(08-09-2020, 12:14 PM)Rajvik Wrote: At best i think they could only legitimately go after the people involved, the organization as an entity is not culpable for the actions of the people in charge.
It is when it doesn't follow the rules it's supposed to follow. Generally speaking officers of a company aren't culpable, or at least not punished, when they do things like break a contract or illegally dispose of waste materials, but the company generally is punished with fines and damages after they're caught.
(08-09-2020, 12:14 PM)Rajvik Wrote: If the liberals had not forced it out of school in the 60's and 70's the NRA would be doing exactly what they are supposed to, (and do) in teaching firearm safety. but when you make the people have to fight for what their charter tells them to do it gets messy.
The NRA could still be doing what its charter tells it to without getting nearly as involved in politics as it has been involved. It's charter is not to do political things, its charter is to improve rifle marksmanship. That does not require fighting to permit people to carry weapons in public under any circumstance, including very reasonable worries somebody may be a danger to themselves or others.
(08-09-2020, 12:14 PM)Rajvik Wrote: Hazard, you did not grow up with the RIGHT, (yes intentional capital letters there) to own a firearm and the belief that owning one was a right was not a part of your upbringing so you just don't get it. If the NRA is forcibly disbanded, it will be reincorporated somewhere like Texas within a week.
I understand it will get reincorporated, and probably very quickly. I also understand it's likely to remain a fairly powerful factor in US politics.
I do not believe it will be as powerful, and I do not believe they will have the same ease of it. The NRA's name and brand matters, and rebranding often costs influence and market share.