NRA & Gun Manufacturers?

[rawhide]

(Moderators, please move if this is would be better suited for a different forum)

As we all know, the NRA is once again under fire following the most recent tragedy in Florida. Students holding anti-NRA signs and asking politicians if they take money from the NRA. The left has long supported the claim that the NRA is simply lobbying for gun manufacturers to promote gun sales.

Many here are NRA members and some in this forum routinely bash the NRA. Please leave those arguments for a different thread.

I personally believe that the NRA, while not perfect, serves an important role in preserving liberty and is powerful, not because of campaign contributions, but because most people agree with their positions. Therefore, even if the claim is true, the outcome benefits me. I’ve never really explored the validity of the left’s claim and would like to draw from those that may have more experience, knowledge, or a different point of view to support or refute it.

My question: To what extent is the claim that the NRA’s real motive is to promote gun sales valid?

 

[rc508pir]

The NRA get most of its money from manufacturers so............

 

[DavidMcmillan]

Is that an issue? Don't most organizations receive most of their funding from businesses involved in the activity being supported? I want gun manufacturers to succeed. I want them to continue to create new products.

And I want the NRA, and others to support the manufacturers in defense against the idea of liability lawsuits.

 

[RustedBeef]

I barely know anything about the NRA, but one thing I heard is that a huge majority of their funding comes from manufactures when in the past it used to be from membership subscriptions and donations. If you ask me, and I guess you are, Jesus did say it's impossible to serve two masters. You'll be either devoted to one and despise the other or love one and hate the other.

So, seeing as the NRA is supposedly mostly funded by the manufactures, I'm sure they don't want to bite the hand that feeds them while simultaneously giving lip-service to its members who no longer are their main source of income for reasons of publicity. The real question you should be asking is if the goal of promoting gun sales matches up with the things NRA members themselves are concerned with. Are there things that would please the gun manufactures but would be a bad deal for the 2nd Amendment, and what are some examples of the NRA teetering one way or the other on that line?

 

[mr ed]

Where can we see the facts and figures?
I figure the 6 million members contribute more than manufacturers.
There are some big dealers like Brownells and Midway that donate. But, do they really?
They always want you to roundup your purchase dollar so its not really coming out of their pocket.
Go to any gunshow and ask the dealers if they are members. You will get a resounding NO even though they make their living selling guns.
The NSSF is what most manufacturers support . Its the industry organization.

 

[RustedBeef]

Where can we see the facts and figures?
I figure the 6 million members contribute more than manufacturers.
There are some big dealers like Brownells and Midway that donate. But, do they really?
They always want you to roundup your purchase dollar so its not really coming out of their pocket.
Go to any gunshow and ask the dealers if they are members. You will get a resounding NO even though they make their living selling guns.
The NSSF is what most manufacturers support . Its the industry organization.

Couldn't really tell you. I just know what some of you guys have said, and some of you are, well... let's not say much about that lol.

I don't have a black belt, but my GoogleFu conjured up this link http://www.businessinsider.com/gun-industry-funds-nra-2013-1
which has says this about some companies which donate to the NRA - "...some companies donate portions of sales directly to the NRA. Crimson Trace, which makes laser sights, donates 10 percent of each sale to the NRA. Taurus buys an NRA membershipfor everyone who buys one of their guns. Sturm Rugar gives $1 to the NRA for each gun sold, which amounts to millions. The NRA's revenues are intrinsically linked to the success of the gun business."

Is that a bad thing? You be the judge.

 

[MacFromOK]

Firearms companies' success is linked to sales (first and foremost), and they can't all be the main supplier to the military.

So... citizens (NRA members or not) make up a large part of those sales (loss of gun rights = loss of sales).

Looks to me like we're all connected.

 

[caojyn]

Firearms companies' success is linked to sales (first and foremost), and they can't all be the main supplier to the military.

So... citizens (NRA members or not) make up a large part of those sales (loss of gun rights = loss of sales).

but fear of loss of gun right = higher sales (just ask obama)
this would mean that companies and subsequently the NRA benefit from anti2a rhetoric and policy. By making the bumpstock illegal they could be trying get everyone back into panic buying mode, since everyone quite when trump got elected thinking he'd be 2a friendly.

 

[MacFromOK]

but fear of loss of gun right = higher sales (just ask obama)
this would mean that companies and subsequently the NRA benefit from anti2a rhetoric and bills

I really can't argue with that. I mentioned to several folks during his last term that Obama sold more guns than anyone in recent history. :/

But still, those rights weren't lost. If it becomes illegal to buy guns, then many firearm manufacturers will bite the dust.

 

[rawhide]

As I pointed out in my original post...does it matter how much NRA funding comes from manufacturers? Don't we support businesses that support our political views? I think the left's talking point is about trying to link protecting big business at the expense of public safety along with the more guns = more crime.