Thanks, GOP & NRA! 231 Mass Shooting in 2024 (UPDATED 06/20/24)
- Thread starter DCGeneral
- Start date
Not anymore. That ship sailed a decade ago. Membership dues are still significant, but most of their money comes from elsewhere.
This is the most recent info I could find. 2015.
50.5 percent membership dues.
27.7 percent contributions and grants.
7.9 percent business income.
7 percent advertising income.
Who Funds the NRA? - The A-MARK Foundation
Originally published July 27, 2015 | | Click to download as a PDF Note: This report was originally published on July 27, 2015. Since then, there have been material changes on this topic. The NRA reportedly went from a $27.8 million budget surplus in 2015 to a $36.3 million deficit in...
amarkfoundation.org
That data is actually 2013. I'm trying to find more recent data, but all I can find are a bunch of summaries claiming that since 2013, the share from dues has dropped, while the share from industry sources and outside donors has risen. But I can't find the hard data to support those summaries.This is the most recent info I could find. 2015.
50.5 percent membership dues.
27.7 percent contributions and grants.
7.9 percent business income.
7 percent advertising income.
Who Funds the NRA? - The A-MARK Foundation
Originally published July 27, 2015 | | Click to download as a PDF Note: This report was originally published on July 27, 2015. Since then, there have been material changes on this topic. The NRA reportedly went from a $27.8 million budget surplus in 2015 to a $36.3 million deficit in...
I think it's likely that those summaries are correct, and that 50.5% from ten years ago has since dropped below 50%, but since I can't prove it, I'll grant you arguendo that they get just slightly over half their funding from dues. I still think it's pretty obvious that they are doing the bidding of the gun lobby, not the members, and I think that 50.5% number is way too low to expect anything different.
Fair enough. You ran into the same issue I did.
I would point out though that just because their revenue from membership dues may have dropped below 50 percent, that doesn’t mean that it’s not still their biggest source of funding.
Also a fair point. I must also admit that my opinion is built up over many years, so that makes it even harder to find justification for it beyond things I've long since committed to memory (you may or may not recall that I've been the pro-gun but anti-NRA guy here for a while). Eventually, I have to realize that the foundation of my opinions may require some rethinking.
It seems we have allowed an onslaught of extreme far right SCOTUS justices and a powerful lobby of gun manufacturers and vested interests to basically turn what was established firearms policy for two hundred plus years on it's ears in a relatively short span of time.
This Intercept article points out that the VA Bill of Rights of 1776 which Madison uniqely relied on when constructing the Bill of Rights made no mention of "individual" gun ownership...
"That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and be governed by, the civil power."
The idea that this somehow applied to "individual" gun ownership is ironically enough the creation of extremists within the context of originalism. Basically the same people who decry "activist jusdges" base the entire foundation of their "right" to individual ownership on the interpretations of activist judges which were non-existant prior to at least the late 20th Century...
Previously SCOTUS had always interpreted the 2nd Amendment in the traditional way, and strictly applied it to the idea of a militia. For example in 1939 SCOTUS upheld the Firearms Registration Act of '34 declaring that "the “obvious purpose” of the Second Amendment was “to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of [state militia] forces. … It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.”
Right-Wing Supreme Court Continues Its “Great Fraud” About the Second Amendment
As former Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger said: “The Framers clearly intended to secure the right to bear arms essentially for military purposes.”
theintercept.com
Long time (Conservative) Chief Justice Burger openly condemned the fraud perpetrated on the citizenry by opportunistic gun manufacturers, with the claim that the 2nd Amendment applied to "individual ownership". Not only did he point out the intentional use of the word "militia", but also the fact that the clause specifically charcterizes the militia as "well REGULATED" to dispell the notion that the founders ever intended ownership to be "unregulated"...
The earliest contrasting view I found was this 2002 excerpt from a speech by George Mason Law Professor Nelson Lund in which he argued for an interpretation of "individual" rights within the 2nd Amendment. However in his Federalist Society sponsored appearance, he didn't seem to include either the historical perspective of why the 2nd Amendment was even necessary or the inconsistency between his interpretation relative to the VA Bill of Rights.
Both those topics are extensively dealt with in the Intercept article, so his failure to include them is telling, IMHO...
