Wisconsin should be a wake-up call to those who ignore gun rights in politics.

[Atypical Liberal]

Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle twice vetoed the concealed carry bill that Republican Governor Walker put into law yesterday.

80,000 permit applications have been downloaded in the first 9 hours they have been available.

This should be a warning to politicians who embrace gun control.

Supporting gun control plays right into Republican hands. Don't fall for it.

[msongs]

1. the mental obsession with guns is a "warning" to politicians and all citizens nt

[friendly_iconoclast]

4. Vermont has damn near *no* gun laws- and has lower violent crime and murder rates than California

Doesn't that harsh your mellow just a teensy little bit?

[TheWraith]

7. Shush. They like to forget the NRA endorsing Howard Dean... eight times.

It's almost as inconvenient as Eleanor Roosevelt's pistol permit.

[safeinOhio]

14. Vermont also has

a population of only 623,650 people, much less than LA county alone. It also has a population that is 98.12% white. Think any of that might be more important than the gun laws?
If you look at the numbers, the cities and states with the highest crime, have the most strict gun laws and those the least crime and lowest population densities have the fewest gun restrictions. Now if you wanted to do an experiment and take the city with the highest gun crime and take away all gun laws and then see if the crime rate goes up or down, you could find out the direction of the correlation. Or, you might take a state with the lowest crime rate and then give it the most restrictive laws and see if the crime rate goes up. Correlations do not mean cause, they mean correlations.

[kelly1mm]

16. Are you implying that non-whites are inherently more violent than whites?

Also, the crime rates are per capita, not raw numbers. Are you suggesting that higher population density makes people more violent?

[DonP]

18. Yes he is, but he's being very careful not to say it that way.

[safeinOhio]

19. Homogeneous societies are less violent

and higher population density does lead to more conflicts.

[gejohnston]

44. so explain

USVI low population density, homogeneous, and a murder rate about 60/100K and they have some of the stricter gun laws in the US.

How is this explanation: they have the misfortune of being in the middle of a major trade route organized crime uses for the drug trade, same problem as gun banning Jamaica. Gangsters killing other gangsters. Vermont does not have that problem.

[iverglas]

49. oh, well done

Why, you'd almost think that someone had proffered homogeneity/heterogeneity as the ONLY factors in firearms crime rates ...

[gejohnston]

50. no, but

it would help if you read the conversation in context. It did seem the case of the individuals above, I said nothing about only.

[safeinOhio]

61. Plenty of variables

like the effectiveness of law enforcement to outside influences, like being on a drug route. Anyway, sociologist, pretty much agree that, crime is higher cities, less so in suburbs and even less in rural areas, many studies and theories.


http://www.ncsociology.org/crowding.htm



  Researchers in the social sciences have long tried to explain the effects of urbanization on the human animal.  Of special interest has been the observed rates of crime and deviant behavior found in cities.  In the United States city crime rates are higher than suburban rates, which in turn are higher than rural rates.  Studies on animals as well as observations of human behavior have been used to examine density and human pathology, but results have been mixed.  Regoeczi shows that the effect of crowding on human behavior is non-linear.  Further, people who suffer from the effects of crowding self-select into lower density living conditions to self-treat their condition.
Two major theories have developed to explain the effects of density on human behavior.  Wirth’s (1938) is the most common with his famous statement that size, density and heterogenity explain the effects of urban life on the human animal.  The experiments done by Milgram (1970) suggest that when people are confronted with a large number of strangers in everyday life, they tend to withdraw and take less interest in the community in order to protect themselves from overload.  Wolfgang (1970), among others, suggests that urban withdrawal and anomie  resulting from density explains higher urban crime rates. 

Please google "population density crime rates"

[pipoman]

63. Exactly..

which counters the claims that the US has a higher violent crime rate than more historically homogeneous countries because of gun availability. It also explains why the US has always been more violent than the more homogeneous societies even when gun availability was very similar, an inconvenient truth poopooed 'round here quite often.

[iverglas]

66. no, sorry

It isn't historic heterogeneity that is the factor.

It's institutionalized racism.

We have to grant you that bit of exceptionalism, eh?

At present, Canada has twice the foreign-born population, proportionately, that the US has, and Australia's proportion is even higher. And since this has involved very rapid changes to the population make-up (within a couple of generations), one would actually expect it to have resulted in more conflict than in earlier generations.

