Gun Control: The Tree Of Liberty Must Be Refreshed From Time To Time With The Blood Of Children And Innocents

[Kalbear]

21 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Just read my posts again. I wasn't engaging in the rights and wrongs of the gun debate. That would be pointless. I was telling you that the NRA is driven primarily by the interests of its members, and those members are overwhelmingly, both from a numbers and cumulative revenue contribution perspective, ordinary gun owners. Not big corporations.

This isn't accurate, and the history of the NRA leadership and how it worked in the past shows how inaccurate this is. The 70s switched leadership, and the NRA went from an organization that largely worked towards gun safety rules and making things better to an organization based around ensuring arms were kept to fight off the tyrannical government. And while individual members are ones that donate most, some of those 'individual members' are people like the Koch brothers. 

Quote

But in the past couple of years, the NRA has also turned to deep-pocketed conservative allies. Last year an organization allied with the donor network of billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch gave between $2 million and $3 million to the NRA’s election efforts, according to two Republican fundraisers familiar with the gun group’s campaign work. The gift, said one of the fundraisers, was seen as a smart investment beyond what the Koch-affiliated Americans for Prosperity was already doing to boost conservative turnout. (The NRA did not respond to requests for comment on this story.)

Even better, the NRA is being joined by a whole lot of people who specifically think what the NRA is doing is bullshit. And then there's the weird-ass Russia angle of NRA support.

[Free Northman Reborn]

1 minute ago, Kalbear said:

This isn't accurate, and the history of the NRA leadership and how it worked in the past shows how inaccurate this is. The 70s switched leadership, and the NRA went from an organization that largely worked towards gun safety rules and making things better to an organization based around ensuring arms were kept to fight off the tyrannical government. And while individual members are ones that donate most, some of those 'individual members' are people like the Koch brothers. 

Even better, the NRA is being joined by a whole lot of people who specifically think what the NRA is doing is bullshit. And then there's the weird-ass Russia angle of NRA support.

Once again. The financial clout of the NRA is really pitiful compared to the financial muscle that people like Bloomberg have at their disposal. The NRA could not outspend any of the major liberal anti-gunners on a dollar for dollar basis. Their political fund size is in the tens of millions of dollars, if my memory is not failing me. Spread across the entire United States.

They don't influence elections thanks to their money. Because their money pool is pretty small, relatively speaking. They influence elections because their members' votes are swayed by their position on candidates. And that influence is not coercive, it is because the members choose to vote with the NRA on issues.

And truth be told, I expect that their influence extends beyond their 3 million members. Else they would not be as effective as they are. Most likely a lot more people vote along with the NRA's advice, even if they personally don't care to spend money on annual NRA membership fees.

[James Arryn]

5 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Once again. The financial clout of the NRA is really pitiful compared to the financial muscle that people like Bloomberg have at their disposal. The NRA could not outspend any of the major liberal anti-gunners on a dollar for dollar basis. Their political fund size is in the tens of millions of dollars, if my memory is not failing me. Spread across the entire United States.

They don't influence elections thanks to their money. Because their money pool is pretty small, relatively speaking. They influence elections because their members' votes are swayed by their position on candidates. And that influence is not coercive, it is because the members choose to vote with the NRA on issues.

And truth be told, I expect that their influence extends beyond their 3 million members. Else they would not be as effective as they are. Most likely a lot more people vote along with the NRA's advice, even if they personally don't care to spend money on annual NRA membership fees.

Come on, you aren’t really making this point. Okay, to summarize what you must be intentionally overlooking, the ‘entire wealth’ of ‘liberal anti-gunners’ is not devoted to all political disputes, let alone taking one side on one single dispute. 

Unlike the NRA. 

[Larry of the Lawn]

Well, the guns rights voters may be the largest single issue bloc in the country.  Maybe the 'pro-life' Bloc has them beat.  

[Kalbear]

12 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Once again. The financial clout of the NRA is really pitiful compared to the financial muscle that people like Bloomberg have at their disposal. The NRA could not outspend any of the major liberal anti-gunners on a dollar for dollar basis. Their political fund size is in the tens of millions of dollars, if my memory is not failing me. Spread across the entire United States.

It was $45 million in 2012. I don't know how much it was before that.

That said, they use it quite smartly - they simply promote and value the Republican who has the best rating by the NRA, and run oppo adds against the ones that don't. They don't have to win - or even care about - general election values at all. They know that NRA members are overwhelmingly deeply conservative and overwhelmingly turn out to vote in primaries, and Repulicans fear being primaried far more than they fear general election. It doesn't take much to influence a primary. 

