The NRA is a well-funded Extremist Group


PDA






Justin
March 10, 2013, 05:29 PM
I found the following graphic comparing the relative amounts of money controlled by the NRA and gun companies vs. Bloomberg fairly illuminating.

http://imgur.com/hX0VdS8

If you enjoyed reading about "The NRA is a well-funded Extremist Group" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
josiewales
March 10, 2013, 06:16 PM
WOW! I could throw that at some antis I know.

beatledog7
March 10, 2013, 06:19 PM
That's how he manages to buy elections all over the country.

Cosmoline
March 10, 2013, 06:20 PM
Makes you want to start up that 90% tax rate again, doesn't it?

bds
March 10, 2013, 06:23 PM
Wow, thanks for the link.

We need to send more money to the NRA if we want any shot at a fair fight against such deep pocketed opponents.

cfullgraf
March 10, 2013, 06:37 PM
When I first looked at the page, I thought it was broken. Then I realized how one sided it really was.

Scary.

joeschmoe
March 10, 2013, 06:43 PM
What makes you think Bloomberg would spend one dime of his own money on this? He didn't get rich by spending his money on liberal campaigns. He's spending NYC tax dollars, not his own. He's a liar and a tyrant, but not an idiot.

The graph pokes fun at how rich he is, but it means nothing.

beatledog7
March 10, 2013, 06:51 PM
But there's no evidence he's a thief, at least not of which I'm aware. For him to spend NYC tax dollars on elections in Michigan or an LGS sting operation in Virginia would be illegal, and I think he's too smart politically to do that.

He may be an idiot in terms of understanding concepts of personal liberty, or he may just be a tyrant. Either way, with as much money as he has there's no reason for him to steal tax dollars.

But if you have evidence, let's get it out there.

Drail
March 10, 2013, 06:55 PM
Jus remember that the guys who founded the United States were also an extremist group at the time. Anyone today who talks about overthrowing the Govt. is a terrorist. Or an extremist. Or a PATRIOT. This is the fine art of using words to frighten the sheep who are so incredibly poorly educated and have no concept of history or how they got here or why they should fight to stay free.

joeschmoe
March 10, 2013, 06:58 PM
Who said steal? His LGS sting operations are publicly funded by NYC. Who claims otherwise? What does his personal wealth have to do with it?

buckeye8
March 10, 2013, 07:01 PM
Big, bad NRA spent over $29 million last year.

That's just over half of Diane Feinstein's net worth of $46 million...

But well under 1% of Michael Bloomberg's net worth of $27 billion.

I've argued with anti-gun folks (at places like HuffPo) until I've become blue in the face over this issue. Many of them are honestly convinced that the NRA is some sort of evil, wealthy, arm-twisting, omnipotent lobbying arm of the "gun manufacturers".

I try to explain to them that the NRA is the largest voluntary, single-issue political interest group in America at over 4 million members, and that most of its money comes from those voluntary, dues-paying members. I try to tell them that, by American standards, gun companies are mid-sized businesses who lack the resources to be highly influential, even if they were to combine resources.

The entire gun industry (all companies combined) profited less than $1 billion last year, and it was a very good year for gun manufacturers. By contrast, last I heard, Google was just sitting on close to $50 billion in cash reserves (that's the petty cash that they don't know what to do with), and Exxon was pushing a $700 billion company valuation. Companies and industries that have actual influence in Washington would laugh at the puny and financially impotent gun industry.

The only thing that gives the gun industry (or the NRA) any political power is the millions of American voters who stand behind it.

As you might imagine, this information usually falls on deaf ears.

OilyPablo
March 10, 2013, 07:13 PM
We have allowed the mainstream media to label the NRA. Hard to shake that, but we must. People just regurgitate what they hear.

Justin
March 10, 2013, 07:32 PM
Who said steal? His LGS sting operations are publicly funded by NYC. Who claims otherwise? What does his personal wealth have to do with it?

I've seen no proof that the money he's spent on various political campaigns in Illinois, Virginia, and the current lobbying efforts underway in Colorado were financed with NYC taxpayer monies.

If you've got a source for that, I'd dearly love to see it, because that sort of misuse of public funds would likely raise some eyebrows.

Cesiumsponge
March 10, 2013, 07:37 PM
That chart is stupid. That shows Bloomberg's net worth. He isn't spending 27 billion dollars a year on lobbying or he would have no money.

OilyPablo
March 10, 2013, 07:47 PM
I've seen no proof that the money he's spent on various political campaigns in Illinois, Virginia, and the current lobbying efforts underway in Colorado were financed with NYC taxpayer monies.

Agreed. He is using his own money AFAIK.

Carl N. Brown
March 10, 2013, 08:00 PM
NRA, Extremist group?

