this post was submitted on 07 Jan 2026
168 points (100.0% liked)

Not The Onion

21236 readers
2077 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

  1. Links to news stories from...
  2. ...credible sources, with...
  3. ...their original headlines, that...
  4. ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Please also avoid duplicates.

Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, ableist, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 12 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 52 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The NRA used to argue against CCW and AR ownership, shit, even the inventer Euegen Stoner never understood why a random civilian would want one...

It changed in the 70s when essentially a coup backed by lobbyists from gun manufacters happened. That's when it went from a hunting/conservation club to the rapid "pry it from my cold dead hands" modern NRA.

In 2026 there's a very good reason for CCW and AR ownership, but if we fix society so we're not under threat of fascists, that changes.

[–] village604@adultswim.fan 14 points 3 months ago

If CCW and AR ownership can defeat fascism, then nothing changes once it's defeated.

You'd still need CCW and AR to defeat it the next time, because there will be a next time.

[–] giantripdrop@piefed.social 46 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The fraudster Wayne LaPierre --former CEO of the Association who stepped down last year after NY AG brought charges against him for illegally using NRA funds to live a lavish lifestyle (aka, stealing money) -- and his allies took control of the Foundation to try and wrestle control back from the new directors.

Laws!

[–] limelight79@lemmy.world 17 points 3 months ago

The article makes it sound like the foundation is now trying to start a new NRA-type organization, and that's what the NRA is suing for.

I feel like they should be handling this via duel, though.

[–] DagwoodIII@piefed.social 21 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (3 children)

Which raises the question, what does the NRA consider 'charitable' works?

Teaching people with disabilities to use weapons and demonstrating the 'artistic' nature of firearms, accoding to the website.

edit

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 9 points 3 months ago

I would hope there’s a big educational component.

My kids’ Boy Scout troop had someone take them to a shooting range every year. They had safety and handling lessons, as well as range masters for archery, 22’s, and their “collection”. I have to admit it was fun and I’m happy my kids had the safety lessons but I hope to hell that they never decide to own

[–] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago

the NRA used to be a non profit focused on teaching gun safety and marksmanship.

then came the 80s.

[–] northernlights@lemmy.today 3 points 3 months ago

I mean our achery club is a bona fide charity, it's not that different. USA Archery, that we depend from and all our instructors are certified by, and is the one managing the olympic teams, is as well. (source, page 1)

[–] hansolo@lemmy.today 14 points 3 months ago

Hilarious. There's a non-zero chance that the two share office space or staff, too. I used to work with an association/foundation thing like this and the foundation rented office space from the association for like $1 a year. Very few people knew the dividing line of exactly which staff were which because it was so intermingled.

[–] Delta_V@lemmy.world 7 points 3 months ago

👁️👄👁️ 🫳🍿

[–] NatakuNox@lemmy.world 6 points 3 months ago

The grift ran out of runway. Now those left holding the bag are mad.

[–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 3 points 3 months ago