12 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

They don't influence elections thanks to their money. Because their money pool is pretty small, relatively speaking. They influence elections because their members' votes are swayed by their position on candidates. And that influence is not coercive, it is because the members choose to vote with the NRA on issues.

See above.

12 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

And truth be told, I expect that their influence extends beyond their 3 million members. Else they would not be as effective as they are. Most likely a lot more people vote along with the NRA's advice, even if they personally don't care to spend money on annual NRA membership fees.

Again, thanks to Citizen United they get a whole lot of money more than just their organization. Heck, they have a sitting NRA lobbyist in Florida who literally writes most of the laws involving gun control there and has for the last 40 years. She's not elected by anyone, but she wields immense power because the NRA can absolutely boost - or wreck - a Republican's career there. 

[Free Northman Reborn]

3 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Well, the guns rights voters may be the largest single issue bloc in the country.  Maybe the 'pro-life' Bloc has them beat.  

And that is the heart of the matter. Absolutely correct.

[DanteGabriel]

1 minute ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

And that is the heart of the matter. Absolutely correct.

Is it unfair to say then that these people value their access to guns more than they value, say, the lives of children?

[all swedes are racist]

44 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

You should not have stopped quoting where you did. If you continued just a paragraph further, you would have read that:

"Corporate donors include a variety of companies such as outdoors supply, sporting goods companies, and firearm manufacturers.^{[143][158][159][161]} From 2005 through 2011, the NRA received at least $14.8 million from more than 50 firearms-related firms.^[158] An April 2011 Violence Policy Center presentation said that the NRA had received between $14.7 million and $38.9 million from the firearms industry since 2005."

So taking the maximum estimate there, that's $39 million from the firearms industry over a 6-year period. That's a measly $7 million average per year over that period. Compared to total annual revenue of $227 million dollars. That's what, about 3% of their revenue from the gun industry. To be frank, I thought it would be 10 times higher.

You've just proven my point to a greater extent than I thought was the case.

 

c'mon man. thats only straight up direct 'charitable' contributions... that does not reflect shit like these "round up" programs, corporate sponsoring memberships for customers... i mean, fuck, they made almost 25 mil from advertising alone according to their 2015 990

[DMC]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

One thing that I think plays a role is a fear of retaliation for past grievances, based largely along racial lines.

Yeah I was gonna say I think a big reason why is racial diversity - a lot more people don't look like the majority than in most of other countries.  And considering the history between the two boils down to genocide, slavery, and oppression, it makes sense that both the majority and minority are more scared than in other countries.

[James Arryn]

39 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

Yeah I was gonna say I think a big reason why is racial diversity - a lot more people don't look like the majority than in most of other countries.  And considering the history between the two boils down to genocide, slavery, and oppression, it makes sense that both the majority and minority are more scared than in other countries.

I find Americans think of themselves as much more culturally diverse than they are, and cite that un-fact as the basis for various things. I mean, definitions vary, obviously, but by most standards the US is middling to low in cultural diversity: by almost every one Canada is much more multi-cultural.

Here are the first two links found by searching ‘countries ranked by cultural diversity’:

 

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/07/18/the-most-and-least-culturally-diverse-countries-in-the-world/

US 85th, Canada 60th.

 

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/07/18/the-most-and-least-culturally-diverse-countries-in-the-world/

(Canada only western nation to rank in global top 20, US unspecified low-to-middle range.)

So I don’t think multiculturalism explains why/how/where the US is different from Canada, for example. Maybe thinking of themselves as particularly multicultural is itself the agent of distinction?

 

 

[Zorral]

1 hour ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Once again. The financial clout of the NRA is really pitiful compared to the financial muscle that people like Bloomberg have at their disposal. The NRA could not outspend any of the major liberal anti-gunners on a dollar for dollar basis. Their political fund size is in the tens of millions of dollars, if my memory is not failing me. Spread across the entire United States.

They don't influence elections thanks to their money. Because their money pool is pretty small, relatively speaking. They influence elections because their members' votes are swayed by their position on candidates. And that influence is not coercive, it is because the members choose to vote with the NRA on issues.

And truth be told, I expect that their influence extends beyond their 3 million members. Else they would not be as effective as they are. Most likely a lot more people vote along with the NRA's advice, even if they personally don't care to spend money on annual NRA membership fees.

What part of Koch Brothers, Russia etc. linked to in the post you're responding to do you NOT UNDERSTAND?  They have as much money as Bloomberg, and there are more of these sorts of the vastly wealth supporting the NRA, finding their base useful for their own interests than there of of vastly wealthy sorts such as Bloomberg -- who was mayor of a city determined to bring down gun violence.  You just ignore these facts in favor of your repeat blatherings.

