More Than A Quarter of Democrats Think It Should Be Illegal to Join NRA

According to a recent Rasmussen Poll, 28% of likely American Democratic voters think it should be illegal for people  to join the National Rifle Assocation (NRA) or similar gun rights organizations.

Rasmussen posed this question:

Should Americans be prohibited by law from belonging to pro-gun rights organizations like the NRA?

While that might not be surprising, the poll also found that 15% of Republicans agree with them.

The City of San Francisco recently voted to declare the NRA a domestic terror organization.  The designation by the city doesn’t affect the NRA or its members, but Rasmussen asked likely voters if they agreed.

Rasmussen asked:

Following several recent mass shootings, officials in San Francisco have declared the NRA a domestic terrorist organization, although the decision has no specific impact on the NRA or its members. Do you favor or oppose declaring the NRA a terrorist organization in the community where you live?

Almost a third of Democrats, 32%, favored designating the NRA as a terrorist organization, as did 14% of Republicans and 20% of those not affiliated with either party.

 

41 Comments

  1. Well, I guess that is fair since I, as a long time member of the NRA, believe that the Democratic Party should be designated as a terrorist organization.

    • The NRA is not a terrorist organization, but their lobbying efforts make it much easier for any terrorist in the USA to purchase weapons of war. That’s a different perspective. Likewise the Democrats are not a terrorist organization. If there are some Muslim terrorists in the US, they ought to be caught and eliminated. No reasonable democrat applauds terrorist activity. You should know that. I think you guys should stop “demonizing” everyone, simply because you disagree on one or the other point of view.

      For example, just because I think that it should be made more difficult for crazy people to obtain machine guns, etc., does not make me a socialist, or a communist, or some weirdo who doesn’t understand anything. Don’t you see that there are two sides to every story?

  2. So they pick groups we can belong to, what we can read and … There you are, chipping away at our freedom and if this goes unchecked there will be no bill of rights, we’ll become a true democracy, and finally a dictatorship. Is that what the citizens of this country really, really want?

    • I’ll say that a country can slip into a dictatorship from the left or from the right side of the political spectrum. Our current leadership appears to be making it more likely that it will slip there from the right. I don’t like dictatorships of any kind.
      Sometimes laws made by democrats make it look like it’s a terrible dictatorial thing to have health insurance. Sometimes laws from the republicans will make it look like they are going to kick every old person off Social Security and let them starve.
      Meanwhile, the truthiness is that “any and all health insurance is too expensive, because the whole health system is too expensive, such that with or without insurance, we can still go broke due to medical bills, because even the 10% or 20% we are responsible for can still quickly add up to $150,000 which means “broke” for most of us, (in the case of an extended cancer treatment, ICU and hospital stay, that can run up to over $700,000 in a jiffy). So the whole argument about “insurance or not” becomes pointless. I am going to end up being my “very own death panel”, because the US health care system is too expensive, insurance or not. So, how is this freedom?

  3. We will keep our guns to protect our country our homes and each other. People that disagree might consider moving to Venezuela!

  4. Then the Whole Progressive Liberal Commie Socialist And Islamic Infested Democratic Party Truly Should Be CALLED ANTI-AMERICAN ALIAS ANTI-UNITED STATES OF AMETICA AND ANTI-US CONSTITUTIONAL ALIAS ANTI-PRO LIFE AND A TURN AROUND INFANTICIDAL DOMESTIC TERRORIST ORGANIZATION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  5. I am a proud member of the NRA. They were established and continue to approach firearms as needing “training” for prospective users of firearms. They, out of necessity, support the Second Amendment. They are not a terrorist group. Not one of the perpetrators of mass shooting have been members of NRA. San Francisco is out of touch with reality.

  6. If Democrats think it is bad to join the NRA, I suggest they don’t join. The NRA performs the same service for gun owners as the ACLU provides to liberal Americans-they work to guarantee their Constitutional rights. Why is no one talking about making it illegal to join the ACLU? The ACLU is responsible for the street people in the country (California in particular) because they liberated them from mental institutions and having pushed them out, they had no place to go but the streets. I’m quite certain that more people have died as a result of this ACLU action than will ever die from gun shooters. In fact, if the potential plagues happen, which many doctors have predicted, the death and destruction caused by the ACLU will reduce deaths by shootings to an insignificant level.