Institutionalized racism is a very significant underlying factor. But y'know, that really doesn't mean that you get to say that no other differences between otherwise comparable societies play any role.

Historically, there has been considerably worse income disparity in the US, and that is widely recognized as a predictor of certain crimes. It's getting worser in the US than it is elsewhere, as well, although it's getting worse all over.

The fact is that there is no otherwise comparable society where firearms -- and most particularly handguns, the firearms most often involved in crime -- are as available and firearms possession as unregulated in the US.

For you to pretend that this factor is not a factor is really just laughable.

[GreenStormCloud]

73. Compare Juarez, Mexico to El Paso, TX, USA.

They are directly across the border from each other. Mexico has gun laws that the gun-banners here in the USA can only dream of having, yet they have a very high violent crime and murder rate. El Paso, which has more guns than people had only three murders last year.

[iverglas]

26. dog only knows what you thought this had to do with the thread

... it being not infrequently quite difficult to follow your thought processes ...

But what the hell.

http://www.tracetheguns.org/#/states/VT/exports/

Vermont has only the last thing in this list:

Allows Criminal Penalties for Buying a Gun for Someone who Can't - no
Allows Criminal Penalties for Buying a Gun with False Information - no
Allows Criminal Penalties for Selling a Gun without a Proper Background Check - no
Requires Background Checks for all Handgun Sales at Gun Shows - no
Requires Purchase Permit for All Handgun Sales - no
Grants Law Enforcement Discretion in Issuing Concealed Carry Permits - no
Prohibits Violent Misdemeanor Criminals from Possessing Guns - no
Requires Reporting Lost or Stolen Guns to Law Enforcement - no
Allows Local Communities to Enact Gun Laws - no
Allows Inspections of Gun Dealers - yes

Vermont is a net exporter
More crime guns are trafficked out of Vermont than into the state
(image won't copy: 50 imports vs. 142 exports -- 41 went to NY state, 35 to Massachusetts ...)

19.6% of Vermont's Guns Have a Short Time-to-Crime
The percentage of guns recovered in a crime within two years of original sale — a strong indicator of gun trafficking.
National Average: 22.6%

Vermont's crime gun export rate
22.8 guns exported per 100,000 inhabitants
14.1 national average of guns exported per 100,000 inhabitants


So ... what we have is an I'm all right, Jack, screw-thy-neighbour state.

Vermont doesn't give a shit about where its guns go and whom they hurt.


Just for info, clicking on an adjacent state (one that has all 10 of the laws listed above):

New York's crime gun export rate
2.6 guns exported per 100,000 inhabitants
14.1 national average of guns exported per 100,000 inhabitants

New York is a net importer
More crime guns are trafficked into New York than out of the state
(image won't copy: 3607 imports vs. 514 exports)


Check it out.

New Hampshire, with 2 of the 10 laws, is a definite net exporter, with an export rate above the national average.

Virginia, with 3 of the ten laws, is hugely a net exporter, with an export rate more than double the national average.

California, with 8 of the 10 laws, is a clear net importer, with an export rate way below the national average (although not as low as New York's).

Illinois, with 8 of 10 laws (discretionary concealed carry not applicable), is enormously a net importer, with an export rate way below the national average.


Anybody seeing a pattern here?

States with lax gun control supply guns to criminals in other states.

Nice, eh?

[rl6214]

31. Your obssesion with dog again?

http://www.dogthebountyhunter.com/

[iverglas]

36. I don't like to offend

However, if there are any dog-worshippers in the vicinity, I will acquiesce in any requests to stop taking their deity's name in vain.

[friendly_iconoclast]

39. Tsk tsk. Citing a 'study' where they have yet to produce the raw data?

Mind you, ATF has had some credibility problems of late- but then again, they have a much lower rate of felony indictments amongst their personnel than MAIG does...

Anyway, a careful reading of their paper reveals no source data (they claim due to ATF restrictions):

http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/downloads/pdf/trace_the_guns_report.pdf

(From the end notes)

