@Bourbon_Warrior said:
@insanejedi said:
@Bourbon_Warrior said:
Exactly dude, but it was taking over by the Gun Companies, to push their own agenda in Washington. The majority of NRA wants tougher regulations on guns, because they just want to go hunting, they don't want a 50 round semi-auto assault weapon to go hunt deer with, but the people that sadly control the NRA now just want to sell and make as much money as possible...
You are making up stuff again. I told you last time not to talk about shit you have no idea what you are talking about.
The NRA is made up of 4.3 million members paying $35 minimally each a year with many members PAYING MORE. Also, are you a member of the NRA? Are you with people who are actually NRA members? Because I am both, and what you said is completely fallacious. If the majority of the NRA members wanted tougher regulations on guns, THEY WOULDN'T BE PAYING THEIR OWN MONEY TO JOIN THE NRA EVERY YEAR. Because it is against the NRA mission statement.
Established in 1990, The NRA Foundation, Inc. (“NRA Foundation”) is a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization that raises tax-deductible contributions in support of a wide range of firearm-related public interest activities of the National Rifle Association of America and other organizations that defend and foster the Second Amendment rights of all law-abiding Americans. These activities are designed to promote firearms and hunting safety, to enhance marksmanship skills of those participating in the shooting sports, and to educate the general public about firearms in their historic, technological, and artistic context. Funds granted by The NRA Foundation benefit a variety of constituencies throughout the United States including children, youth, women, individuals with physical disabilities, gun collectors, law enforcement officers, hunters, and competitive shooters.
To end on that. they defend the Second Amendment, and the second amendment is not about hunting.
Explain to me what I am making up? Heres a poll taking last year with NRA members that details what I said about wanting regulations
Among the survey's key findings:
- 87 percent of NRA members agree that support for 2 Amendment rights goes hand-in-hand with keeping guns out of the hands of criminals.
- There is very strong support for criminal background checks:
- 74 percent support requiring criminal background checks of anyone purchasing a gun.
- 79 percent support requiring gun retailers to perform background checks on all employees – a measure recently endorsed by the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the trade association for the firearms industry.
- NRA members strongly support allowing states to set basic eligibility requirements for people who want to carry concealed, loaded guns in public places. By contrast, the NRA leadership's top federal legislative priority – national reciprocity for concealed carry permits – would effectively eliminate these requirements by forcing every state to allow non-residents to carry concealed guns even if they would not qualify for a local permit.
NRA members support many common state eligibility rules for concealed carrying:
75 percent of NRA members believe concealed carry permits should only be granted to applicants who have not committed any violent misdemeanors, including assault. 74 percent of NRA members believe permits should only be granted to applicants who have completed gun safety training. 68 percent of NRA members believe permits should only be granted to applicants who do not have prior arrests for domestic violence. 63 percent of NRA members believe permits should only be granted to applicants 21 years of age or older. So if the NRA are only there for the 2nd amendment, wouldn't that mean criminals are allowed firearms?
And what I said about Gun Companys heavily investing in NRA
But membership fees don't pay the NRA's bills alone. In recent years, the group has become more aggressive about seeking donations, both from individuals and corporations, and that in turn has led it to become more deeply entwined with the gun industry. In 2010, it received $71 million in contributions, up from $46.3 million in 2004. Some of that money came from small-time donors, who've received a barrage of fundraising appeals warning of President Obama's imminent plot to gut the Second Amendment and confiscate Americans' firearms. But around 2005, the group began systematically reaching out to its richest members for bigger checks through its "Ring of Freedom" program, which also sought to corral corporate donors. Between then and 2011, the Violence Policy Center estimates that the firearms industry donated as much as $38.9 million to the NRA's coffers. The givers include 22 different gun makers, including famous names like Smith & Wesson, Beretta USA, SIGARMS, and Sturm, Ruger & Co. that also manufacture so-called assault weapons.
Some of that funding has given the NRA a direct stake in gun and ammo sales. As Bloomberg noted in its January article, Sturm, Ruger & Co. launched a campaign to sell one million guns, and promised to donate $1 of each purchase to the group. Since 1992, MidWay USA, which retails gun supplies including ammo and controversial high-capacity magazines, has allowed its customers to round up each of their online and mail orders to the nearest dollar, and automatically donate the extra to the NRA. Together with other companies that have joined the effort, MidWay has helped collect more than $9 million for NRA. MidWay's owner, Larry Pottfield, also happens to be the the group's largest individual donor.
These connections have fueled the theory among some gun-control advocates that the NRA is just another corporate front. That might theoretically explain why the group has opposed politically popular measures such as requiring background checks at gun shows and banning sales to people on the terrorist watch list, proposals that even its own members have been found to support. For gun makers, the fewer rules, the better.
"They translate the industry's needs into less crass, less economically interested language -- into defending the home, into defending the country," Tom Diaz, the Violence Policy Center's senior policy analyst, told me in an interview. One example, he said, was concealed carry laws, which the NRA promotes as self-defense measures. As Diaz explained, letting private citizens carry their handguns in public also just happened to allow firearms manufacturers to make and market new, smaller weapons with higher calibers.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/12/whom-does-the-nra-really-speak-for/266373/
So please explain to me the part I am making up?
Damn, you just fucking schooled this guy over this own thing. I'm damn impressed.
Log in to comment