cms186 said:
303Bear said:
How is it outdated?
What is "Gun Culture"?
Which politicians does the NRA "own", and how much do the contribute compared to other major donors/lobbyists?
Because it was implemented in a time when America needed a "Militia" and when the most advanced "Arms" available to the Public was a Musket that could fire 2-3 times a minutes, times change, even Thomas Jefferson recognised that people not adapting the laws of the Land to the times they lived in was stupid.
The Culture of some People in America treating Guns like everyday possessions tgat are essential to their lives
https://www.ajc.com/news/national/senators-house-members-who-offered-condolences-after-shooting-called-out-for-donations-from-nra/tpitHXUY9jDH3pr4f7f7cM/
Thanks for the response.
As for outdated, early repeating arms were available at the time of the revolution. Heavy weapons were also well known. The average Kentucky Rifle was a far superior weapon to the muskets carried by British regulars. "Arms" was not limited in the language, which commonly accepted rules of construction indicates it is meant to be used expansively (e.g., would also include blades). We are free to disagree about the details, but you are seeking to limit the scope far more than you realize if your position includes a limit on semi-automatic arms.
You yourself limit the "culture" by saying "some". Similar to the "rape culture" (I am merely picking something contemporary) charges, it is difficult to claim a "culture" unless you can point to a large segment of the population who agree that certain actions are acceptable. While there are absolutely those who think the ability to own arms is essential to long term liberty, I think you will struggle to find that there is a sizeable segment of any kind that supports unfettered access to and use of guns in any situation.
As for the lobbying money. The link you posted accounts for all money spent from 1989-2016, a 27 year span. Also of note is this line: "The total dollar amounts comprise donations made by the National Rifle Association,
its affiliates, and its members, as well as "outside money" consisting of campaign spending conducted on behalf of political candidates by NRA political action committees, in all campaign cycles since 1989." Thus, they include all money that is possibly tangentially connected to the NRA. While there are single issue voters who probably did contribute based on the NRA alone, it seems disingenuous to connect every one of those dollars over almost 3 decades to the NRA.
As for 2016, the NRA made ~$4mm in direct lobby donations, which puts them outside of the top 50 direct lobbyists for that cycle. Even including the fuzzy "campaign spending" amounts by related PACs (basically none of which goes to any candidate), they are not at the top of the list (I also note, different sources disagree as to what this number even is). Here is the list of top 50 direct lobbying contributors:
https://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/business-a-lobbying/318177-lobbyings-top-50-whos-spending-bigFinally, the tweet you posted brings up another interesting point. Several of the names listed received amounts of less that $10,000. Many less than $5,000. Some roughly on par with the max individual campaign donation amount. While it makes a great quick hitting tweet to throw up a list of a bunch of names, it would be lunacy to say a representative is "in my pocket" if I contributed $2,700 directly. Granted, plenty got a lot more, but overall lobbying amounts are just absurd across many industries, and no individual NRA contribution cracks the top 10 of those either.