4.
The data analyzed in this report was provided by the Department of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
to Mayors Against Illegal Guns on March 4, 2010 in response to a request submitted in January 2009. This data
is only available because of recent reforms to Congressional restrictions on the use of crime gun trace data.
Since 2003, annual Congressional appropriations riders known as the “Tiahrt Amendments” prohibited ATF
from publicly releasing crime gun trace data. Prior to 2003, ATF had regularly released crime gun trace data
and routinely produced reports analyzing gun trafficking trends.
See e.g. Department of the Treasury, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, Youth Crime Gun Interdiction Initiative Reports (1997 - 2002).
In 2007 and 2009, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, and over 30 police organizations launched national campaigns to reform
the Tiahrt Amendment restrictions. In 2007, Mayors Against Illegal Guns succeeded in securing language in
the Tiahrt Amendment restrictions that explictly allowed law enforcement agencies and prosecutors to share
with each other any trace data they acquire connected to their criminal investigations. In addition, ATF was
explicitly allowed to begin releasing limited statistical reports using aggregated trace data. These limited
statistical reports paved the way for the coalition’s 2008 report, The Movement of Illegal Guns in America. In
2009, Mayors Against Illegal Guns secured new language in the Tiahrt Amednments that restored full access
for state and local law enforcement to ATF’s gun trace database.
Although there are still significant restrictions on the use of ATF crime gun trace data, the recent reforms allowed
ATF to provide the data relied upon in this report to Mayors Against Illegal Guns.

I wouldn't buy it from the NRA, and I don't buy it from MAIG.
It's not the first time for MAIG- they have yet to produce the unedited videotapes from their gun show "stings".

[iverglas]

41. I just knew it

They made it all up.


Lord, some people are desperate.

[friendly_iconoclast]

47. I see Ontario's straw harvest is in. Apparently you had a fine crop.

I don't know if "they made it all up", some of it up, or it's all Gospel truth - and neither do you or anyone else that isn't MAIG.

I simply don't trust people of any persuasion who won't provide the raw data to back up their claims. One can (if possessed of a strong gag reflex) look at FreeRepublic's version of damn near anything for another example, their coverage of the various Occupy protests being the most immediate and obvious example.

I don't buy unsubstantiated claims from anybody.

[iverglas]

48. how about the ATF?

It's their data that's claimed as the source.

Do you imagine the ATF is unaware of this publication? After what had to be gone through to get the data?

(Thanks for that info, by the way. I wasn't aware that the Tiahrt crap had been successfully eroded to that extent. Congratulations to the neighbours.)

Here's what the document says at p. 31:

Sources of Data

This analysis uses the most up-to-date ATF aggregate trace data available. Aggregated ATF trace data identify the state where the traced gun was first sold at retail (the “source state”), and the state where the traced gun was recovered at a crime scene (the “recovery state”). The aggregated ATF data examined in this analysis was taken from two different sources: (1) data published by ATF on its website on April 14, 2010 and (2) data provided by ATF to Mayors Against Illegal Guns on March 4, 2010 in response to a request submitted in January 2009.

The data set published by ATF on April 14, 2010 was extracted from its Firearms Tracing System database on March 9, 2010 and summarizes the total number of crime guns recovered and traced in each state and the District of Columbia, and the number of recovered crime guns originating from the top-15 source states. The data set provided to Mayors Against Illegal Guns on March 4, 2010 was extracted from the Firearms Tracing System database on February 23, 2010 and summarizes for each recovery state the number of guns recovered from all source states from 2006 to 2009.

Increased Data Precision

This report relies on source state and recovery state data for all 50 states and the District of Columbia. This information enabled a more complete analysis of interstate crime gun trafficking patterns than was used in the 2008 Mayors Against Illegal Guns report, The Movement of Illegal Guns in America. The 2008 report relied on data published by ATF that identified only the top-15 source states for crime guns recovered in a particular state. This year, ATF provided to Mayors Against Illegal Guns data detailing the number of crime guns recovered in a particular state and originating from each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia. See footnote eight for additional information as to how this improved the analysis of this report.65

So I'm like totally unable to take your point:
Citing a 'study' where they have yet to produce the raw data?

The study they cite is the study they did, do I have this right?

And the raw data was supplied by the ATF. I may be understanding that it is supplied only to "state and local law enforcement". I suppose I could spend my time googling to find out what restrictions might be placed on the use of the data.

Since you're the one alleging misuse and/or misrepresentation of the data, and yes you are, you're the one who should be doing that, I think.

If the ATF does not allow (is not allowed to allow) release of the data, you'd be wanting to retract a little, I think.

And in any event you'd be wanting to explain why the ATF (or anybody else) doesn't seem to have raised any hue and cry about any misuse/misrepresentation, as I would certainly expect someone to do were that the case.

