1 hour ago, herfiehandbag said:

A quick dip into the available figures tells us that they spent $20.700,000 on political funding in 2014.

 

I also was amazed to read that Senator Mitt Romney has, throughout his career, received $13,647,676.

 

Eye watering amounts, which surely should raise questions?

According to Statista, the NRA spent a max of $5 million per year in lobbying in the past 25 years. Average is about $3 million. By comparison, Big Pharma spends over $200 million a year. 

 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/249398/lobbying-expenditures-of-the-national-rifle-associaction-in-the-united-states/

 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Bkk Brian said:

I'm happy to demean people like this that are proud to put guns in childrens hands 

 

Yes, you probably are. Which goes a long way towards explaining why there will be no compromise on the issue. 

5 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

Yes, you probably are. Which goes a long way towards explaining why there will be no compromise on the issue. 

You called them all good people. So in your view people who arm children under 10 years are good? Have you even noticed where they are pointing the guns, even if not loaded?

 

Shameful.............

 

2 hours ago, Hanaguma said:

True. So called reporters who do not understand  even the basic mechanics of firearms should not report on the issue.

 

2 hours ago, Hanaguma said:

I understand the difference between automatic and semi-automatic. When I was in the military, we used a semi-automatic as an infantry weapon (the FNCI-A1) and an automatic as a section support weapon (the FNC2).

I have also used the L1A1 and L1A2 in the forces so we have a least something in common.

 

The US was using the M-16 at the time which was based on the AR-15 and I was quiet familiar with the horrific wounds and maiming capability from the Vietnam War. And I am still horrified that the weapon was derived from the one that is still in civilian use in the US some 50 years later.

I would suggest that there is little difference between the models even though the M-16 has an auto mode.

 

2 hours ago, Hanaguma said:

How much does the NRA spend on lobbying per year?

 

2 hours ago, Hanaguma said:

Chump change.

 

You want to know the REAL big spenders on lobbying? The NRA isnt even on the list. Top is the Chamber of Commerce(nearly $60 million per year), National Association of Realtors, then several Big Pharma/Big Medical groups. 

 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/257344/top-lobbying-spenders-in-the-us/

Obviously, you have the prerequisites to report on this issue, as you understand the basic mechanics of firearms, and were quiet capable to find out who are the top lobbying spenders in the US, yet not anything on the NRA!

 

Why do you need to ask that question about the NRA then, comes to mind?

Edited March 30, 20233 yr by LosLobo

26 minutes ago, LosLobo said:

 

 

I have also used the L1A1 and L1A2 in the forces so we have a least something in common.

 

The US was using the M-16 at the time which was based on the AR-15 and I was quiet familiar with the horrific wounds and maiming capability from the Vietnam War. And I am still horrified that the weapon was derived from the one that is still in civilian use in the US some 50 years later.

I would suggest that there is little difference between the models even though the M-16 has an auto mode.

 

 

Obviously, you have the prerequisites to report on this issue, as you understand the basic mechanics of firearms, and were quiet capable to find out who are the top lobbying spenders in the US, yet not anything on the NRA!

 

Why do you need to ask about that question about the NRA then,  comes to mind?

I preferred the 7.62 NATO round. It hit harder, and for longer distances. I could shoot effectively over iron sights out to 600 metres. Cant do that with the 5.56.  But it is heavier to tote and would be terrible for personal defense. Miss with the NATO round and it will travel a LONG way before stopping. This is why hunters generally spurn the 5.56.  

It’s this kind of obstruction for sensible gun control laws that frustrate majority of people and allow mass shooting to happen again. GOP had their victory lap at the expense of worrying parents that next shooting would not be in their kid’s school. 

https://www.wmur.com/article/nh-gun-bills-defeated-red-flag-law-background-checks-323/43265601

 

 

3 hours ago, Eric Loh said:

Obtuse much.

https://elections.bradyunited.org/take-action/nra-donations-116th-congress-senators 

 

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/3511518-nra-contributions-underscore-grip-in-gop/

That's actually just a fraction of what the NRA dishes out for lobbying and donations for the republicans. It also spends millions in lobbying against the democrats yearly and has a very large budget for Independent Expenditures which was over $15 million in the 2022 cycle. These payments are more difficult to track where exactly they go.

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/national-rifle-assn/summary?id=d000000082&__cf_chl_tk=RRtdNG.54Uu.GSJP89.D8FvoTdriaqYo1h3Yw5fC4c0-1680153893-0-gaNycGzNCfs

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-35261394

 

23 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

That's actually just a fraction of what the NRA dishes out for lobbying and donations for the republicans. It also spends millions in lobbying against the democrats yearly and has a very large budget for Independent Expenditures which was over $15 million in the 2022 cycle. These payments are more difficult to track where exactly they go.

