarily steps into the public arena in a big way by funding or producing political ads (with relatively large amounts of money) intended to influence the outcomes of elections, then reasonable minds could argue that the calculus changes. In the interests of full disclosure, the persons behind those ads should be willing to stand behind their words. We already have to identify ourselves for political donations-my name and address is already filed with the FEC for my political donations. I haven't seen any indication that has muzzled political speech.

As for my contact information, I'll be glad to email that to you if it's important. Just PM me. I figure that's the rough equivalent of providing that information to the FEC except for the fact that I'm doing this voluntarily and not because I chose to donate large sums of cash for the purpose of political advertising.