    • Not sure how the ACLU is responsible for “street people”. In my understanding, the various mental asylums and institutions were expensive to run, and supported by states and taxes. The drug companies came up with new drugs for mental cases, and they promised that now these people could live on their own, without institutional support. The states nationwide wanted to believe that, and so many of these asylums were closed. The drugs, though, by themselves, did no work well enough, and they did not allow mental cases to be hired and be self-sufficient. And that’s why they are on the street. And the US, always willing to close their eyes to any problem, goes on believing simple and false explanations.

  7. I have been a member of the NRA for years and the demonRATS aren’t going to tell me what I can and cannot do! I will vote for Trump in 2020 and nothing on earth is going to change my mind!

  8. The Democrats tell us restricting or even banning guns is justified if it “saves just one child”, but slaughtering hundreds of thousands each year in abortion “clinics” is simply a matter of individual choice. Now they’re calling the NRA a terrorist organization, but they blew a fuse when Trump called Muslim groups who swear to obliterate the United States the same thing.

  9. The NRA membership reflects every sector of the American populace. The membership includes blue collar workers, those with doctorate degrees, businessmen and businesswomen, medical doctors, engineers, ministers, rabbis, teachers, Christians, Jews, Hindus, blacks, whites, Asians, military personnel, government workers, reporters, authors, and the rest of the unlisted profile of the population. They do more to protect our Constitution than many of our political “leaders” d0.

    • Sorry, but apart from the 2nd amendment, which other item in the constitution does the NRA protect? There are certainly numerous constitutional laws that are constantly being broken by our politicians, and yet I have never heard the NRA standing up for any of them.

  10. I’m a life long member of the NRA and have been for over 50 years, and have NEVER encouraged the killing of the innocent. HOWEVER IF YOU DEMOCRATS WNAT TO DRINK THE KOOL AID AND DROP DEAD IT WOULD BE A OK WITH ME.

  11. How stupid and ignorant can these people be? The NRA protects thecSecond Amendment rights of ALL citizens to protect yourself against foreign and domestic terrorism should that ever arise enmasse! If they are abolished and they can’t defend our second amendment rights all honest hard working Americans and LEGAL immigrants will lose their weapons. But guess who won’t? THE BAD GUYS!!! Because they #1) Won’t give them up. and #2) You won’t know they have them, because they will get as much as they want on the black market.

  12. If they are anti-guns then the Democrats are against the constitution and they are then Traitors to there oath and the American people. They are holding a office which would now be illegal. Because of this they should be put in JAIL.

  13. On the one hand, Democrats and gun grabbers continue with the trite old slogan “if it saves just one child” in an attempt to justify their agenda, while at the same time condoning the mass slaughter of hundreds of thousands of babies every year in their abortion “clinics. And it’s the Democrats who won’t call brand as terrorists Muslim fanatics who vow to destroy the United States, but now are calling several million loyal Americans terrorist simply because they belong to an organization that is openly and actively supportive of the Constitution. Every time it seems the Democrats and their liberal minions have become as moronic and idiotic as possible in thier thinking, they find new ways to prove us wrong.

  14. During WW II President Roosevelt often gave his famous radio fireside chats. He always began, “My fellow Americans, ……..” Today, that assumption is very, very problematic.

  15. It should be ILLEGAL to be a LIB DEM…….Suck it up dems,,,,,,You could be looking at the wrong end of those guns,,,Stop all your hatred…..There must be some good dems somewhere….STOP your INSANITY>

  16. All comes down to see who follows the constitution. And if democrats are against it, they should be labeled anti American. We are in a free country-still- and people have the will to choose whatever is fit to them. Dem are acting already as socialists, wanting to dictate us how to live. As usual rhinos work with them. Why? Money must be the incentive. NRA sue California and keep fighting!!