[gejohnston]

54. if the data

is only available to police agencies, how did MAIG get it? It is not like the ATF is going to give MAIG anything given how much Billionaire Republican Bloomburg and his band of one percenter politicians (including more than a few felons)pissed off the ATF with their "stings".

Does the ATF read MAIG's bullshit studies? They have better things to do. I doubt if anyone in the agency is even aware, or care.

[hack89]

52. But the other states still provide the criminals

so lets fix the real problem

[gejohnston]

53. what is the point of redundant state laws?

Allows Criminal Penalties for Buying a Gun for Someone who Can't - no
covered by federal law

Allows Criminal Penalties for Buying a Gun with False Information - no
covered by federal law

Allows Criminal Penalties for Selling a Gun without a Proper Background Check - no
covered by federal law

Requires Background Checks for all Handgun Sales at Gun Shows - no
If FFL, covered by federal law, if private sale no.

Requires Purchase Permit for All Handgun Sales - no
OK, I'll give you that one

Grants Law Enforcement Discretion in Issuing Concealed Carry Permits - no
nor should they, and has nothing to do with exporting crime guns. Concealed carry permits are not relevant to the issue.

Prohibits Violent Misdemeanor Criminals from Possessing Guns - no
covered by federal law if domestic abuse

Requires Reporting Lost or Stolen Guns to Law Enforcement - no
OK, I'll give you that one but I don't know why one would not.

Allows Local Communities to Enact Gun Laws - no
nor should they

Allows Inspections of Gun Dealers - yes
The feds do too.

[pipoman]

64. The problem raised by those who advocate for a law requiring reporting

of stolen firearms is one of straw purchasers. An eligible gun buyer buys a gun. They buy it with money given them by someone who is ineligible, then give the ineligible person the gun. The ineligible person uses the gun in commission of a crime. The gun is recovered by leos. The original purchaser is interviewed and states the gun was stolen shortly after purchase. "Did you report the theft?" "No, I don't have insurance to cover it, and didn't want the hassle". End of story. If there was a requirement for reporting stolen firearms which carried a penalty sufficient to disqualify future gun purchases, at least the buyer would be taken out of the straw purchase business.

[Atypical Liberal]

8. I hope so. nt

[SteveM]

20. So, don't stir up a hornets' nest, then complain about the stings. nt

[We_Have_A_Problem]

72. Certainly a warning to...

...politicians. It is intended to be.

Sometimes they need to be reminded exactly who is in charge.

[seacaves]

2. Our Repugs voted to allow them into OUR HOUSE-the Capitol!!

[friendly_iconoclast]

3. They've been allowed for years in several state capitals with no problem.

Where lies the problem?

[seacaves]

5. Actually only 8 per this article.....

I am not against concealed carry overall, but our House is special. Civil discourse should be the priority.


It will be something to get used to.

http://www.wkow.com/story/15889490/policy-would-allow-guns-at-state-capitol?clienttype=printable

"A spokesperson for the National Council of State Legislatures said eight other states allow the concealed carry of weapons in their state houses."

[Hoopla Phil]

58. Do you really think that a person addressing a potentially (and legally armed) person will not be

civil? I would think that legally carried arms would tend to make every conversation "civil".

[Hoopla Phil]

57. So what? There is actually an "express lane" at the Texas capital

for CHL holders. Doesn't make much sense to have CHL holder go through a metal detector does it? I understand most lobbyists have CHL's now just to avoid the line.

[Blue Owl]

6. It's not the Capitol anymore -- it's Walker's Crackhouse

And you can bet there's lots of crack Koch flowing through that house.

[ileus]

9. all the more reason to strap on a gun or two before entering...

:)

[Hoyt]

10. Let's all cheer Walker -- he's a true friend to those who think guns are where it's at.

Because guns are clearly the answer to our problems and the great progressive cause of the 21st Century.

[DonP]

11. What about the Dems that voted for it?

Or the Minority leader who has already applied for his CCW permit and was interviewed about it last week?

Are they all "Friends of Walker" too?

Or was Doyle just way too fucking stupid to see what the citizens of his own state really wanted?

[Atypical Liberal]

12. Gun control is the BANE of the progressive cause.

Because guns are clearly the answer to our problems and the great progressive cause of the 21st Century.

One thing is certain, if you champion gun control, you will destroy yourself politically.

Gun control should be avoided like the plague by the progressive cause. It does nothing but drive voters to the conservative side.