The Second Amendment Is About an Individual Right, Not a Collective One
The Second Amendment to the Constitution is clearly about the right of individuals to own and carry guns, George Mason University law Professor Nelson Lund said February 6 in a talk sponsored by the Federalist Society. The claim that the Amendment's language is limited to maintaining organized...
It seems we have allowed an onslaught of extreme far right SCOTUS justices and a powerful lobby of gun manufacturers and vested interests to basically turn what was established firearms policy for two hundred plus years on it's ears in a relatively short span of time.
This Intercept article points out that the VA Bill of Rights of 1776 which Madison uniqely relied on when constructing the Bill of Rights made no mention of "individual" gun ownership...
"That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and be governed by, the civil power."
The idea that this somehow applied to "individual" gun ownership is ironically enough the creation of extremists within the context of originalism. Basically the same people who decry "activist jusdges" base the entire foundation of their "right" to individual ownership on the interpretations of activist judges which were non-existant prior to at least the late 20th Century...
Previously SCOTUS had always interpreted the 2nd Amendment in the traditional way, and strictly applied it to the idea of a militia. For example in 1939 SCOTUS upheld the Firearms Registration Act of '34 declaring that "the “obvious purpose” of the Second Amendment was “to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of [state militia] forces. … It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.”
Right-Wing Supreme Court Continues Its “Great Fraud” About the Second Amendment
As former Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger said: “The Framers clearly intended to secure the right to bear arms essentially for military purposes.”
Long time (Conservative) Chief Justice Burger openly condemned the fraud perpetrated on the citizenry by opportunistic gun manufacturers, with the claim that the 2nd Amendment applied to "individual ownership". Not only did he point out the intentional use of the word "militia", but also the fact that the clause specifically charcterizes the militia as "well REGULATED" to dispell the notion that the founders ever intended ownership to be "unregulated"...
The earliest contrasting view I found was this 2002 excerpt from a speech by George Mason Law Professor Nelson Lund in which he argued for an interpretation of "individual" rights within the 2nd Amendment. However in his Federalist Society sponsored appearance, he didn't seem to include either the historical perspective of why the 2nd Amendment was even necessary or the inconsistency between his interpretation relative to the VA Bill of Rights.
Both those topics are extensively dealt with in the Intercept article, so his failure to include them is telling, IMHO...
The Second Amendment Is About an Individual Right, Not a Collective One
The Second Amendment to the Constitution is clearly about the right of individuals to own and carry guns, George Mason University law Professor Nelson Lund said February 6 in a talk sponsored by the Federalist Society. The claim that the Amendment's language is limited to maintaining organized...www.law.virginia.edu
Second Amendment
Second Amendment ExplainedA well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Are you confused by the meaning of the word, 'people'? Now, if you want to argue that the intent was to allow firearm possession in order to form a militia, that's fine with me. It still does nothing to abridge the right to keep and bear arms.
What’s your opinion?It seems we have allowed an onslaught of extreme far right SCOTUS justices and a powerful lobby of gun manufacturers and vested interests to basically turn what was established firearms policy for two hundred plus years on it's ears in a relatively short span of time.
This Intercept article points out that the VA Bill of Rights of 1776 which Madison uniqely relied on when constructing the Bill of Rights made no mention of "individual" gun ownership...
"That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and be governed by, the civil power."
The idea that this somehow applied to "individual" gun ownership is ironically enough the creation of extremists within the context of originalism. Basically the same people who decry "activist jusdges" base the entire foundation of their "right" to individual ownership on the interpretations of activist judges which were non-existant prior to at least the late 20th Century...
Previously SCOTUS had always interpreted the 2nd Amendment in the traditional way, and strictly applied it to the idea of a militia. For example in 1939 SCOTUS upheld the Firearms Registration Act of '34 declaring that "the “obvious purpose” of the Second Amendment was “to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of [state militia] forces. … It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.”
Right-Wing Supreme Court Continues Its “Great Fraud” About the Second Amendment
As former Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger said: “The Framers clearly intended to secure the right to bear arms essentially for military purposes.”
Long time (Conservative) Chief Justice Burger openly condemned the fraud perpetrated on the citizenry by opportunistic gun manufacturers, with the claim that the 2nd Amendment applied to "individual ownership". Not only did he point out the intentional use of the word "militia", but also the fact that the clause specifically charcterizes the militia as "well REGULATED" to dispell the notion that the founders ever intended ownership to be "unregulated"...