  17. What was the United States like, in 1776, when it argued that the British government rules and taxes were unbearable? That it just had to have a revolution, sever ties, make its own laws, and soon enough run its own country?

    It was like this: The British Empire had the largest navy, army; owned the most colonies and had a way of being the overlord of the known world. So, being a revolutionary rogue nation, those 13 US states had to come together, for the purpose of a common defense against a richer, stronger, relentless enemy: The British Empire.

    At that time, the US did not have a standing Army, Navy, Marines. Airplanes did not exist yet. The question of keeping arms, guns & ammo, very close at hand to the people doing the fighting against the British…was a matter of survival. Clearly, back then the US did not yet have a “well-regulated militia”. It had a rag-tag motley crew army of farmers, workers, etc called from their farms and mines and such. Paying, arming, feeding them was a problem – because – money!

    So there was a very good reason for the 2nd amendment back then, when it was made part of the political constitutional platform.

    Now, today, the US is strong, mighty, a force to be reckoned with, and it does have the following: “A Well-regulated and well-funded Army, Navy, Airforce, Marines, Coast Guard, well-regulated and funded State Troopers, Sheriff departments, plus well-funded, and regulated police forces in every state, city, county, village and town.”

    Therefore, the argument for a bunch of gun-happy dudes running around in a forest “being a well-regulated militia” falls flat on its face. We ALREADY HAVE an Army, Navy, Airforce, Marines, Coastguard, Sheriff, Police department. The 2nd amendment DOES NOT MEAN THAT it is well and good to arm Vigilante types. That interpretation much should be obvious to any thinking person.

    The 2nd amendment cannot possibly mean that every idiot in America should have a machine gun. That’s because laws have to have a good reason, a lawful reason. Both self-defense and hunting are not good reasons for that.

    If you have ever served in the Army, you may have encountered situations when the sergeant responsible for teaching recruits how to use a gun decided that one or the other guy was “unsafe to have around with a gun”, because they were having trouble with their brains. Those guys would be sent over to peel potatoes or clean toilets. The same reasonable thinking ought to apply outside of the Army as well. People who are a danger to themselves and the public should not have guns. If you are really as LAW-ABIDING as you say you are, then you would not have to worry about gun control.

    Anyone who does not see this, is purposely twisting the meaning of the words of the 2nd amendment into a questionable interpretation. That the majority of the Supreme Court is in on this obvious unreasonable position just shows how deep a intentional misinterpretation can go. Law without reason is for naught, I saw it written on a courthouse here.

    Imagine, if you can, if the AAA (American Automobile Association) were to constantly use the dues its members are paying to fight for the imaginary “Right of Americans to drive drunk, mad, texting, carelessly”.

    (Whether that’s a constitutional right or not, does not matter. What matters is whether a law has untoward and unwanted side-effects, and that reasonable people would want to change the law to get rid of such side-effects.)

    It is a certainty that the AAA would in such a case be considered weird, oddball, crazy. Luckily, the AAA is never making such unreasonable arguments. Angry people like I see on this web-site would of course argue back like this : “That’s not the same, that’s not a constitutional right, and bla bla bla..”

    And I would respond: We know from history, that the constitution is an important document, and that it has been changed, expanded, revised with numerous amendments. For example, the amendment making alcohol use illegal has been added in 1919, and it has been removed in 1933. That means, the constitution is subject to change, as per the due process of doing so. And I would say that whenever a law needs to changed, improved on, clarified, etc, then it is both the right and the duty of the people and the politicians that represent us to change, improve and clarify. In fact, I see it as a duty to improve wherever you can, and to make the same mistake over and over is irrational. In other words, if a significant legal majority in congress saw fit to change and improve on the 2nd amendment, they would have the legal right to do so.

    If bad laws or bad constitutions could never be changed, then we would still suffer under the “Nazi Laws” in Germany, and the Russian people would still be ruled by the “communist laws” or the “Czarist laws”. Luckily, laws can be changed, and I would prefer that they are “changed for the better”.

