You’re mistaken. The percentage you gave as that “Some 75% of their revenue is from member dues or voluntary personal donations”.
The actual percentage that came from member dues during the ten-year period from 2004 to 2013 ranged between 42.1% and 68.8%. It never reached 75%.
You added “voluntary personal donations” to the membership dues. I think what you’re thinking of are private donations, which are not the same as personal donations. Money given by corporations is classified as private donations because it doesn’t come from the government.
I’m aware of the difference. There’s the National Rifle Association, the NRA Foundation, the NRA Freedom Action Foundation, the NRA Institute for Legislative Action, the NRA Political Victory Fund, the NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund, the NRA Special Contribution Fund, NRA Media Outreach, and Friends of the NRA - all of which are considered to be separate entities.
This means that the National Rifle Association can report in 2013 that it receives the majority of its revenue from membership dues, which is true because 50.5% of its revenue came from membership dues. But the National Rifle Association doesn’t have to mention that it has other organizations associated with it and where their revenues comes from. (In fact, the other organizations are all funded by “private donations”.) And the National Rifle Association doesn’t have to mention how it transfers money from one organization to another.
Copied and pasted from the OP to make answering easier.
background checks
I can live with them as they are now but I am one of the few on the liberal side who really wants them to be meaningful. A full Federal database of all criminals from felony pot and DUI arrests on up. And since its the crazy people who frighten me most, add all current or former psychiatric/psychological patients and some others to that list as well. OK; big intrusion to a few of our rights but I could live with it.
waiting periods
I’m kind of meh. I didn’t care when we had them and I see some advantages but I’m not sure its the great benefit some people think.
bans on assault rifles… this one really boggles my mind as the only thing you hunt with an assault rifle is another human.
Come up with a good definition and I’m with you. The problem is some bad definitions. Pittsburgh, when it first adopted its ban, defined them as “any weapon designed to be used by shock troops and capable of mounting a bayonet”. Under that definition my one Brown Bess flintlock musket was “banned”. But I’m willing to entertain wording that makes sense.
Even safety measures like fingerprint trigger locks (that would have likely prevented Sandy Hook) are nearly 100 percent opposed by gun owners.
So do we require owners to retrofit every firearm they own or just certain ones? And just which tech do we require? This isn’t like airbags in cars where one basic idea works all around the scale and you can expect older models to be off the market in x number of years. Don’t get me wrong; I owned a handgun with a magnetic safety deactivated by a ring on my finger. It wasn’t totally reliable (the magnets weakened over time) but it was a good idea. I am just not sure we’re there yet and the retrofit question still plagues me.
Surely you are not referring to any poster here, are you?
I notice a lack of identification of these unsupported assumptions. Let me guess, you feel comfortable being the arbiter of what is supported or not?
Have you read the thread? The 2nd and 4th response explicitly indicate other concerns. The slippery slope argument is precisely about other concerns and opposition to the slippery slope is a legitimate tactic and strategy.
It’s reasonable to fear a slippery slope when the slope you’re standing on IS slippery, and already you’ve slid a lot farther than you ever intended. And it’s reasonable to suspect hidden agendas when the advocates of the compromises you’ve already made admit that they wanted more.
At the start of the 20th century you could own any weapon you could pay for. Artillery pieces. Crates of high explosive. You could mail-order an M1917 .30 cal machine gun, and Browning would happily ship it to you. Then the sliding began:
An unelected body, the Uniform Law Commission adopted gun control as part of its social agenda, and began pushing “A Uniform Act to Regulate the Sale and Possession of Firearms”, which advocated the idea of “May Issue”- nobody could publicly carry without prior permission which may or may not be granted. This was most popular in big cities like New York and Chicago, run by political machines with corrupt law enforcement. In the case of New York City, governor Sullivan was accused of promoting the carry law so that the Irish gangs paying bribes to him would have unarmed victims to rob.