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/national-rifle-assn/summary?id=d000000082&__cf_chl_tk=RRtdNG.54Uu.GSJP89.D8FvoTdriaqYo1h3Yw5fC4c0-1680153893-0-gaNycGzNCfs

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-35261394

 

The NRA customer base and the Republican supporters base are the same white Republican men living in the rural areas. They formed the highest rates of gun ownership according to Pew Research. The NRA and Republicans have a synergistic relationship. NRA relies on a disputed interpretation of the 2nd amendment while the Republicans are strong supporter of the 2nd amendment. Lot in common that taking a heavy human toil of gun violence. 

 

 

2 hours ago, Hanaguma said:

According to Statista, the NRA spent a max of $5 million per year in lobbying in the past 25 years. Average is about $3 million. By comparison, Big Pharma spends over $200 million a year. 

 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/249398/lobbying-expenditures-of-the-national-rifle-associaction-in-the-united-states/

 

 

 

 

The finances of this NRA?:

 

https://www.npr.org/2022/06/11/1104361673/new-york-lawsuit-nra-attorney-general

2 hours ago, Hanaguma said:

I preferred the 7.62 NATO round. It hit harder, and for longer distances. I could shoot effectively over iron sights out to 600 metres. Cant do that with the 5.56.  But it is heavier to tote and would be terrible for personal defense. Miss with the NATO round and it will travel a LONG way before stopping. This is why hunters generally spurn the 5.56.  

I guess there must be a lot of 600 meter open areas in an urban environment.

 

Either that or no excuse for a 7.62mm rifle in town.

 

 

57 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I guess there must be a lot of 600 meter open areas in an urban environment.

 

Either that or no excuse for a 7.62mm rifle in town.

 

 

Uh, that is what I said. A large calibre rifle is no good for personal defense.  I don't own any firearms myself, but if I were to live in the US I would be tempted. Short barrelled shotgun plus a handgun would be a good combo. 

Seems strange the most vocal proponents for more guns and less control are non Americans hummm….. all I can say as an American is VOTE the the ones out that are unwilling to stop this slaughter the VAST majority of Americans want sensible gun laws.one of the posters gives the impression that the United States is out of control this is wrong the VAST majority are law abiding and safe.

3 minutes ago, Tug said:

all I can say as an American is VOTE the the ones out that are unwilling to stop this slaughter the VAST majority of Americans want sensible gun laws.one of the posters gives the impression that the United States is out of control this is wrong the VAST majority are law abiding and safe.

That's 1 opinion ... although past, present and probably the future voting, says different.

 

American seem happy there are enough laws already, and are happy with the availability of firearms.

 

There are 2 loopholes I'd like to see closed, but that's about it.

 

Enforcing present laws would be more important than new laws.  IMHO

2 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

That's 1 opinion ... although past, present and probably the future voting, says different.

 

American seem happy there are enough laws already, and are happy with the availability of firearms.

 

There are 2 loopholes I'd like to see closed, but that's about it.

 

Enforcing present laws would be more important than new laws.  IMHO

The VAST majority of Americans want stricter gun control laws now is it a strong enough reason to cross party lines and vote dem?that’s the problem Imo perhaps combined with the Republican assault on personal freedoms here is enough to tip the balance I hope so!

2 hours ago, Tug said:

The VAST majority of Americans want stricter gun control laws now is it a strong enough reason to cross party lines and vote dem?that’s the problem Imo perhaps combined with the Republican assault on personal freedoms here is enough to tip the balance I hope so!

No need to cross party lines, for 2 yrs Rep have not had control of either house of Congress, w/Dem President, and VP as majority vote in Senate.

 

Easily could have banned the manufacture and import of all firearms in the USA.   

 

And if not mistaken, would not violate the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution.

 

Apparently politicians & citizens want their firearms.   You can keep repeating 'majority don't want' but it's not true ... obviously.

 

For 2 yrs, and how many more school murders, during that time, and they did nothing.  Dems in control ... 2 yrs.

 

They're politicians, they yell for change from their soapbox, that is all.  If they wanted change ...

... nuff said

 

Open your eyes, it's right in front of you and ...

... Just accept it.

 

 

Edited March 30, 20233 yr by KhunLA

3 hours ago, KhunLA said:

No need to cross party lines, for 2 yrs Rep have not had control of either house of Congress, w/Dem President, and VP as majority vote in Senate.

 

Easily could have banned the manufacture and import of all firearms in the USA.   