    That’s how one would have to argue. But I am the odd man out here. Politics appears to be run by unreasonable, unfeeling, corrupted rhinoceroses without sense, sensibility or conscience. And 35% of people applaud this here, without an insight that they are supporting a corrupted system. It seems to me that the people in Europe, Russia, China, etc. know full well that their political systems are more or less corrupted, whereas a majority of Americans cannot even face that truth. They fall for the oldest trick in the book: That anyone who critically observes what’s going on and comes up with ideas for improvement.. is somehow a traitor, a hater, a person who hates America. That’s just not so. One can be Republican without necessarily agreeing with every plank in the Republican platform, and likewise, one can be Democrat without agreeing with each and every Democrat platform item. I’ll say that the more you give up on very selfish, angry, hateful and fearful thoughts, the more you’ll realize that the two sides are not that far apart.

    So what am I for:

    1) Guns should not be for sale to people under 21. Likewise, guns should not be sold to people who are “obviously drunk, or under the influence of certain drugs”. Guns should not be sold to people with a criminal record, such as “drunk driving, domestic assault, rape, murder, robbery, & similar bad judgment offences”, or with a history of
    serious mental illness. As with cars, a non-criminal grownup may train a person under 21 on gun usage, if they themselves have a license, no criminal record, and the underage person has a learner’s permit.

    2) Regarding self-defense, tear gas spray cans and Tasers should be made available as a first choice, because they are less deadly and usually effective. Self defense guns should be limited to small One-shot, Two-shot deals. Weapons of war, such as any gun or rifle that can be connected to a 30 or 60 or more shot magazines, should not be
    made available to the general public. Private ownership of such weapons of mass-destruction does not make sense, because a single private person cannot be considered to be a “well-regulated militia”.

    3) All guns should be treated like cars, with similar “registrations, permits, fees, required insurance, including under-insured or uninsured gun-owner coverage, and transfer of title process”. No “gun-show exemption”.
    We can do this with cars, and with houses, both of which are not deadly weapons, so we ought to be able to do this with guns. I don’t know what financial penalties or prison sentences would be effective to make people follow these laws.

    3a) I would make the DMV responsible for enforcement, because the ATF has been made legally ineffective by laws made in the dead of night, that would not have passed on their own merit. The NRA will be forced to remind their members to follow these laws, or else it can lose its charter, and be dissolved, with its president and managers subject to 10 years in prison. Because public safety is no joke! And no, the NRA is not a “terrorist organization”, but the real-life effect of their political positions makes them partially guilty of the unintended side-effect of guns in the hands of those who should not have them. If they cannot act responsibly, they need to be punished, just like any drug company making opioids finds themselves under legal attack, whether they knew it or not. Certainly, they know it NOW, and so they are being forced to change. Same applies to NRA.

    4) Gun ownership shall be treated as a privilege, not as an unregulated, unlimited right. The 2nd amendment will have to be amended to reflect these changes.

    5) If you know of smart and do-able ways to make such laws less burdensome, let me know.

    Would such laws be able to prevent all mass-shootings? No, but they would prevent a good number of them.
    Would these laws be “effective right away, in practice”? No, because it takes a while for any law to even sink in, to be publicized, to be administered, to be enforced. Nothing is 100% safe. It will take many years before the great surplus of guns in the USA is even affected by this.

    Will the Russians, Chinese, Japanese, the British, French, Germans, Canadians and Mexicans etc decide to invade the USA because of these laws? Hardly! No! Not even close! The US is a superpower and anyone who attacks is getting a “big kaboom” answer. Such fears should not even be taken seriously, but since I am talking to some among you who are slightly paranoid, I thought I’ll try to calm your fears.

    Even though our car license, registration laws have been around for decades, there are still some goofballs who drive without license and insurance, but that does not mean that the law is not effective? It is indeed quite effective, and reasonable, and that’s why we have it. Do I personally like the DMV, and the related fees? No, of course not, but I
    see it as necessary and reasonable.

