4 ms·

I meant it as a bit of a tongue in cheek response, and indeed I used 'was' to indicate the NFLs former status. Nevertheless, I don't think its as simple as goa

by npunt 10y ago

I meant it as a bit of a tongue in cheek response, and indeed I used 'was' to indicate the NFLs former status. Nevertheless, I don't think its as simple as goals happening to align with industry, nor do I see equivalence in the industry relationships to brady groups (though admittedly I haven't researched that). Given the NRA's closely held governance structure and the large individual donations from manufacturers, one does not need a great deal of money (and certainly not majority of $) to influence direction toward industry ends that may not be in the interest of individual members as much as industry members and NRA leadership. That's honestly the best kind of influence to have, as your goals appear to be those of the large passionate group of individuals. I agree though 'more or less' overstates that relationship, I was wrong. I'll amend that to: the industry has influence over the policies the NRA advocates for, and benefits from those policies appearing to come from their large member base. FWIW I'm not opposed to the NRA per se, in fact a group for teaching responsible gun use is great. I'm just opposed to the current incarnation of the organization.

DannyBee 10y ago
"and the large individual donations from manufacturers," This, FWIW, is in fact the case with the brady groups as well. Honestly: It's just that companies tend to donate more to individuals. That seems normal. "I agree though 'more or less' overstates that relationship, I was wrong. I'll amend that to: the industry has influence over the policies the NRA advocates for, and benefits from those policies appearing to come from their large member base. " I think you have the arrow of causation backwards. How do you now know that it isn't "NRA individual members want to make sure industry does not get screwed, so NRA works with industry to formulate policies that help the industries, to help their members" ? Cause otherwise, i could argue the same thing about the brady groups. "The non-lethal weapon industry has influence over the policies the various brady groups advocate, and benefits from those policies appearing to come from their large member base" (substitute non-lethal-weapons from any of a number of industries that benefit here. there are plenty on both sides of this coin :P) I believe, without evidence otherwise, that the arrow of causation is "members want industry to survive and thrive, so mother org works with industry policy wise". Note that your arrow of causation is applicable to roughly any major org. IE industry donates heavily to EFF, in large amounts (though not, AFAIK, larger than user base, much like the NRA). Therefore "industry has influence over the policies EFF advocates for, and benefits from those policies appearing to come from their large member base". (as you can see, this argument line can be applied to any association accepting corporate contribution :P)

by npunt 10y ago

DannyBee 10y ago

"and the large individual donations from manufacturers," This, FWIW, is in fact the case with the brady groups as well. Honestly: It's just that companies tend to donate more to individuals. That seems normal. "I agree though 'more or less' overstates that relationship, I was wrong. I'll amend that to: the industry has influence over the policies the NRA advocates for, and benefits from those policies appearing to come from their large member base. " I think you have the arrow of causation backwards. How do you now know that it isn't "NRA individual members want to make sure industry does not get screwed, so NRA works with industry to formulate policies that help the industries, to help their members" ? Cause otherwise, i could argue the same thing about the brady groups. "The non-lethal weapon industry has influence over the policies the various brady groups advocate, and benefits from those policies appearing to come from their large member base" (substitute non-lethal-weapons from any of a number of industries that benefit here. there are plenty on both sides of this coin :P) I believe, without evidence otherwise, that the arrow of causation is "members want industry to survive and thrive, so mother org works with industry policy wise". Note that your arrow of causation is applicable to roughly any major org. IE industry donates heavily to EFF, in large amounts (though not, AFAIK, larger than user base, much like the NRA). Therefore "industry has influence over the policies EFF advocates for, and benefits from those policies appearing to come from their large member base". (as you can see, this argument line can be applied to any association accepting corporate contribution :P)