How much do firearms manufacturers contribute to 2A efforts?

[Frontier]

We all know who the NRA is (I personally prefer SAF), and we all do our best to represent our interest in the preservation of the second amendment. For us, it's personal. For firearms companies though, it's business; how do they ensure that the future of their products is being looked out for? I've never heard anything about how they do this, anyone with knowledge on this, please share. Speculation welcome as well.

Edit: The question is not whether the subject is 'google-able' or not, I know very well I could google this myself. I'm interested in sparking discussion and hearing different views. Additionally, other users might come across this thread having never considered the topic before. My hope is to share information and thoughts.

 

[sloughfoot]

No speculation on this. Ruger Firearms.

 

[t-squared]

NRA Gets Millions From Gun Industry "Corporate Partners" New Study Reveals | Common Dreams

Got this from a quick Google search....

 

[Frontier]

Oh, right. That google thing I keep hearing about.

"Of the 22 gunmakers, 12 manufacture assault weapons."

Article is laden with gun control agenda material, they're getting away with using factually incorrect information used as trigger words to incite responses.

 

[t-squared]

Yea, I agree the article is very"slanted". I wonder if the NRA publishes or makes public it's income thru donations....???

 

[shibumiseeker]

No speculation on this. Ruger Firearms.

I haven't forgiven Ruger for selling us out in the early 90s.

 

[WebSnyper]

Check out NSSF

Government Relations

 

[Kutnupe14]

I wouldnt be surprised if they contributed, secretly, to some anti-2A groups
(Kut is tinfoilin')

 

[Kirk Freeman]

For firearms companies though, it's business; how do they ensure that the future of their products is being looked out for?

How? Varied.

1. Above all by advertising and responding to the market.

2. Membership in origanizations such as NSSF and NASGD (which is also fence building and rent seeking).

3. Contributions to the NRA, sometimes to museums or training programs run by the NRA.

4. More controversially by buying off government scrutiny, e.g. Smith and Wesson Clinton Agreement.

5. Sponsoring firearms competitions and hunting programs, e.g. Glock.

 

[Frontier]

How? Varied.

4. More controversially by buying off government scrutiny, e.g. Smith and Wesson Clinton Agreement.

This was an interesting read, here's a provision:

Smart guns. Two percent of annual firearms revenues will be dedicated to the development of authorized user technology that can limit a gun’s use to its proper owner. Authorized user technology will be included in all new firearm models within 36 months.

Source: Agreement with Smith & Wesson

I'm guessing that technology never came through...

 

[IndyGunner]

Wouldnt it be funny if they contributed to anti-2A campaigns to make it harder to get guns thus driving the price up... or making people rush out to gun stores "before they are all gone".

 

[BE Mike]

I know that some of the contributions to the NRA, like from Springfield Armory for example, have gone to support competitive shooting. Although not a direct donation to lobbying efforts, I feel like encouraging people to exercise their second amendment rights is one of the best ways to support it.

 

[Frontier]

I know that some of the contributions to the NRA, like from Springfield Armory for example, have gone to support competitive shooting. Although not a direct donation to lobbying efforts, I feel like encouraging people to exercise their second amendment rights is one of the best ways to support it.

So my ultimate suspicion was actually that they would contribute to the NRA and other lobbying groups to fund campaigns that urge individual citizens to donate. After all, why spend your money when you can just convince someone else to donate theirs? (Not really but you know what I mean.)

 

[Frontier]

Wouldnt it be funny if they contributed to anti-2A campaigns to make it harder to get guns thus driving the price up... or making people rush out to gun stores "before they are all gone".

This is relevant. I had a good laugh when I saw it too.

[ame]http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/411209/march-27-2012/barack-obama-gun-control-conspiracy[/ame]

 

[45calibre]

I haven't forgiven Ruger for selling us out in the early 90s.

are you talking about them not selling regular capacity mags to civilians?

 

[shibumiseeker]

are you talking about them not selling regular capacity mags to civilians?

No, I'm talking about his part in the 1994 AWB.

The Gun Zone RKBA -- William B. Ruger, Sr.'s dirty little secret

Basically selling us out, and only recently has the company begun selling "military style" weapons because that's where the money is.

The 2nd Amendment is not about hunting, something Mr. Ruger didn't seem to grasp and loudly and publicly made statements about.

Back then I remember getting soundly pissed off about what Ruger was doing and the influence it yielded in the NRA and SAAMI and other organizations. A position for which they have never apologized. And until Ruger publicly reverses that position, they won't be a company I do much business with.

 

[Frontier]

I don't buy Ruger for two reasons: their role in the AWB, and because their guns are UGLY!

My logic is solid.

