Interest groups play a crucial role in overcoming the free rider problem by providing incentives to members and potential members to help them mobilize. These incentives include material, solidary, and purposive benefits, often offered by group leaders. Some of these benefits include access to special information on the Internet and subscriptions to magazines.
In large groups, individuals may not necessarily trust or know each other, except through their cultural identifications. However, joining interest groups can help facilitate civic engagement, which allows people to feel more connected to the political and social community. Group leaders often offer incentives to induce activity among individuals, such as special discounts, access to special information on the Internet, and subscriptions to magazines.
Interest groups offer individuals an important avenue for political participation, such as the Tea Party protests and the Occupy Wall Street movement. They also provide opportunities for participation that go beyond simple voting, such as voting, campaigning, contacting lawmakers, and informing the public about the group’s goals. Socioeconomic status is an important predictor of who will likely join groups, and interest groups provide selective benefits to group members to overcome the impediments to collective action.
In conclusion, interest groups play a vital role in overcoming the free rider problem by offering incentives to members and potential members to help them mobilize and become more civically engaged.
📹 The NRA – What’s Its Power?
Why is it that organized interest groups such as the National Rifle Association wield such powerful influence in policy discussions …
What are some methods for overcoming collective action problems?
Abstract. In a period of new employment laws, it is important to determine how those laws are enforced, why enforcement of those laws is sometimes limited and how enforcement can be improved. This Note discusses the ways in which the theory of collective action limits enforcement of three employee rights statutes: the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Occupational Safety and Health Act, and the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act. Enforcement mechanisms such as class action lawsuits, administrative agencies, employee participation groups, and labor unions represent potential methods of overcoming collective action problems. Each method has its benefits, and the three statutes must be reformed to increase the availability of all four methods. Ultimately, however, employee participation groups represent the best means for improving enforcement.
Louise Sadowsky Brock, Overcoming Collective Action Problems: Enforcement of Worker Rights, 30 U. Mich. J. L. Reform 781. Available at: repository.law.umich.edu/mjlr/vol30/iss4/5.
What is the goal of group?
Team goals are performance objectives that require the contributions of everyone on the team. The best team goals are co-created with the team members and aligned with larger organizational goals.
Team goals have some important differences from the goals you might set for yourself. Think of the difference between an individual sport (tennis) and a team sport (basketball).
As an example, a coaching client of mine recently came to a coaching session saying her team needed to improve on communication with internal stakeholders. She is the senior director of a team that provides enterprise-wide support, meaning many different divisions of the tech company have simultaneous projects that need her teams attention. The team had recently doubled in size, with new hires brought on board to meet the increasing demand. And while they were excelling at the quality of the work, many internal stakeholders complained to my client that they were not receiving status updates on their projects.
Using the example of team communication to internal stakeholders, this article will explain the benefits of setting team goals, how to set goals with your team, and how to measure the results.
What is interest incentives?
Incentive Interest means the Funds share in the Increase in Value of a property securing a Mortgage Loan and shall be payable in connection with Mortgage Loans secured by Real Estate not held for sale in the ordinary course of business.
Derivative Interest means any derivative securities (as defined under Rule 16a-1 under the Exchange Act) that increase in value as the value of the underlying equity increases, including, but not limited to, a long convertible security, a long call option and a short put option position, in each case, regardless of whether (x) such interest conveys any voting rights in such security, (y) such interest is required to be, or is capable of being, settled through delivery of such security or (z) transactions hedge the economic effect of such interest.
Income interest means the right of an income beneficiary to receive all or part of net income, whether the terms of the trust require it to be distributed or authorize it to be distributed in the trustees discretion.
Incentive Units means those Partnership Interests described in Section 2 of the Incentive Unit Agreement.
What are the solutions to the collective goods problem?
Reciprocity The principle of reciprocity solves the collective goods problem by reward- ing behavior that contributes to the group and punishing behavior that pursues self- interest at the expense of the group.
How do interest groups overcome the free rider problem?
People often free ride when they can obtain benefits without contributing to the costs of obtaining these benefits. To overcome these challenges, group leaders may offer incentives to members or potential members to help them mobilize.
Collective action problems exist when people have a disincentive to take action.Mancur Olson, Jr. 1965. The Logic of Collective Action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; Frank R. Baumgartner and Beth L. Leech. Basic Interests: The Importance of Groups in Political Science. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. In his classic work, The Logic of Collective Action, economist Mancur Olson discussed the conditions under which collective actions problems would exist, and he noted that they were prevalent among organized interests. People tend not to act when the perceived benefit is insufficient to justify the costs associated with engaging in the action. Many citizens may have concerns about the appropriate level of taxation, gun control, or environmental protection, but these concerns are not necessarily strong enough for them to become politically active. In fact, most people take no action on most issues, either because they do not feel strongly enough or because their action will likely have little bearing on whether a given policy is adopted. Thus, there is a disincentive to call your member of Congress, because rarely will a single phone call sway a politician on an issue.
Why do some students elect to do little on a group project? The answer is that they likely prefer to do something else and realize they can receive the same grade as the rest of the group without contributing to the effort. This result is often termed the free rider problem, because some individuals can receive benefits (get a free ride) without helping to bear the cost. When National Public Radio (NPR) engages in a fund-raising effort to help maintain the station, many listeners will not contribute. Since it is unlikely that any one listener’s donation will be decisive in whether NPR has adequate funding to continue to operate, most listeners will not contribute to the costs but instead will free ride and continue to receive the benefits of listening.