After Prohibition had created modern organized crime and Hollywood had sensationalized the mob killer with his Tommy gun, concealed sawed-off shotgun and silenced pistol, a moral panic about gangsters set in and the 1934 National Firearms Act was passed. It didn’t actually ban guns, though its original advocates wanted it to; this was before the Supreme Court “discovered” that the Interstate Commerce Clause could federalize anything. Instead it masqueraded as a revenue act, requiring registration of and a $200 tax stamp on such “criminal’s” weapons as submachine guns, sawed-off shotguns and suppressors. That’s 200 1934 dollars, at a time when a cheap shotgun sawed off by hand was worth used maybe $5. And originally the proponents of the act had wanted a national tax and registry of ALL firearms.
Another era of upheaval, the late 1960s, gave us another moral panic about guns and the 1968 Gun Control Act. Again, what its proponents had wanted was sweeping national legislation allowing virtually any degree of regulation and federal control of firearms. As it was, commercial gun dealers were now required to qualify for federal firearm licenses and maintain records of sales. Direct order of guns through the mail was banned, and many foreign guns were banned from being imported. Many cheaply-made handguns- “Saturday Night Specials”- were banned (and this was not the first time laws banning cheap guns were passed).
In 1986 a law intended to protect gun rights, the Firearm Owners Protection Act, had the Hughes Amendment added to it literally in the dark of night as action on the bill extended into the early hours. It closed the federal registry to any new full-auto weapons (except for police and military of course). By doing so it turned what was supposed to be a regulatory process into a de facto ban.
And finally during the Clinton Administration we had the Assault Weapon Ban, which since it couldn’t come up with an objective definition of what it was trying to ban settled for a list of cosmetic features and a list of specific gun models banned by the act. Fortunately this law had a 10-year sunset, and after achieving fuckall in terms of reducing gun crime it expired and has not been renewed since.
People who take the Second Amendment literally- that owning weapons is a fundamental right and infringing on that right is tyranny- think we’ve already gone too far. But there will always be people who want just one more restriction; and there will always be people who want many more restrictions; and there will always be people who want a total banning of guns from civil society. If their standard is “one gun death is one too many”, as appears to be the case, then they will never be satisfied.
Gun owners have already given in too much. At a minimum Shall Issue- that the state must give you a carry permit unless you’re specifically disqualified for one- should be the law of the land. Imbecilic rules about “assault weapons” and “short-barreled rifles” based in cosmetic features or a barrel being 16" long instead of 18" long should go. Ideally the Hughes Amendment, the 1968 GCA and the 1934 NFA ought to be repealed as well.
Well, I am not opposed to some sort of controls, like Background checks- but what I am dead set against is laws that overnite turn law abiding tax paying citizens into criminals, like that fucking stupid California law that made everyone who owned a magazine capable of holding more that ten rounds a criminal. Just like the CA law that make 'assault weapon" owners into criminals overnite.
I hate Trump, but I am hoping his SCOTUS overturns those crappy laws.
Can I just mention how arguing over these issues illustrates how much common ground there is in this country for supporting gun ownership? Even pretty far left gun control advocates are mostly talking about banning particular firearms and barring particular people from owning them. The “no private individual should be allowed to own guns at all” camp is the majority in most of the world, and the US is arguing over background checks and magazine capacities.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m a gun rights supporter, and think almost all gun control (even the pretty meager amount this country has instituted so far) is very misguided, but it’s relieving to know that even our staunchest opponents are mostly advocating comparatively small, inconvenient restrictions rather than wholesale bans or second amendment repeal. It helps put the whole debate in perspective for me. The late 20th century was worse for gun rights in the US overall, and it’s heading in the right direction now. And even so, I hear very few calls for repealing the 2nd or banning guns outright, even among the most hyperbolic facebookers and youtube commenters. That’s a good sign, in my opinion.
You know, so far Trump has not shown he is in any way a friend to Gun Owners. He never had a history of being so, in fact the opposite. So, you voted for him on one faint hope vs the sure knowledge & promises he would buttfuck us seventeen other ways.
