Overwhelming Majority Of Studies Find That Gun Control Policies Don’t Work

[Steeleballz 7,550]

11 hours ago, Ban Hammer said:

yet nothing in those links support your claim of
 

 

       You are moving the goalposts Charles. I asked for an example of a group that was equivalent to the NRA in influence, but with opposite views of the NRA. You started out by equating the Brady campaign to the NRA. The links show the Brady campaign has no where near the budget or influence of the NRA.

 

      I don't think the $2000 contributions are enough to influence someone in congress. That's not what I suggested. Influence comes in many ways, both positive and negative. Perhaps the rating (1-5) of every person who runs for office and the aggressive campaigns and advertising spent against the candidates the NRA doesn't like has something to do with it. 

 

 

 

    

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

It’s clear that the NRA-ILA came about and is very politically active vis-a-vis gun control.  What is not apparent in anything I have read is who among politicians they are “buying” (though I have heard that the NRA buys politicians).

 

Seems to me like anyone could be pro-2nd amendment, pro-gun, etc, but not take any money from not express support of, the NRA.

[Ban Hammer 13,340]

11 hours ago, Steeleballz said:

       You are moving the goalposts Charles. I asked for an example of a group that was equivalent to the NRA in influence, but with opposite views of the NRA. You started out by equating the Brady campaign to the NRA. The links show the Brady campaign has no where near the budget or influence of the NRA.

 

      I don't think the $2000 contributions are enough to influence someone in congress. That's not what I suggested. Influence comes in many ways, both positive and negative. Perhaps the rating (1-5) of every person who runs for office and the aggressive campaigns and advertising spent against the candidates the NRA doesn't like has something to do with it. 

   

i was addressing the other side of your statement

 

Quote

Remind me which ubiquitous anti gun lobby has their hand in the pockets influencing every policy maker in congress. I don't want to have to accuse you of false equivalence every time you post, so just fill me in on that part and we can go from there.

first there show us a pro "gun lobby has their hand in the pockets influencing every policy maker in congress" before wanting someone

to show competition from the other side.

 

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

13 hours ago, IDWAF said:

It’s clear that the NRA-ILA came about and is very politically active vis-a-vis gun control.  What is not apparent in anything I have read is who among politicians they are “buying” (though I have heard that the NRA buys politicians).

 

Seems to me like anyone could be pro-2nd amendment, pro-gun, etc, but not take any money from not express support of, the NRA.

The real challenge is that the NRA will target any Republican in the primary that does not subscribe to NRA leaderships view of the 2nd amendment. They will even back a Democrat to teach them a lesson.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

2 hours ago, Il Mango Dulce said:

The real challenge is that the NRA will target any Republican in the primary that does not subscribe to NRA leaderships view of the 2nd amendment. They will even back a Democrat to teach them a lesson.

I have no knowledge of this.  If true, it’s pretty backwards.

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

4 hours ago, IDWAF said:

I have no knowledge of this.  If true, it’s pretty backwards.

 

https://resistbot.news/the-power-of-the-nra-2d74416d36b6

More Than Money

But the check-book is just one tool in the NRA’s belt. Consider the case of Richard Lugar, a Republican Senator from Indiana. Lugar was one of a few Republicans who took nuanced positions on gun-control issues and he earned an “F” rating from the organization for his trouble. One expects Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer to hold NRA “F” ratings but not Republicans from Indiana. Lugar voted to prohibit lawsuits against gun manufacturers, voted against UN programs that could restrict gun ownership, and voted to allow guns in checked Amtrak baggage.

But he also voted to require background checks at gun shows, which is probably what got him that “F” rating.

For that, the NRA stripped Lugar’s previous “A” rating and backed a primary challenger — Richard Mourdock — in 2012. Mourdock won by an astonishing 20 points in the primary, but NRA money and influence was unable to save him in the general election. He said that a pregnancy as a result of rape was “something God intended to happen” and that was it for Richard Mourdock.

But let’s go back to that 20-point win in the primary. How did that happen?

Primary Power

Primaries are just smaller than general elections. Even in states that have “open primaries” — meaning that Democrats can vote in the Republican primary and vice versa — the turnout for primaries is low. For the Lugar/Mourdock primary, just 661,606 people turned out to vote. In the general election, just over 2.5 million people did. Nearly twice-as-many people voted for Mourdock in the 2012 general election as voted in the 2012 Senate primary for ANY candidate.

That smaller size means two things. Money spent against a candidate in a primary goes further than if that money is spent in the general election, much like how a loud voice in a library carries further than in a rock-concert.

It also means that a small, dedicated, and highly-motivated core of voters can swing a primary election even though they might not be able to make much difference in a general election.

The NRA uses both of these tactics masterfully.

During the 2012 primary, the NRA spent close to half-a-million dollars to defeat Lugar. Had Lugar won the primary they would have certainly backed him against Democrat Joe Donnelly. The purpose of the NRA’s investment was not to put an Indiana Democrat in the Senate but to make Lugar toe the line or replace him with someone who would.

But the reason Lugar lost was probably less because of the money and more because of the NRA’s loyal core of single-issue voters.