I guess the NRA isn't as big a fan of the First Amendment as they are of the Second Amendment. What a pitiful group this once-proud bastion of hunters and conservationists has become. The gun manufacturers and anti-government paranoids who control this group want nothing but unfettered gun proliferation, and they're coldly dismissive of the safety of our children even in the wake of one mass shooting after another. It's time for reasonable people to support universal background checks, mental health reform, and assault weapon restrictions.

Protesters have a right to assemble on public property, but they are not entitled to protest on private property. And there is no law saying anyone MUST receive a petition. The NRA did nothing wrong.

It's not matter of the NRA "did nothing wrong." They are hypocrites and bullies and nothing prevents them from being either. They should expect to be called out on it. I'm fed up with this brand of "patriotism" with people wrapping themselves and their gun collections in the American flag and bellowing about their 2nd amendment rights. The rest of us have rights too. So the NRA should be bracing themselves of a whole lot of pushback. This is still a free country - so far.

You got it exactly correct JOTC. The "Sheepole" ignore the fact that violent crime is far less where legal gun ownership and concealed carry is permitted. It is all about feeling good about themselves and nothing to do with actually solving the real problem.

"She said the members of the organization who have signed it want the NRA to know how they feel and they have a responsibility to get the petition to the NRA."

If a "member" signed this petition they have no business in the NRA
other than playing the role of an infiltrating agitator. The NRA Hq
caters to it's members and not it's critics. I would highly recommend
the protesters find themselves a copy of the Federalist Papers because
it's obvious they have no clue.

In the above post I was referring to a Washington Post
article that says some NRA members have signed the
petition. My bad for not explaining on this forum. One
of the members of the protest group claims that he's
joined the NRA in order to take the discussion "inside".
Too bad he's such a rookie at this game. He needs
to join up with the Violence Policy Center instead. I'm
sure the NRA is in the process of revoking his membership
this morning.

Can anyone cite the text of the petition? I'd like to know what these people think.

I have yet to hear of a proposed new law that would have done anything to thwart any of the horrific killings to which many of these groups are reacting. Still, I'd like to listen to proposals, and have *reasoned* debate.

The proposals I've heard so far include:
- Firearms bans, which are thwarted by black markets, and which, to date, ban only those that have minuscule impact on crime
- Magazine capacity restrictions, but only for the law-abiding
- Universal transaction checks; many don't realize the *current* federal form for a NICS check *requires* information about the firearm, including its serial number, not just the purchaser.
- Restrictions on purchase of firearms, which only affect those who legally purchase them.
- Increasing the rolls of prohibited persons, to include those who have not had their day in court, i.e. are robbed of due process.

There are others, but each is designed to further hamper law-abiding citizens who keep and, yes, bear arms.

Is this petition different? What does it say?

By refusing to accept the petition, it is true that the NRA did nothing legally wrong. Whether the NRA is ethically wrong is another story. The NRA as an organization prospers from mass murders. In the wake of these horrific crimes, membership grows and the financial health of the organization improves. So why do anything - such as initiate a dialog with concerned mothers - that might possibly eventually reduce mass killings? I understand why NRA leaders so act in these situations; I grieve, however, that they care so little for the lives of children. Or for the lives of the rest of us. We Americans seem to have the right to bear arms, but we seem not to to have the right the protect our children - and ourselves - from getting shot.

Also, I often hear the phrase "law-abiding citizens" and their right to bear arms. But who are the law-abiding citizens, and who are the criminals? Who draws the line between the two? When does a law-abiding citizen turn into a criminal, say, and murders his family? Are all NRA members law-abiding citizens? If not, what percentage of the NRA membership are criminals?

Which raises another question: does the NRA perform background checks on prospective members? An NRA member should be able to answer this question.

I honestly think that the answers to these questions are important. NRA members claim that the members of their organization are "law-abiding", and use that phrase defend their positions about gun use. However, the NRA seems to have no way to know whether or not its members are in fact law-abiding. I assume that most, if not nearly all, NRA members are law-abiding, but the phrase rings false. If the NRA takes such pains to promote itself as a collection of law-abiding citizens, it is odd that its leadership should care so little about the personal backgrounds of prospective or current members. Maybe I should join the NRA to find out the answer to this question myself.

I'm a mom and a staunch supporter of my right to bear arms as a method to PROTECT my child and the children of those I love. The gun control proposals do not include any provisions to preclude the atrocities that have happened and will continue to happen. Where's the outrage over the Obummer's administration providing guns to Mexican cartels that have been used to kill thousands of innocent men, women and children? If those same men and women had access to the same type of weaponry, how many of those lives could have been saved? I support gun control that makes sense ... but nothing I've seen to date does that.

The NRA *could* have sent a janitor or low-level minion out to accept the petition, and then round-filed it. Would have kept these folks from their 15 minutes of fame. Moms Rising should be thankful for the reception they got.

I'd still like to know what it says. I sent Moms Rising an e-mail requesting the information, and will share if/when I get a response.

LOL! Now I get it! I Googled MomsRising + Soros
and received 20,000+ hits. Follow the money trail. :)

Okay, would you care to discuss the Federalist Papers
and their relevancy to the 2nd Amendment? Hows about previous
SCOTUS rulings such as Heller and McDonald?

The Federalist Papers are the primary documents used
by Supreme Court Justices in order to determine Framers Intent
and thus interpret the Constitution. I don't see limitations on the
Heller or McDonald rulings as they reaffirmed an individuals right
to own a firearm. Shall we start with Federalist #29?