Dont get too happy. Some things have been suggested that would ban all handguns for instance. Owning a gun in DC pre SCOTUS dec was nigh impossible.
Bills have been passed thru one state house that would ban all ammo that could penetrate a bullet proof vest- i.e. pretty much all rifles. Bills for a $5 tax per round. In some areas you had to take a class- which was impossible to take.
California just made some two million gun owners criminals.
CA passed a law banned any new types of handguns unless they has a way of putting a signature on each round, something that is not feasible.
OK, so you say you believe in the second amendment. But you also seem to support a lot of arbitrary restrictions on people’s rights under the second amendment that I doubt you would for other amendments. Would you support a mandatory week-long waiting period on anyone buying a Quarn? How about disallowing anyone who’s ever received any kind of mental health treatment from publishing books? Banning anyone on an arbitrary list (that has no due process protections for being added to or guaranteeing removal) from voting?
The NRA is directly responsible for the modern NICS system (that is, background checks) and pushed to have it implemented over the objections of gun control groups, who wanted a waiting period with no background check. The NRA has actually pushed for expanded background checks in recent years, but because their proposals included due process protections
Seriously? There is no evidence that waiting periods do anything useful, and it’s obvious that they can do harm, they’re just designed to inconvenience people and serve no legitimate purpose whatsoever. Again, think about how putting a waiting period on book purchases would jive with the first amendment.
So you’re a firm believer in the second amendment but oppose private ownership of weapons suitable for use in the militia? And oppose weapons suitable for self-defense? Also, like people have pointed out, essentially none of the ‘assault weapon’ laws in the last 20 years have actually included assault rifles in what they control. And 'assault weapons" are actually used for hunting animals, just to put icing on the cake.
Mandating unreliable, expensive gimmick devices is a horrible idea that should obviously be opposed. If ‘fingerprint trigger locks’ were actually a good safety feature, the laws mandating them wouldn’t exclude LEOs, because LEOs would love to have them.
From 1976 to 2008, it was illegal for anyone who didn’t have one registered before the ban to possess a handgun in Washington DC, and while they could own long guns with some red tape, could not have them in their home in a condition suitable for self defense. The Supreme Court eventually overturned those gun laws in a 5-4 decision in DC v Heller, but for 32 years those laws were in place and the courts said they were fine, and the SC was only one justice away from saying they were still fine.
From the passage of the NFA in 1934 until DC v Heller in 2008, the practical position of the courts was that the second amendment didn’t actually protect anything, and when they finally said that it did it was a controversial decision. For example Hillary Clinton, a major-party presidential candidate, publicly said that she opposed the decision. So any intelligent impartial person who’s informed on the issue will SERIOUSLY think that could happen, because they have the example of Washington DC from 1976 to 2008 where such a ban stayed in place for 30 years, and the second amendment was only ruled to apply by a narrow, bitterly contested margin. The fact that the ban survived for 3 decades is bad enough, but the fact that
BTW, “all the guns” is a strawman, and you’re much better off not including it. England has gun control that virtually everyone would consider a ban for practical purposes, but it’s not technically “all the guns”. A DC or UK style ‘most guns, and all guns for self-defense’ ban is what is really feared, and the technicality that “well it’s not all guns” doesn’t actually mollify people’s fear. Same thing with “second amendment being repealed” - we spent most of a century with the courts acting as though the second amendment simply didn’t exist, and if the courts aren’t willing to treat an amendment as functional, it doesn’t offer any protection even if it hasn’t technically been repealed. Using language like “all the guns” and “repealed” is really setting up a strawman.
If a dealer starts selling one of those guns in the US, it triggers a complete ban on functional handguns in New Jersey (the NJ law would ban sales of all handguns but unreliable, untested ‘smart guns’). So until New Jersey repeals its law or has it overturned in court, any gun store selling one is directly responsible for causing a complete handgun ban to happen in at least one state. Anyone who cares about gun rights should boycott any store that is willing to be the trigger for a widespread ban like that, and that’s what happened to them.