[alguien]

4 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Seems like we're talking past each other. I'm not debating the gun rights issue. I think it is well established by now that we stand on opposite sides of that divide, so not much to be gained there.

I raised the point that it is incorrect to suggest that the NRA is primarily motivated by protecting the interests of gun manufacturers, because, well, that is not the case. Sure, the gun manufacterers are one of the interests they represent. But that is not what gives them their power. Their power comes from the passionate, grassroots support of their millions of ordinary members. And that is the group they primarily strive to represent.

Labelling it otherwise is incorrect.

Ah, their marketing department has done its work quite well on you.

Still sad to see someone fall for their "freedom" bullshit hook, line, and sinker.  

[DMC]

11 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

I find Americans think of themselves as much more culturally diverse than they are, and cite that un-fact as the basis for various things. I mean, definitions very, obviously, but by most standards the US is middling to low in cultural diversity: by almost every one Canada is much more multi-cultural.

LOL, funny how you're conflating cultural diversity with racial diversity - or even more specifically what I said in terms of people looking different.  Here's Canada's ethnic group breakdown:

Quote

Canadian 32.2%, English 19.8%, French 15.5%, Scottish 14.4%, Irish 13.8%, German 9.8%, Italian 4.5%, Chinese 4.5%, North American Indian 4.2%, other 50.9%
note: percentages add up to more than 100% because respondents were able to identify more than one ethnic origin (2011 est.)

Tons of diversity there huh?  Those English and French sure look different!

15 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

Here are the first two links found by searching ‘countries ranked by cultural diversity’:

First of all, that's one link posted twice.  Second, its first paragraph demonstrates my point:

Quote

Looking for a real multicultural experience? Head to Chad in north-central Africa where 8.6 million residents belong to more than 100 ethnic groups or to Togo, home to 37 tribal groups that speak one of 39 languages and share little in the way of a common culture or history.

That's certainly very rich cultural and even ethnic diversity, but the vast majority of those groups don't look different than each other.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 hours ago, dmc515 said:

Yeah I was gonna say I think a big reason why is racial diversity - a lot more people don't look like the majority than in most of other countries.  And considering the history between the two boils down to genocide, slavery, and oppression, it makes sense that both the majority and minority are more scared than in other countries.

I think the problem is largely with the majority. You can draw a parallel between this and the fear of the white majority that they'll soon be a voting plurality and eventually a minority group in this country. And I think that fear causes some people to believe, consciously or unconsciously, that the sins of the past will be repaid in present.  

[DMC]

26 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I think the problem is largely with the majority.

Of course, I just thought it important to note the minority has very good reason to be scared as well.

[Yukle]

4 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Once again. The financial clout of the NRA is really pitiful compared to the financial muscle that people like Bloomberg have at their disposal. The NRA could not outspend any of the major liberal anti-gunners on a dollar for dollar basis. Their political fund size is in the tens of millions of dollars, if my memory is not failing me. Spread across the entire United States.

It's a huge amount when you consider that it's all focused on one effective and clear message. 

For those advocating gun-control, their revenue is splintered across many different arguments, not all of which are agreeable to each other. Some want only minor changes, some want outright bans, some want it done at a state level, others at a federal level. It's hard to co-ordinate a response when each of these ideas must compete with each other about which is the best means of proceeding, and they're competing with each other, as well as the NRA.

The NRA, on the other hand, simply says, "NO!" to anything related to reducing gun violence.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

7 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

Of course, I just thought it important to note the minority has very good reason to be scared as well.

True, but I think a lot of this comes from the majority projecting the worst parts of it's history onto the minority. 

[Kalbear]

Again, the problem isn't general elections - while NRA members are effective at voting, they as a bloc vote absurdly overwhelmingly Republican, so they really aren't that threatening (though arguably they hurt Gore a lot in 2000, making him lose Tennessee, chances are good he wasn't going to win that anyway). Just like pro-life activists vote overwhelmingly Republican.

The difference is that the NRA is incredibly effective at picking primary winners, and picking effective primary challengers. At that point both their numbers and their money work extra better. The end result is Democrats who are usually pretty good on gun control and Republicans who are 100% against it no matter what it might be. 

[DMC]

15 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

True, but I think a lot of this comes from the majority projecting the worst parts of it's history onto the minority. 

Not sure what you mean here, I don't think acknowledging minorities have good reason to be scared of white people - even before Trump - is projecting.

[ants]

Yep, guns in schools will make things safer....

One student dead, another hurt in accidental Alabama school shooting