Uvalde shooter legally bought his guns............

The question to ask is how much does each indivisual politician receive from the NRA in order to do their bidding? I bet it's way more than their yearly salary from the government.


The NRA spends some of the lowest amounts for lobbying...you dumb ass...

You guys don't know what the F**k you are talking about...

Don't blame the NRA for failed gun control efforts

You know how the argument goes. The "conventional wisdom" is the NRA's heavy spending stops hundreds of politicians from enacting the "common sense" gun control laws they and everyone else would otherwise support.
---------

There's only one problem with that theory. It's all wrong.

Of course, the NRA does spend money and it does have a sophisticated and persistent messaging operation. But so do dozens of other organizations and causes. So, how does the NRA stack up against them?


Not too well. The NRA, gun makers, and gun rights issues do not even show up on the OpenSecrets website lists for top lobbying firms, top lobbying sectors, top lobbying issues, or top lobbying industries for the years 1998-2017.

The figures for Florida Senator Marco Rubio are particularly educational, since he has been a target of a lot of anti-NRA screeds since the shooting in his home state.


A look at the top 20 donors to Rubio directly and his PAC since 2009 does not include the NRA. Over his career since 2009, Rubio has raised a total of more than $91 million in donations. The NRA is responsible for just over $3 million of that, or 3.3 percent.

Big whoop, as they say. Yes, $3 million is a lot of money and more than most of us could ever donate to anything. But context is everything, and the even a so-called "poster boy" for NRA donations would only be 3.3 percent lighter in campaign cash without them.

Again, that certainly doesn't mean the NRA isn't spending a lot of money. But the Poltifact fact-checking website puts the total amount of NRA spending since 1998 at $203 million.



That figure is even smaller than it looks when you consider 30 percent of Americans, or about 100 million people, own a gun. By contrast, Wall Street and the broader financial industrial shelled out more than $1.1 billion in the 2016 election cycle alone. The financial industry employs only about six million people in total.

The bulk of that $203 million doesn't actually go to candidates as the hysterical tweets and finger pointers seem to believe. It's spent on those "issue ads" that you see mostly on cable news channels during election years. But even if those ads are extremely influential, they are a much different animal than direct campaign donations to individual congressional and presidential candidates.

There's even a question of whether the NRA is very persuasive among actual gun owners. Fewer than 20 percent of American gun owners are even NRA members. That should tell us something about the "chicken or the egg" argument about the gun lobby. The NRA is much more likely piggybacking off the beliefs of gun owners as opposed to framing them in the first place. The real power is with those voting gun owners, not the lobby group that purports to represent them.

Some gun control advocates are wise to this fact. New America senior fellow Lee Drutman has been working to debunk the myth of the all-powerful NRA's money for several years. Beginning in 2012, he noted the NRA hadn't even made donations to a majority of members of Congress. He also made the correct designation between allegiance and influence. That is, the NRA supports candidates that already align with its philosophy as opposed to paying them to toe the line.

Former New York City mayor and media billionaire Mike Bloomberg has thus made a futile point over the years to combat the NRA's money machine. Bloomberg founded "Everytown for Gun Safety" in 2014based on matching the NRA's financial clout. It hasn't been a total political failure. But in the wake of so many mass shootings since 2014, it's also fair to say Everytown hasn't been able to shepherd any new significant national gun laws to passage either.

A much better strategy is to talk less about the NRA and focus more on resurrecting the anti-gun violence measures Americans have supported in the past. That includes beefed up policing and improved background check systems.

A misbegotten path is introducing new rules and misrepresenting them to the public. That's what happened last year when Democrats tried a proposed rule that they and most of the news media portrayed as a way to keep guns from the "mentally ill." But it really sought to put people into the federal government gun background database if they received disability payments from Social Security and received assistance to manage their benefits due to mental impairments. That's a far cry from "mentally ill." Even the ACLU and mental health advocates lined up against that idea, not just the NRA.
 
The question to ask is how much does each indivisual politician receive from the NRA in order to do their bidding? I bet it's way more than their yearly salary from the government.


You guys are such morons....you don't know what you are talking about...so you just lie....

The Myth of the Big Bad Gun Lobby | National Review

By contrast, the NRA gave just $982,000, or 1/30th the amount spent by Bloomberg. While not all of Bloomberg’s campaign donations were driven by gun issues, his spending clearly dwarfs what the NRA could give.

In state and local races around the country, Bloomberg has deployed resources that the NRA could only dream of. In just two Virginia state-senate races in 2015, Bloomberg spent a total of $2.2 million. That is vastly more money than the NRA was able to spend on any race for the U.S. Congress.


Bloomberg spent $150,000 alone on the election for Milwaukee sheriff, in an attempt to unseat outspoken gun-control opponent David Clarke — more than the combined amount that Clarke and his opponent spent on their own campaigns.


When Advertising Age added up TV-advertising expenditures by those on either side of the gun-control issue for 2013, it found that gun-control groups outspent gun-rights groups by 7.4 to one, with 85 percent of their money coming from Bloomberg. And even setting aside Bloomberg’s massive contributions, the gun-control advocates still spent twice as much as the NRA and other pro-self-defense groups.


Things get even more lopsided when we look at research funding. Bloomberg, billionaire George Soros, a few dozen large health-care foundations, and even the Obama-led federal government are spending hundreds of millions of dollars to fund research that supports their pro-gun-control positions. Newly released Bloomberg studies garner massive, uncritical news coverage. NRA-funded research would get scoffed at, which is why the NRA doesn’t even try funding opposing studies.