    • I actually took the time to read that whooooole thing. Very broad ideas that are fine if you believe that our government has our best interest at heart and no nation might want our riches. Fine if you believe that. I happen to be one of those “slightly paranoid” people that believe in the power of power…it always corrupts. Our young history is replete with proofs of this. The world as whole offers many times more proofs of man’s ability to remain in a constant state of war. It is good that you have faith in whatever “goodness” you may have found in man that will allow you to let others continue to whittle away at your rights. I am sure there are about six million souls from one part of human history that wish that they had not been so sure, that they were as right, about the benevolence of others as you seem to be. signed: *Lifetime NRA member*

      • Well, it is nice that a NRA member took the time to read. I thought it was going to be a mere TLDR (Too long didnt read) exercise in futility. I tried to be relatively fair, and use reason, insight, history, to see whether I could convince anyone here to see things differently. I also used idealism, because one simple “has to be idealistic” to accomplish anything.

        But, I am not as wholly starry-eyed as you may think. From way back when we know that “homo hominis lupus est”, which means “Man acts like a wolf towards his fellow man”. Another cool saying from a Roman, I forgot his name right now, was “In the past, we were afraid of our neighbors. Now we are afraid of our government”. Ancient insights.

        Whatever your basic stance and belief system, you can always rely on: “Always expect the unexpected!”

        Since you hinted at the fate of six million, I am aware of interesting true stories, such as the one made into the movie called “Defiance”, which shows the history of a good number of jews in Poland, escaping into the polish forests, not only surviving, but fighting back against both the Nazi occupiers and the various polish helpers. In one of the key scenes, a polish collaborator fighting against the this particular group jewish people is surprised and says: “I thought the Jews don’t fight back!”, and one of the main actors in the movie responds by saying: “These jews do!” Very powerful movie. Rings true, to me.

        So, yes, I can imagine situations where having a gun and a specific will to fight against a true enemy could be life-saving.

        The last time the American love affair with guns just ever so slightly may have prevented an invasion was in World War 2, when the Japanese militarists in power, right after Pearl Harbor, were debating whether to invade the US West Coast, and their knowledge about American fire power in private hands may have helped to decide against that plan (however foolhardy that japanese plan looks now is another story).

        On the other hand, fighting against imaginary enemies just via being riled up by propaganda is not the best thing either.

        The issue at hand is very polarized. I figure the NRA could, should, and really ought to do more to not let mad people have guns. Remember those Westerns in the 1950’s where often enough a particular town, bar or casino had rules that said: “Check your guns at the front door”, simply because being drunk and angry at gambling away your cash does not mix too well with hand-guns at the ready. Did that cause a conflict with the 2nd amendment, back then? Not really.

        Meanwhile, it’s somewhat difficult to predict who is going to go crazy, and the way the laws work, the law always comes into play too late, when the horrific mass-shooting is already over.

        Thank you though for responding in a civil manner, without sending a posse after me, just for having thrown some thoughts you disagree with into the mix.

      • I also would like to add that any kind of gun law should be smart enough to apply different types of legislation to different locations. For example, the gun law for
        Montana, with its bears and wolves ought to be different than gun laws for the city of Chicago. I thin it was Victor Hugo who said: “the same law for lambs and oxen is oppression”. Which I take to mean, Laws ought to be flexible enough to work with different environments and circumstances.

  18. The NRA does more to promote safe gun handling than any other institution. It promotes members to know and obey the law. In its stand to promote gun owner rights , I have to side with the NRA. What good as gun free zones wrought? Like schools. Why would I wish to go to walmart that provides no security in the face of recent gun shootings and would deprive me of the right to defend myself, wal mart isn’t going to.

  19. I think we need we should banned the Democratic party totally why I think there the Democratic are behind all the shootings so they can try and banned guns.it want be long they try to people that they don’t like .
    So why not get rid of Democratic party all they do bring Americans down ??

    • Sorry, I have to disagree, crazy people with guns are behind these shootings. Please don’t accuse others of something without even the tiniest shred of evidence. Kindly be reasonable, and research whether you should believe what someone else says. Just because you really, really WANT TO believe something is often not enough to do so. Thank You!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*