 

[BE Mike]

So my ultimate suspicion was actually that they would contribute to the NRA and other lobbying groups to fund campaigns that urge individual citizens to donate. After all, why spend your money when you can just convince someone else to donate theirs? (Not really but you know what I mean.)

No, I don't know how you got that out of my post and that is not what I meant to say. Many manufacturers donate money to support the shooting sports, gun safety programs and educational programs. People who actually shoot, tend to vote for laws that favor firearm's ownership and use. What's your point?

 

[Frontier]

No, I don't know how you got that out of my post and that is not what I meant to say. Many manufacturers donate money to support the shooting sports, gun safety programs and educational programs. People who actually shoot, tend to vote for laws that favor firearm's ownership and use. What's your point?

My point is simple: of every dollar donated to the NRA, x% goes to actual efforts to protect the 2A (NRA-ILA). Y% goes to media campaigns convincing gun owners how threatened the 2A is under ______ administration or with the ________law being considered in the House/Senate/State Level, etc.

How much money of what is donated by the firearms industry goes to x and how much to y? If I were running a firearms business, and I knew that I could influence Y (let's say that makes up 25% of every dollar) in order to spur donations that will be used for X (75% of course), why would I want to give 75% when I can give 25% to encourage people to donate more to a cause that is good for my business? After all, that's more money I get to keep. Therefore I give the NRA $2,500 and tell them "I want you to communicate to the appropriate audience how bad things look right now for gun ownership" -regardless of whether or not that is true.

Just as you stated before; gun companies also fund their efforts to support the 2A indirectly

"Although not a direct donation to lobbying efforts, I feel like encouraging people to exercise their second amendment rights is one of the best ways to support it."

I also argue that inducing fear is another way of supporting it. I don't support the NRA anymore because of the rampant use of hysteria in their campaigns. I achieve the same effect by supporting SAF without all the garbage I receive in the mail. I was receiving all sorts of stuff from the NRA (especially about gold and other political persuasions I do not subscribe to). This made me question: where is my money going? I wanted to tell them to stop sending me rubbish in the mail and use that money for a better use.

I am interested in finding out where the money goes that is donated by companies to the NRA.

"People who actually shoot, tend to vote for laws that favor firearm's ownership and use."

That's besides the point, we're not talking about how firearms owners vote, we're talking about what the firearms industries do to support the 2A, I'm interested in hearing the views on the intersection of business and politics.

 

[BE Mike]

My point is simple: of every dollar donated to the NRA, x% goes to actual efforts to protect the 2A (NRA-ILA). Y% goes to media campaigns convincing gun owners how threatened the 2A is under ______ administration or with the ________law being considered in the House/Senate/State Level, etc.

How much money of what is donated by the firearms industry goes to x and how much to y? If I were running a firearms business, and I knew that I could influence Y (let's say that makes up 25% of every dollar) in order to spur donations that will be used for X (75% of course), why would I want to give 75% when I can give 25% to encourage people to donate more to a cause that is good for my business? After all, that's more money I get to keep. Therefore I give the NRA $2,500 and tell them "I want you to communicate to the appropriate audience how bad things look right now for gun ownership" -regardless of whether or not that is true.

Just as you stated before; gun companies also fund their efforts to support the 2A indirectly

"Although not a direct donation to lobbying efforts, I feel like encouraging people to exercise their second amendment rights is one of the best ways to support it."

I also argue that inducing fear is another way of supporting it. I don't support the NRA anymore because of the rampant use of hysteria in their campaigns. I achieve the same effect by supporting SAF without all the garbage I receive in the mail. I was receiving all sorts of stuff from the NRA (especially about gold and other political persuasions I do not subscribe to). This made me question: where is my money going? I wanted to tell them to stop sending me rubbish in the mail and use that money for a better use.

I am interested in finding out where the money goes that is donated by companies to the NRA.

"People who actually shoot, tend to vote for laws that favor firearm's ownership and use."

That's besides the point, we're not talking about how firearms owners vote, we're talking about what the firearms industries do to support the 2A, I'm interested in hearing the views on the intersection of business and politics.

If you think that your second amendment rights are not always under attack, you are deluded. Since you have made a decision not to support the NRA, then why now do you care how much money goes to what purpose? I'm glad that you support a pro-gun group, but I fail to see your reasoning behind bringing the motives of the firearms industry and/ or the NRA into question. Gun owners and gun groups don't need to knock one another. We need to present a united front to those who would whittle away at our constitutional rights. Oh, BTW the money spent on NRA mailings doesn't come out of dues and one in three letters gets a donation. If it didn't work, they wouldn't use it.

I'm so over conspiracy theorists.