 

And if not mistaken, would not violate the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution.

 

Apparently politicians & citizens want their firearms.   You can keep repeating 'majority don't want' but it's not true ... obviously.

 

For 2 yrs, and how many more school murders, during that time, and they did nothing.  Dems in control ... 2 yrs.

 

They're politicians, they yell for change from their soapbox, that is all.  If they wanted change ...

... nuff said

 

Open your eyes, it's right in front of you and ...

... Just accept it.

 

 

Nope not a strong enough majority YET!it’s coming soon I hope! Ya gotta remember it’s got to be strong enough to overcome that pesky filibuster 

11 hours ago, Hanaguma said:

I preferred the 7.62 NATO round. It hit harder, and for longer distances. I could shoot effectively over iron sights out to 600 metres. Cant do that with the 5.56.  But it is heavier to tote and would be terrible for personal defense. Miss with the NATO round and it will travel a LONG way before stopping. This is why hunters generally spurn the 5.56.  

I can speak from personal experience why the M16 was easier to carry around than an SLR, but on the firing range the larger caliber was evidentially superior in taking down the enemy. We used steel plates to shoot at, and we could hear the M16 rounds hit the plate without knocking it over, but the SLR round would knock it over every time.

8 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I can speak from personal experience why the M16 was easier to carry around than an SLR, but on the firing range the larger caliber was evidentially superior in taking down the enemy. We used steel plates to shoot at, and we could hear the M16 rounds hit the plate without knocking it over, but the SLR round would knock it over every time.

I'm puzzled as to why that deserved a sad emoji. It's not like we were using live targets. Militaries, like wars are a fact of life and a military needs to practice to be able to kill the enemy. So what's the problem?

13 hours ago, vandeventer said:

Gun control is not the answer. The best we can do is to have a armed police officer in every school. Expensive yes, but if this needs to be done than do it.

Not the answer and inviting trouble.

6 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I'm puzzled as to why that deserved a sad emoji. It's not like we were using live targets. Militaries, like wars are a fact of life and a military needs to practice to be able to kill the enemy. So what's the problem?

The topic was about kids getting killed not what gun is the best to carry and is the deadliest. 

2 minutes ago, scorecard said:

Not the answer and inviting trouble.

Yes, just look at the gun control in Australia no mass shooting for decades. There are some illegal guns in circulation but just a few and most of them get recovered by the police.

12 minutes ago, still kicking said:

The topic was about kids getting killed not what gun is the best to carry and is the deadliest. 

You could have just posted that and avoided the confusion.

Yes, it's a bit off topic but isn't that what a forum like this is about? If we were restricted from any conversation that deviates from the OP most threads would last for about 10 replies.

9 minutes ago, still kicking said:

Yes, just look at the gun control in Australia no mass shooting for decades. There are some illegal guns in circulation but just a few and most of them get recovered by the police.

I've said it before, but IMO it's a different culture that makes the difference, not the availability of weapons. A double barreled shotgun could be used in a mass shooting- it doesn't have to be a semi automatic weapon. It could even be a machete- they were used in Rawanda to commit mass murder.

4 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I've said it before, but IMO it's a different culture that makes the difference, not the availability of weapons. A double barreled shotgun could be used in a mass shooting- it doesn't have to be a semi automatic weapon. It could even be a machete- they were used in Rawanda to commit mass murder.

Give it up 

3 minutes ago, still kicking said:

Give it up 

By all means, but you go first.

7 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I've said it before, but IMO it's a different culture that makes the difference, not the availability of weapons. A double barreled shotgun could be used in a mass shooting- it doesn't have to be a semi automatic weapon. It could even be a machete- they were used in Rawanda to commit mass murder.

English is not my mother language but I know how to spell Rwanda

4 minutes ago, still kicking said:

English is not my mother language but I know how to spell Rwanda

Nice try but no cigar.

 

2 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Nice try but no cigar.

 

Use your spell checker. 

 

55 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I can speak from personal experience why the M16 was easier to carry around than an SLR, but on the firing range the larger caliber was evidentially superior in taking down the enemy. We used steel plates to shoot at, and we could hear the M16 rounds hit the plate without knocking it over, but the SLR round would knock it over every time.

#1 you sir are not an American #2 we are talking about 9 year old kids getting slaughtered here I’m not allowed to say how I really feel about your comment so let’s say I find it deeply offensive indeed

3 minutes ago, Tug said:

#1 you sir are not an American #2 we are talking about 9 year old kids getting slaughtered here I’m not allowed to say how I really feel about your comment so let’s say I find it deeply offensive indeed

You hit the nail on the head.