Re
ad more at: The Myth of the Big Bad Gun Lobby | National Review
 
Dunno what to think about this. Apparently the shooter at the Uvalde school bought his guns legally, and waited until just a day or two after his 18th birthday so he could legally buy the weapons and the ammo. Do we need to change the gun laws? I don't really think so, as the laws that are currently on the books are sufficient IF they are enforced.

Do we need to take a closer look at who buys the guns? Maybe, but that would also put a serious burden on people who aren't bat shit crazy who want to buy guns by making them wait and pass checks.

Sorry, but as long as we have guns legally available for purchase, there will continue to be people who slip through the cracks and commit these kinds of atrocious acts.


The gunman in the deadliest school shooting in Texas history bought two AR-style rifles legally just after his 18th birthday — days before his assault on Robb Elementary School in Uvalde.

UPDATED: MAY 25, 2022
He legally purchased two AR platform rifles from a federally licensed gun store on two days: May 17 — just a day after his birthday — and May 20, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives said, according to a briefing that state Sen. John Whitmire, chair of the Senate Criminal Justice Committee, received from state authorities late Tuesday. The gunman bought 375 rounds of 5.56-caliber ammunition on May 18.

In Texas,
you must be at least 18 years old to buy a rifle, and the state does not require a license to openly carry one in public.
Cops could have taken him down traitor but they refused. You scum want
all us to face murderers disarmed!
 
The question to ask is how much does each indivisual politician receive from the NRA in order to do their bidding? I bet it's way more than their yearly salary from the government.
The real question to ask you ghouls is how many more innocent people do you want to be at the mercy of violent criminals?
 
Over turn it ? It’s written exactly the way it should be. You want to shoot military weapons, joint the Army/Guard. That’s what “well regulated” means. You want to have personal firearm protection ? You have to qualify. People are not persons. If it were a personal right, it would say “persons”.

So, the Supreme Court gets to call the shots. The way it should be. You may support the free availability for an AR15 to shoot up the landscape . Not me…..
This is weapon grade stupid.
 
Dunno what to think about this. Apparently the shooter at the Uvalde school bought his guns legally, and waited until just a day or two after his 18th birthday so he could legally buy the weapons and the ammo. Do we need to change the gun laws? I don't really think so, as the laws that are currently on the books are sufficient IF they are enforced.

Do we need to take a closer look at who buys the guns? Maybe, but that would also put a serious burden on people who aren't bat shit crazy who want to buy guns by making them wait and pass checks.

Sorry, but as long as we have guns legally available for purchase, there will continue to be people who slip through the cracks and commit these kinds of atrocious acts.


The gunman in the deadliest school shooting in Texas history bought two AR-style rifles legally just after his 18th birthday — days before his assault on Robb Elementary School in Uvalde.

UPDATED: MAY 25, 2022
He legally purchased two AR platform rifles from a federally licensed gun store on two days: May 17 — just a day after his birthday — and May 20, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives said, according to a briefing that state Sen. John Whitmire, chair of the Senate Criminal Justice Committee, received from state authorities late Tuesday. The gunman bought 375 rounds of 5.56-caliber ammunition on May 18.

In Texas,
you must be at least 18 years old to buy a rifle, and the state does not require a license to openly carry one in public.

Just broadcast photos of the crime scene and the Dead children.
 
So that's a no, Yank, lol.

Say 15 year intervals. Say you're 60 and in 15 years, the 2nd gets amended, "The Right to Bear Arms" is removed. Will it effect you at aged 75? No. In another 15 years time, everyone with a gun needs a firearms certificate with the gun serial numbers listed. Will it effect you at age 90? No. In another 15 years time, the likes of the AR-15 are banned. Will that effect you at age 105? No. In another 15 years time, you cannot wander around with a gun, must be kept in a secure cabinet when not in use. Wi it effect you at age 120? No. In another 15 years time, handguns are banned under the length of 12 inches. Will that effect you at age 135? No.

And as that continues over the decades, America gets more gun safe at your disgust.
Fuck off brit and stick to kissing the asshole of the queen
 
Laws simply do not work. If someone is intent on breaking the law they will break the law.

As such we should dispense with all laws and return to "Wild West Justice". That fits well with the ideal of arming teachers...we may as well arm EVERYONE. Let EVERYONE figure out what's right in their book and dispense their justice as they see fit.

THIS is the America ruled by the Second Amendment! THE ONLY AMENDMENT OF ANY VALUE.

Guns solve ALL PROBLEMS.
Are you on crack?
Neat.

Not only are you wrong, we also need better laws and systems to keep guns out of the hands of nutters.
And by "nutters," of course, you mean "people who do not agree with you."
 
In EVERY Amendment that uses the phrase "the people" before Heller they were all UNDERSTOOD to mean an Individual right. I suggest you explain how in all those amendments it is meant as a collective right?
Guess you never consulted a dictionary. If they had meant every individual, they would have used “person.” like the constitution does. The constitution makes that distinction everywhere else they use the word “people” vs “persons”.
Maybe you should read it instead of just one right you holics never get right. You live in a world of made up shit. .
The constitution in the fourteenth amendment obviously uses person to apply to each and every individual
“We the ‘people’ .” is a collective speaking for the entire class or group.
The Fourteenth Amendment's due process and equal protection clauses, for example, offer their protections to "any person”
 
In EVERY Amendment that uses the phrase "the people" before Heller they were all UNDERSTOOD to mean an Individual right. I suggest you explain how in all those amendments it is meant as a collective right?
Nope......for one thing, it only applies to the collective right to form a militia with only those in the regulated militia having the right to bear arms.
Guess you never read the fourteenth amendment accurately either.
You’re wrong.
 
Last edited:

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top