As the Roman political philosopher Cicero orated: extremism in the defense of liberty is not a vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice is not a virtue.

The Cicero quote was used in a biography of Abraham Lincoln, and the quote was worked into a speech by Barry Goldwater.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/21/us/politics/from-new-york-bloomberg-makes-guns-the-issue-in-a-chicago-election.html
Steven Yaccino, "From New York, Making Guns the Issue in a Chicago Race", New York Times, 21 Feb 2013, page A13.

Michael R. Bloomberg spend $2 million dollars to defeat pro-gun Democrat Debbie Halvorson in a race in Illinois to pick a replacement for disgraced Rep. Jesse jackson Jr. As Howard Wolfson, deputy mayor of NYC, said: "there is a price to be paid for candidates that run with the support of the N.R.A. or run supporting their positions".

Back in the regular Nov 2012 elections, Bloomberg spent $10 million to support gun control, including hundreds of thousands to defeat a pro-gun rights candidate in California. $10 million is chump change to Bloomberg, worth $33 billion. The man has a god complex and hates guns period. Talk about a one man extremist group.

Gottahaveone
March 10, 2013, 08:03 PM
......because that sort of misuse of public funds would likely raise some eyebrows.

Sadly, only for a pro RKBA/Conservative. Bloomberg could loot the Widows and Orphans Fund and get a free pass.

MErl
March 10, 2013, 08:10 PM
That chart is stupid. That shows Bloomberg's net worth. He isn't spending 27 billion dollars a year on lobbying or he would have no money
It does show that he could spend 0.2% of his net worth each year and outspend the NRA by a long way.

Xelera
March 10, 2013, 08:15 PM
Don't forget, he is also co-chair of MAIG, Mayors Against Illegal Guns... though it would be more accurate to call it MAG, Mayors Against Guns. Wonder what kind of funding they have.

Ragnar Danneskjold
March 10, 2013, 09:03 PM
Makes you want to start up that 90% tax rate again, doesn't it?

Nope. I may dislike everything about the guy and his ideas. I may want him to go broke tomorrow. But the government would not manage that money any better than he does. And if that money is indeed his through earning, than it's his. We have no right to it.


The Looter mindset does not become just or honorable if you only target your enemies.

tigeroldlone
March 10, 2013, 11:32 PM
Let's call it, Redistribution of Wealth, not looters mentality.

Justin
March 10, 2013, 11:53 PM
Agree with Ragnar.

Would but Bloomberg use his wealth in the ways that Elon Musk, James Cameron, or Dennis Tito are, the world would be a much better place.

That said, such opinions are neither here nor there. I posted the graphic because it does a good job of demonstrating that one of the biggest players in the gun politics game is a single individual with a tremendous net worth, vs. ~4,500,000 NRA members and the comparatively small amount of money that they have.

Fortunately, we've got sheer numbers on our side when it comes to people.

BigBore44
March 11, 2013, 06:17 AM
His vote means no more than mine. He just has more money. He has to buy votes. The problem is people like him donating millions to a campaign and buying air time so lies can be spread about people with no reprocussuons from the media. I'm surprised there aren't "defimation of character" lawsuits all over the place from the last elections.

OilyPablo
March 11, 2013, 07:35 AM
I am shocked that no Democrats are saying a rich guy is trying to buy votes and this is fundamentally Un-American. Shocked I tell you.

hnk45acp
March 11, 2013, 12:39 PM
Bloomberg spent over $100,000,000 in NYC to buy himself a third mayoral term. In NYC the mayor is term limited to 2 terms but he managed to bribe the city council for a third one. He will do whatever and spend however much to get his way. from the NYTimes:
To eke out a narrow re-election victory over the city’s understated comptroller, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg spent $102 million of his own money, or about $183 per vote, according to data released on Friday, making his bid for a third term the most expensive campaign in municipal history.

beatledog7
March 11, 2013, 12:52 PM
His LGS sting operations are publicly funded by NYC.

If that's true, then he is stealing from the taxpayers. There is no way it should be legal to spend NYC tax dollars outside NYC. If it isn't, then he should be prosecuted. If it is, then the people of NYC need to get their heads out of the sand and force some changes.

Well, they need to do that anyway.

Cesiumsponge
March 11, 2013, 12:54 PM
It does show that he could spend 0.2% of his net worth each year and outspend the NRA by a long way.
And IS that happening? Facts, skepticism, and rational arguments are the foundation for a solid argument that requires equal evidence to counter. If you're going to start the wishy washy feelings and "what if" rationales as the sole basis of your argument, you're no better than the irrational anti-gun guys. This chart is rubbish and no better than the crap we are bombarded with.