The earliest contrasting view I found was this 2002 excerpt from a speech by George Mason Law Professor Nelson Lund in which he argued for an interpretation of "individual" rights within the 2nd Amendment. However in his Federalist Society sponsored appearance, he didn't seem to include either the historical perspective of why the 2nd Amendment was even necessary or the inconsistency between his interpretation relative to the VA Bill of Rights.
Both those topics are extensively dealt with in the Intercept article, so his failure to include them is telling, IMHO...
The Second Amendment Is About an Individual Right, Not a Collective One
The Second Amendment to the Constitution is clearly about the right of individuals to own and carry guns, George Mason University law Professor Nelson Lund said February 6 in a talk sponsored by the Federalist Society. The claim that the Amendment's language is limited to maintaining organized...
I think you’re correct. He seems fascinated by the topic but didn’t even want to attempt to have a discussion. When asked about what he would like to see he didn’t want to propose anything. But by golly it’s vitally important.
Then, why are some "arms" prohibited by federal law with not even a whimper from the pro gunners? The language of the Second Amendment doesn't say it's OK to regulate some "arms" but not others.
That's where the gunlovers' arguments fall down -- they concede the Second Amendment does not absolutely prohibit government regulation of all "arms" ... until someone proposes strict restrictions on ammunition, conceal/carry, sizes of magazines, pseudo-automatic features like bump-stock etc. Then, they claim their gun rights under the Second Amendment are absolute when they're obviously not.
Taken literally, the Second Amendment prohibits government restriction of grenades, cannons, tanks, BARs, Thompson submachine guns, F-16s, missiles. All those are "arms" too, but the pro gunners accept government restriction of them, apparently on some basis other than the Second Amendment.
I know, but I didn't say they weren't banned -- I said the pro gunners rose in opposition to their proposed regulation (along with regulation of other other dangerous weapons and accessories) when someone proposed banning/regulating them.
No facts to check.
The Nashville school shooting is now the 95th mass shooting in 2023.
Thanks, GOP!
www.nbcnews.com
Thanks, GOP!
Nashville school shooting: Community comes together to mourn
The latest news on the school shooting in Nashville, Tennessee yesterday, where three adults and three children were killed.
www.nbcnews.com
I wish Democrats would stop shooting people.The Nashville school shooting is now the 95th mass shooting in 2023.
Thanks, GOP!
Nashville school shooting: Community comes together to mourn
The latest news on the school shooting in Nashville, Tennessee yesterday, where three adults and three children were killed.
95th mass shooting in 3 months sounds like a good reason to take guns away from law abiding citizens. How did prohibition work out? Or the War drugs! That one was a real game changer wasn’t it.The Nashville school shooting is now the 95th mass shooting in 2023.
Thanks, GOP!
Nashville school shooting: Community comes together to mourn
The latest news on the school shooting in Nashville, Tennessee yesterday, where three adults and three children were killed.
I wish our lawmakers would listen to the public on this matter. The overwhelming majority of the public, including Republicans who own firearms, want some sort of common sense gun laws.
We should probably split away from these domestic white nationalists NRA GOPs? Checks notes (It was actually a trans communist democrat who hated the GOP and Christians). Close enough to the narrative. Maybe you can lead the way @DCGeneral in succession?
Last edited:
We already have the laws short of taking guns away. Which is really what they mean.
The buyback the poster in the other thread noted would have the largest overall impact on murders
I don't think it would. The people that do the majority of the murders aren't making that trade off when the guns are tools of their money making trade.
Shoooo.. We all know that the fvcked up killer will graph it all out. ...
HMMM I feel like killing some people
ORRRR I could make $1,000 if I sell my gun...
ORRRR I could use that $1,000 to buy gas for my car and when people go into the cross walk at the next NRA event I could run them over...
BUUUUT then they would take away the $1,000
Dang decisions are hard...
Seems legit.
You know how many 14 year olds would be in line to trade in their shitty old misfiring gun for 3GS.
What’s the difference between LeBron James and Kyle Rittenhouse? Kyle doesn’t miss shots under pressure 🫣
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
Phil Steele, A College FB Analyst on The New Indiana:- Latest: Big Red Crimson Buffalo
-
-
-
