Wednesday, June 17, 2009

The Influence of the NRA

The Buzzflash Blog has a wonderful article about the powerful influence of the NRA.

Now that Democrats have won the White House and solid majorities in Congress, one of the nation's strongest lobbies, the National Rifle Association (NRA), has been on a real upswing. As it turns out, "Fear of Obama's been good for business."

... the NRA has enjoyed tremendous message success along with legislative success. On the message side, the NRA did everything in its power to scare the wits out of conservatives. "They're coming to take your guns away," was the warning, with the result that there was a tremendous run on guns and ammo. Buyers literally emptied gun store shelves, and dealers and manufacturers, who provide deep financial support to the NRA, raked in the dough.

And as Josh Sugarmann of the Violence Policy Center observed in February, "Military-style weapons are the guns that are flying off the shelves and into the homes of people frightened about the 'change' that an Obama Administration represents."

Meanwhile, of course, in Washington this year there hasn't been the slightest move to take guns away or curb gun ownership. That's just right-wing mythology.

The article profiles the lobbyists who are employed by the NRA, crediting them for all this good news for the gun crowd. It says the "dealers and manufacturers, who provide deep financial support to the NRA," have raked in the dough. Does that mean there are no lobbyists who work directly for the "dealers and manufacturers?" Is that to say that the all-powerful NRA controls the entire game?

Do you think gun owners are angry about having been frightened into stocking up on guns and ammo? Isn't that the natural reaction when you discover you've been duped? Or is this just another case of how the pro-gun folks support each other, right or wrong? Or is it the natural tendency to not want to admit you were duped? I'll bet most gun owners who were doing all that buying would deny that they were frightened into it, they'd insist that they were just doing what they wanted to do anyway.

What's your opinion?


  1. ""dealers and manufacturers, who provide deep financial support to the NRA,"

    I keep hearing this. I'm sure I'll see the evidence of this one day as well. I'm sure it has nothing to do w/ the dues and donations from 4m members.

  2. Do you deny that the Obama campaign promised to ban 'assault weapons' and pass many other restrictive requirements on gun and ammunition ownership?

    What was it that the Brady Campaign said after he was elected? "We won, they lost, now let's get to work"

    'work' being passing bans on semi-autos, magazines, ammunition, small handguns, big handguns, etc.

  3. How can anyone look at a large pile of ammo in your basement and feel "angry"?

    Large stockpiles of ammo is a good time. More shooty goodness the better.

  4. and dealers and manufacturers, who provide deep financial support to the NRA, raked in the dough.

    Another example of your side lying to win MikeB. Tell a lie and hope people will take it at face value.

    My "dealer" (FFL holder) is an NRA member, but he provides no more "deep financial support" to the NRA than I do. He gives nothing more than the yearly dues for an individual membership.

    Obama was quite clear about his plans to push gun control. His record on the issue was even more clear. The NRA didn't have to scare us, Obama did that all on his own.

    Why the hell do you think the 1st thing we say a huge run on were AR's, AK, and double stack pistols & mags? Because those were all things that would be banned under the AWB Obama said he wanted.

    Let's see, the last time we had a Democrat as President and a Democratic majority in Congress we got.....GUN CONTROL. The Brady Bill and the AWB. It's not "right wing mythology, it's an established part of recent history.

    Start living in the real world Mike. Sugarmann sure as hell doesn't.

  5. ""dealers and manufacturers, who provide deep financial support to the NRA,"

    The NRA-affiliated gun shows here in South Carolina are virtually all dealers' exhibits.

    Is this statement really up for debate or at all questionable?

  6. Sounds like you don't understand the statement Daisy.

    Yes, DEALERS sell guns at gun shows, because they're the only ones who can legally set up booths and do so. The NRA does not pay them to come to gun shows. In fact, dealers have to pay a fee to set up shop at the shows (and they're not paying the NRA, they're paying the owner of the venue where the show takes place)

  7. Faced with the potential loss of 300 deputies due to budget cuts, the Sacramento County sheriff may consider issuing more concealed weapons permits.

    Sacramento County Sheriff John McGinness said at a public budget workshop in May that if the cuts happen, people would wait “long, long periods of time for the most basic public safety services, specifically uniformed officers in the field.”

    So a police officer thinks that people have the ability to defend themselves.

  8. Mike W., That's a good point about the FFL dealers being just like any other gun owner, in most cases. I wouldn't say this is a big lie on the part of the anti crowd. To me it just sounds like sloppy reporting. I think the point was that the manufacturers who are benefiting from the boom in sales are pumping money into the NRA lobbying system. My question is, don't they, the producers like Remington, for example, have their own lobbyists?

  9. "the manufacturers who are benefiting from the boom in sales are pumping money into the NRA lobbying system. "

    And all I ask for is some evidence.

  10. "My question is, don't they, the producers like Remington, for example, have their own lobbyists?"

    I believe they do, NSSF and SAF are a couple.

  11. For Mike's benefit those are the

    National Shooting Sports Foundation and the Second Amendment Foundation.

  12. State court again strikes down Philly gun laws


    The Associated Press

    PHILADELPHIA - A state appeals court ruled Wednesday that the city cannot enforce an assault weapons ban and a law prohibiting guns bought by one person and given to another, measures passed by City Council in an effort to combat persistent gun violence.

    The 6-1 ruling marked the latest setback for Philadelphia officials, who have fought for years for the right to pass their own gun legislation. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has previously upheld the state's exclusive right to enact gun laws.

    The National Rifle Association challenged a series of measures that were passed by City Council in April 2008 and signed by Mayor Michael Nutter. Both sides expect the case to end up before the state's highest court again.

    "The bottom line is, we won," NRA attorney C. Scott Shields said of the ruling.

  13. So, with this gun-rights victory in Philadelphia, what will happen? Will more lawful gun owners arm themselves properly in order to combat crime? Will the armed populace keep the criminals better in check? What do you predict?

  14. The NRA has very little influence compared to it's 4 million members and the 20-30 million other gun owners who align themselves with the NRA despite not being members.

  15. It amuses me to no end to see the anti-rights crowd complain about the "gun industry's vast political war chest," while simultaneously claiming that the gun industry is in trouble.

    If congress (and state legislatures) can be bought so cheaply that even a supposedly dying industry can do it, one would think that the Joyce Foundation, George Soros, and pals could do it.

  16. I predict that, instead of using the money to finance better police and service agencies, the cities involved will waste millions more in tax dollars on passing unconstitutional laws and defending them in court.

  17. MikeB - Philly was flat out violating state law. Do you support violation of the law if it suits your cause? (I.E. more gun control)