Derek Zeanah
March 11, 2013, 01:04 PM
And IS that happening? Facts, skepticism, and rational arguments are the foundation for a solid argument that requires equal evidence to counter. If you're going to start the wishy washy feelings and "what if" rationales as the sole basis of your argument, you're no better than the irrational anti-gun guys. This chart is rubbish and no better than the crap we are bombarded with.
We don't know. We do know that he recently spent ~ $2 million to influence the election for Jesse Jackson Jr's successor. His money was spent, as far as I can tell, on ads opposing the only NRA A rated candidate.

Word on the grapevine is that he's making similar promises/threats in Colorado. The threat/promise now has clout due to his contributions in Chicago.

Is he? Maybe, maybe not. Might he? Oh hell yes. Will we see him doing so in the next election cycle? I'd guess the odds are greater than 80%.

runner55
March 11, 2013, 01:21 PM
Don't forget Bloomberg's direct and ongoing involvement with Gifford's/Kelly's new anti-gun group. He provided the idea and seed money.

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-01-08/politics/36207563_1_tucson-supermarket-gabrielle-giffords-gun-laws

Bartholomew Roberts
March 11, 2013, 01:57 PM
The interesting thing is that so far Bloomberg appears to be threatening only Dems - and not even A-rated Dems but moderate Dems like B-rated Joe Baca. For example, Ddbbie Halvorson apparently had no chance of winning against the Chicago machine candidate to begin with - and she supported gun registration but not bans. Bloomberg singled her out for her minor gun control stance and made a big deal about ad spending against a candidate that was already effectively going to lose without Bloomberg's input.

So far it seems like the majority of Bloomberg's spending is being used to eliminate moderate gun control Dems and replace them with extremists who support gun bans.

-v-
March 11, 2013, 03:28 PM
Bartholmew: My guess would be this is Bloomberg's opening shots. The idea being that "If I'm willing to spend this much on someone I kind of don't agree with, imagine what I can do if I really don't like you." The message to the party to keep in line or face his wrath. Of course, this can easily back fire. It becomes all to easy to paint candidates that he supports as "Bloomberg's lackeys" and make voters think twice about voting for them.

Lucifer_Sam
March 11, 2013, 05:04 PM
And IS that happening? Facts, skepticism, and rational arguments are the foundation for a solid argument that requires equal evidence to counter. If you're going to start the wishy washy feelings and "what if" rationales as the sole basis of your argument, you're no better than the irrational anti-gun guys. This chart is rubbish and no better than the crap we are bombarded with.


Is he? Maybe, maybe not. Might he? Oh hell yes. Will we see him doing so in the next election cycle? I'd guess the odds are greater than 80%.

The link Carl posted earlier in the thread seemed pretty telling on that point.

Illinois’s Second Congressional District, which includes parts of Chicago’s South Side and southern suburbs, is the most recent focus of an effort by Mr. Bloomberg to invest some of his personal fortune into influencing the national political debate on issues like gun control, education and same-sex marriage. After forming the super PAC in October, Mr. Bloomberg used the group to spend around $10 million on candidates in the November elections, which he considered a “toe in the water,” according to Howard Wolfson, a deputy mayor in the Bloomberg administration.

The mayor’s message is that “there is a price to be paid for candidates that run with the support of the N.R.A. or run supporting their positions,” Mr. Wolfson said.


He formed one of those super PACs specifically so he can spend all kinds of money on elections throughout the country to support his type of causes. Theres no telling how much he will actually do it, but I also wouldn't be surprised if it was frequent, given that Bloomberg feels hes some type of crusader for "the greater good". Hes like some aggressive disease determined to inflict as much damage as it can.

Hopefully, thorough, one flaw in his plan might be that people might actually resent some jack*ss from NYC trying to tell them how to live their lives and want nothing to do with his candidates. I know that a whiff of Bloomberg on a candidate in the southern states would get them rode of of town on a rail. Not that he'd be likely to pick a battle that he would so obviously lose, though, hes not stupid.

Waywatcher
March 11, 2013, 06:45 PM
I'm going to go against the grain on this one.

Comparing net worth of an individual to one year of net income for a business or organization is totally apples and oranges. For one, the individual amassed it over time. Two, net income is after expenses for those businesses/organizations, so it belies their true size.

We're all on the same side here, but this imgur is easily dissected and rendered inert.

hnk45acp
March 12, 2013, 11:46 AM
I'm going to go against the grain on this one.

Comparing net worth of an individual to one year of net income for a business or organization is totally apples and oranges. For one, the individual amassed it over time. Two, net income is after expenses for those businesses/organizations, so it belies their true size.

We're all on the same side here, but this imgur is easily dissected and rendered inert.

Agreed, perhaps abetter comparison: the NRA spent 29 milllion all of last year and Bloomberg easily spent 102 million (his own money) in 3-4 months to buy the Mayorship of NYC in 2009

If you enjoyed reading about "The NRA is a well-funded Extremist Group" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!