[Scuba]

13. It's clearly had that effect here in Wisconsin. Many supported Walker for that one issue alone. n/

[safeinOhio]

15. Ohio proved that wrong with Kasich's election.

He voted for the AWB and against bullets that hunters use. He had a long history of an F rating by the NRA and beat a Democrat with an A rating. So, how do you explain that?

[Atypical Liberal]

33. There are always exceptions n/t

[gejohnston]

45. Koch paid for

propaganda, a mainstream media as sucky as Florida's not mentioning Medicare fraud until after the election. Just a guess.

[Hoyt]

17. So if we are willing to accept guns, wars and perhaps no taxes on rich, Dems would be in control?

That's crazy, but then you know how I feel about folks strapping on a gun or two before walking out the door.

[DonP]

24. Far better to be pure of heart .... and out of office.

You want to cling to a "long held" Dem tenet that's been around since ... oh, sometime after the Beatle's White Album and the Dave Clark Five's Bits and Pieces topped the charts.

Even when it costs you elections ... and then you lose anyway.

By the way. How is repealing CCW in your home state coming along? Got any petitions circulating yet? You seem terribly focused on other states, but don't seem to do jack spit about getting it repealed in your own state. Why is that?

Funny, for all the weeping and wailing about CCW, no state has even discussed repealing it that I've heard. But I'm sure I must be wrong with all that popular support you claim, all those millions of non-toters, you can set us all straight and list a few of the recall motions out there, right?

It really doesn't matter if you are "willing to accept guns", they are here whether you like them or not. But you're always welcome in Gun Free Chicago

[iverglas]

29. there's one method that would be a whole lot easier

Vow to outlaw abortion and Democrats will control every legislative body in the land.

What could be easier??

[Atypical Liberal]

34. Never said anything about war or taxes, just guns.

Our wars in the middle east are immoral and wasteful. Wealth in this country has shot to the hands of just a few, and taxes would help change that balance.

But every person should be able to exercise their Constitutional right to keep and bear arms, and clearly the majority of Americans want that right, which is why gun control continues to be a losing battle.

[iverglas]

37. oh, that concrete thinking

Do you (and others) REALLY not grasp reasoning by analogy??

What you did say was:

Gun control should be avoided like the plague by the progressive cause. It does nothing but drive voters to the conservative side.

So here's how it goes.

Take "gun control" in that sentence.

Replace it with your choice of:

taxes
invading foreign countries
outlawing abortion

and I'm sure we could come up with a few others -- causes that are dear to the right-wing heart, and/or that can be used to suck up votes from the dimmer sparks in the electorate. Oh, "ban same-sex marriage", that will do nicely too.

Put any simplistic right-wing policy you like in there -- avoid gun control, avoid reproductive choice, avoid equal marriage rights, avoid tax increases for the rich, avoid improving healthcare coverage, avoid cutting military spending -- and you'll suck up enough spare votes to win every time.

Why would "avoid gun control" be the best choice? Safer to promise to outlaw abortion, I think.

[gejohnston]

69. because

reproductive choice
equal marriage rights
tax increases for the rich
improving healthcare coverage

Most are supported my most in the US by fairly wide margins. Gun control is kind of vague. Even the NRA is for gun control, the issue is the degree. Most people have no idea what an "assault weapon" is.

[gejohnston]

68. you read the polls wrong

the want Dems to leave guns alone and fight for:
single payer by 70 percent, you would be amazed how many rednecks want it. (My FIL was very conservative on a lot of issues, but he was a strong supporter of single payer/socialized medicine. )
higher taxes on the rich by even a higher margin
end corporate welfare. Ask the average tea party in the street (not the money bags, the middle class guy that shows up with the signs) they don't like it either.

On wars, to quote Herman Goring:

Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship. ...voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/goering.asp

I think it is a mistake to assume what everyone (left or right) is in lock step with the self appointed leaders. The weak minded, yes only because they don't know any better.

[SteveM]

23. Wicker Man strikes again! Gotta light?

[iverglas]

21. yes indeedy: elect a stinking right-wing governor

and you'll get your "gun rights".

Don't kowtow to the gun lobby and its ugly militant brigade, and you'll get a stinking right-wing governor.

Lose-lose, ain't it?

And all thanks to those "gun rights" folks. Thank them, now!

[ProgressiveProfessor]

25. If the incumbent does not listen to the people, expect change

We take our liberties and freedoms quite seriously down here and anti government feelings have a long historical tradition. One of the benefits of how the US was formed.