How exactly is the characterization wrong? Yes, the NRA has said
But, their actions say they are against smart gun technology. When Colt and S&W announced they were going to start r&d on smart gun technology (in the 1990’s btw long before the NJ law) the NRA and gun rights advocates organized and promoted a boycott so fierce that both companies nearly went bankrupt, stopped their research and many workers lost their jobs. When some gun shops said they were going to carry the Armatix ip1 pistol, the NRA and g.r.a promoted a boycott so fierce that some of their followers took it upon themselves to actually threaten the lives of the store owners. And some mediawatchdogs claim
Many consumers have said that they want smart gun technology, but they can’t have it because of the actions of the NRA and g.r.a. Many law enforcement agencies across the country have expressed an interest in smart gun technology (because one of the leading causes of officer injury is from their own weapon being taken from them) but they can’t access it because of the actions of the NRA and gun rights advocates.
So, the NRA an g.r.a say they are not against smart gun technology, but they are against the development, manufacture and sale of any gun with smart technology. And the reason, they say is because of some legislation, which, by the way, would not prohibit the sale of any type of gun outside of the state in which it was legally written and adopted, in any way.
To paraphrase a slogan the NRA and g.r.a are so fond of:
Guns don’t write legislation, people do.
So stop taking it out on the guns and the consumers.
You know what is strange? After all these laws and moral panic and giving in to demands and whatnot, I can go right to Dick’s Sporting Goods after I get off work, purchase a gun, and take it right home! 'Merica!
The NRA is NOT telling gun owners what they can and can’t own. The NRA engages in advocacy to persuade gun owners to favor or disfavor certain manufacturers, or even stores. Do you see the difference?
(my bold)
This is false. A leading cause of officer injury is not from their own weapon being taken from them. See table 97 from the detailed assault data. In the 2015 year, there were a total of 85 LEOs where detailed information was received who were injured during assault incidents. Of that figure, 2 were injured with their own weapons - hardly a leading cause. There is also data there for 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014. Those figures are fairly consistent.
If you were talking about being killed rather than injured, then your claim is also false. From table 19 of officers feloniously killed, in 2015 of the 41 officers 3 were killed with their own weapon. Again, data from 2006 - 2014 are fairly consistent. Both the figures for injuries and deaths are too high a figure, but they are not even close to a leading cause as you claim.
In addition, you claim that “many law enforcement agencies across the country have expressed interest in smart gun technology”. Do you have examples? I’ve seen departments say they are interested in a general sense, but that the specifics of what is available are not suitable for police requirements. Here is an example from SF:
So SF would be interested if it was magical. The reason it doesn’t exist in .40 cal is because the tech can’t function reliably with that level of stress. Did you see the baseline guidelines that the Obama Administration put out that I linked to above? Nothing available today can meet it.
As long as it’s a long gun and you don’t live in California, Washington DC, Hawaii, Illinois, or Rhode Island where there’s a mandatory waiting period. Oh, and some areas like Illinois or NYC require you to get a license or permit first, which can take up to 3 months if they don’t ‘lose’ paperwork and force you to start over. If it’s a handgun, there’s even more states with waiting periods and paperwork requirements, and before 2008 you weren’t able to do it at all in Chicago, DC, and some other places.
So while it may be true for you, it’s definitely not true across the country, and definitely not true for guns in general (using “a gun” is a good trick for dodging the specific restrictions, though).
Due to the efforts of the Gun Grabbers there are* many* guns that cant be sold in CA. Any new pistols, any “assault weapon” and anything with a magazine holding more than 10 rounds.
Are long guns not guns? It seems like they are guns. I mean, the word ‘gun’ is right there in the name ‘long guns’ It sure would be weird to call long guns ‘long guns’ if they weren’t guns.