In this case the party thought incumbency would be enough and did not offer up a better candidate. It was wrong

[iverglas]

27. if "listening to the people" were relevant here, you'd have a point

Gun militants and their well-funded lobbies are not "the people".

And what they take seriously has nothing to do with "liberties and freedoms" (brought to us by the department of redundancy department?).

[ProgressiveProfessor]

71. So gun militants voted him out of office all by themselves?

In many cases one issue is not the make or break for a pol, but when they start to accumulate he is toast.

[AtheistCrusader]

30. There is a simpler solution.

It's all in how you frame the first half of your 'lose-lose' estimate.

But I don't live in Wisconsin, so I don't give a shit if they elected a repug. In Washington, we have CPL's. Have had for a very, very long time. No training requirement. And that's how I like it.

AND, we manage to keep our governor and legislature solid blue. Our politicians don't pick up dead-assed loser laws and run with them.

[iverglas]

38. ah, Washington state

http://www.tracetheguns.org/#/states/WA/exports/

A net exporter of guns to other states in the union.

Of 784 traced exported crime guns, 252 went to California.

I'll bet the neighbours love you!

There's a healthy back-and-forth traffic with Oregon and Idaho as well, but that just looks like fair trade.

[AtheistCrusader]

42. Well that makes total sense.

Since you can't buy a gun at the local gun shows without a background check.

I guess self-policing doesn't work?

[iverglas]

43. eh?

You've confused me.

This background check at gun shows is a private policy? and it applies to all gun shows state-wide?

So the incidents I cited here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=475542&mesg_id=475759

don't happen anymore?

Or you're suggesting that self-policing doesn't work, e.g. sales w/o background checks do happen at gun shows, maybe just not right on the premises, but outside or after the show, for instance?

[AtheistCrusader]

46. Private policy.

WAC shows all require it. If you so much as pick up a gun to look at without a membership (which requires background check) you get tossed out. If the seller doesn't alert the show people, they get tossed out too.

Could the sales happen outside? Sure. Just like they happen in the newspapers, at garage sales, around the company water cooler, between friends, etc.

[rl6214]

32. Luckily this is the US of A and not oh-con-a-da

[iverglas]

40. more incoherency

Bad week around here.

[rl6214]

51. Only to you

[libinnyandia]

22. Guns vs jobs

It is ironic: people will support republicans because they love their guns but then can't afford to buy firearms or ammo because they don't have jobs or don't have worker rights.

[iverglas]

28. which just does go to show

how much of a shit the gun mlitants and their well-funded lobbies give about "the people", eh?

[burf]

55. So where do anti gun organizations such as

the Brady bunch come up with their money? The NRA has 4 million members, how many for Brady?

So much for your "the people".

[iverglas]

59. you may need to do a little thinking

The NRA does is a club, basically.

The lobbying is done by the NRA-ILA, one of the NRA's divisions.

Can you tell us where the NRA-ILA gets its money?

In particular, the money it uses for engaging in political activities. It may not use NRA membership money for that purpose.

[burf]

62. You need to get in touch with reality

Four million members who fork over 35 bucks. A national convention that drew over 70,000. Seems as though "the people" are supportive of the organization. BTW, when and where is the Brady convention this year?

[iverglas]

65. oh well, I guess the thinking bit was too difficult

The 4 million members fork over $35 for membership in the NRA, for which they get the usual various benefits of membership in an organization.

Lots of people in this very forum say they belong to the NRA for the membership benefits but do not approve of its political activities. So presumably they don't donate to support them, eh?

In case you missed it the first time: the NRA may NOT use membership money for political (campaign) activities. And only a small fraction of the activities of the NRA-ILA is funded by membership money.

The NRA-ILA and specifically its political victory fund, which is a PAC, solicit donations -- you can see this at nraila.org and nrapvf.org -- for those political activities.

So the question is: where does it get that money?

How many of those 4 million members do you guess contribute to that fund? Are you an NRA member? Do you?

Are you endorsing the NRA-ILA/PVF's political activities?

Before answering, you might want to do a bit more of that thinking stuff ...

This could help. The image won't copy here, so you'll have to click:

http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00053553

Oh look! More Democrats are agreeing to become stooges for the gun lobby and accepting its blood money ... It's a little interesting to see how its spending peaked in 2000 though, isn't it? Gosh, I wonder what that was all about.

Oh, here we are:

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000082

its aggregate sources of funding. Since 2000, it doesn't seem to have bothered raising much money from individuals at all.

Its top individual contributor was Thomas Tedrick, $218,750 over the years shown. Who the heck is Thomas Tedrick?

Well, he's the Director of Finance for the NRA (or perhaps one of its divisions, this chart isn't likely particular about the fine points), and he was one of the top "soft money" donors in the US:

http://www.usnewslink.com/firstamendmentland.htm

(This "soft money" business is something I'm not hugely familiar with, but I think it will mean something to readers here. It wasn't his money, right?)

Here's how his donations broke down (P=primary, NRA=employer):

http://www.campaignmoney.com/political/contributions/thomas-tedrick.asp?cycle=02

Tedrick, Thomas Mr. FAIRFAX, VA 22030 National Rifle Assn.
$43,750 12/05/2001 P RNC REPUBLICAN NATIONAL STATE ELECTIONS COMMITTEE

TEDRICK, THOMAS FAIRFAX, VA 22030 NATIONAL RIFLE ASSN
$43,750 10/31/2001 P RNC REPUBLICAN NATIONAL STATE ELECTIONS COMMITTEE

TEDRICK, THOMAS FAIRFAX, VA 22030 NATIONAL RIFLE ASSN
$43,750 06/05/2001 P RNC REPUBLICAN NATIONAL STATE ELECTIONS COMMITTEE

TEDRICK, THOMAS FAIRFAX, VA 22030 NATIONAL RIFLE ASSN
$43,750 05/15/2001 P RNC REPUBLICAN NATIONAL STATE ELECTIONS COMMITTEE

TEDRICK, THOMAS FAIRFAX, VA 22030 NATIONAL RIFLE ASSN
$43,750 05/15/2001 P RNC REPUBLICAN NATIONAL STATE ELECTIONS COMMITTEE

That seems to be the money he donated to the NRA PVF, trace through to its ultimate recipient? (The Republican Party, surprise.) It does get confusing, doesn't it ...

That seems to be an incomplete list of "his" donations though, since he's listed as one of the top individual donors in 2008 as well:

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=17397

The NRA (again, I think this must be shorthand) is number 44 on the list of all-time top political donors 1989 to present -- $18,567,821, "Strongly Repub (70%-89%)":

http://209.190.229.99/orgs/list.php

Actually, I don't doubt at all that large numbers of NRA members support the Republican Party. And would do so if guns had never been invented.

[burf]

67. Do your knickers get in a knot

in the same instance of say Solyndra and the big shot there bundling campaign contributions to Obama and the subsequent loan guarantees to the company?

As far as public support for gun rights, take a look at the numbers cited on posts here on DU. Opposition to assault weapons ban, number of people who own guns, the number of concealed carry permits applied for and issued. It would appear that "the people" you post about aren't buying your argument.

The anti gunners are always citing the "fear factor" that causes people to own and carry guns. Seems as though that certain countries have such a paranoia that the mounties are summoned for the scariness of a friggin BB gun!

Good day!

BTW, no I am no longer an NRA member. I gave it up a few years ago when I had issues with some of the candidates they were endorsing. There are many other guns rights organizations out there besides the NRA.

[iverglas]

70. hmm

Do your knickers get in a knot in the same instance of say Solyndra and the big shot there bundling campaign contributions to Obama and the subsequent loan guarantees to the company?

Isn't this the "Guns" forum?

And wasn't I enquiring about who really funds the NRA's political activities?

And have you got an answer?

Just some diversionary grooming, from what I see.


Seems as though that certain countries have such a paranoia that the mounties are summoned for the scariness of a friggin BB gun!

Is New Jersey a country, and does it call in foreign police services for situations like this?


edit - okay, that probably went right over your head.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x10520

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x443706

[Atypical Liberal]

35. Absolutely. Their demographic consistenly votes against their best interest. n/t

[Hoopla Phil]

56. Ann Richards should have been a warning to Jim Doyle!

Ann Richards' bull headedness directly gave us the shrub. How short our memories are. . .

[iverglas]

60. have you ever analyzed the campaign spending

in the Texas gubernatorial campaign that brought Bush Jr to that Texas office?

I did, actually, back when he ran for President the first time.

For each vote obtained in the race for governor, Bush spent $3 for every $1 Richardson spent for each vote she obtained.

Gosh, I wonder whether that may have been a factor in the outcome at all. I mean, I imagine Bush and his backers thought it was, or they wouldn't have spent all that money.

I wonder where the money came from ...