Collective action problems and free riding occur in many other situations as well. If union membership is optional and all workers will receive a salary increase regardless of whether they make the time and money commitment to join, some workers may free ride. The benefits sought by unions, such as higher wages, collective bargaining rights, and safer working conditions, are often enjoyed by all workers regardless of whether they are members. Therefore, free riders can receive the benefit of the pay increase without helping defray the cost by paying dues, attending meetings or rallies, or joining protests, like that shown in Figure.
What are the goals of interest groups?
Interest groups are formed to promote the interests or concerns of their members. They are primarily concerned with influencing public policy. Because a key function is to exert pressure on political decision-makers, interest groups are sometimes referred to as pressure or lobby groups.
Aims. Interest groups are formed to promote the interests or concerns of their members. They are primarily concerned with influencing public policy. Because a key function is to exert pressure on political decision-makers, interest groups are sometimes referred to as ‘pressure’ or ‘lobby’ groups. They are distinct from political parties in that they do not run candidates for public office. As well as targeting politicians, interest groups attempt to influence a wide range of public bodies, including government departments, state-owned enterprises and other Crown entities, and local government.
‘Lobbyist’ is an American term which derives from the practice of buttonholing politicians in the lobbies of Washington hotels. In New Zealand lobbyists go by a range of titles, including public relations consultant, strategic advisor, corporate advisor and ‘government relations’ manager.
As New Zealand’s population grew and a more socially and politically diverse culture emerged, the number of interest groups increased. While the largest groups are well-resourced, with national offices and professional staff, most are sustained by small groups of unpaid volunteers whose primary motivation is their shared commitment to the group’s cause – anything from law and order to the environment. The internet and social-networking sites, the multiplication of radio and television news outlets, and the transition to proportional parliamentary representation made it easier for interest groups to have their voices heard.
What are the 4 examples of incentives?
What are the most common incentives?Monetary bonuses.Salary raises.Additional vacation days.Public recognition.Health and wellness reimbursements.Referral bonuses.Professional development opportunities.Tuition reimbursement.
Disengagement among employees is a growing concern with low morale leading to high turnover rates, low productivity, and a negative impact on your bottom line. In fact, unhappy workers cost the U.S. up to $550 billion per year.
Leaders and HR have a significant role to play in sustaining employee engagement and motivation. To do so, you first have to understand the state of recognition, what it means for your workforce, and how best to incentive your teams today.
What is the definition of Incentives?. An incentive is something that motivates or encourages someone to take a specific action, or to avoid action. It refers to an external influence, like the expectation of a reward, which prompts an individual to take an action. The role of an incentive is to drive desired behaviors and attitudes for a desired outcome.
What is a purposive incentive?
There are three types of incentives that, alone or in combination, may overcome this free-rider problem. A purposive incentive leads people voluntarily to join and contribute money to a group because they want to help the group achieve its goals. Membership in the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) increased by one hundred thousand in the eighteen months following the 9/11 attacks as the group raised concerns that the governments antiterrorism campaign was harming civil liberties (Lichtblau, 2003). In addition, people may join groups, such as the Union of Concerned Scientists, because of a solidary incentive. The motivation to join the group stems from the pleasure of interacting with like-minded individuals and the gratification of publicly expressing ones beliefs.
People may also join groups to obtain material incentives available only to members. AARP, formerly the American Association of Retired Persons, has around thirty-five million members. It obtains this huge number by charging a nominal annual membership fee and offering such material incentives as health insurance and reduced prices for prescription drugs. The groups magazine is sent to members and includes tax advice, travel and vacation information, and discounts.
Recruitment. One way interest groups recruit members is through media coverage. The appealingly named Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) is a consumer organization that focuses on food and nutrition issues, produces quality research, and has media savvy. It is a valuable source of expertise and information for journalists. The frequent and favorable news coverage it receives brings the group and its activities to the publics attention and encourages people to support and join it.
What are the objectives of special interest groups?
Tasked with the responsibility of planning the future of multi-million dollar and multipurpose projects, Social Infrastructure Planners work closely across Council, with data and the community to help influence the urban fabric.
Our Objectives. The LGPro Social Infrastructure Planning Special Interest Group aims to bring together like minded professionals who want to:
- Advance best practice in social infrastructure planning
- Improve processes and systems in the planning, development and maintenance of social infrastructure
- Develop innovative solutions
- Share and obtain new ideas in the field.
What are the incentives for interest groups?
There are three major incentives for individuals to join interest groups: solidary, material, and purposive. Solidary incentives include companionship, a sense of belonging, and the pleasure of associating with others.
📹 Why is the Government so Wasteful?
This video, like the rest of my channel, isn’t sponsored. If you want to support me, here are the best ways to do it: 1) Watch the …
The really great thing about this website is that it addresses the facts about how the political economy functions in a format short, concise, and plain enough for the short-attention spanned. While I typically prefer longer and more detailed presentations, I share the articles from Learn Liberty far and wide.
This guy makes a great discussion. He’s saying small groups are powerful and easy to organize. I think this also explains why rich people are so powerful even though they’re like 1 percent (or less) of the population. The majority (middle and lower classes) seem to think, “Oh, let someone else take care of it” and they have a harder time of organizing things.
Two things, if it matters. 1. I am an NRA member, and gun owner, myself, just for full disclosure. 2. I say, IN THE article, the NRA is not small, and the number of gun owners is not small. Thanks for perusal! Mike Munger (PS: I had had six surgeries on my left eye just before this was made, over a period of a few months. It is disconcerting, I agree. What is this guy looking at?)
How about concentrating on bigger special interest groups like the Union and the Lawyers Organizations who receive special privileges from policies, power to create or change laws, twisting the words of Constitution to benefit their own agenda, organize protests, being hidden financial banks of money to their political candidates, and corrupting bills to benefit them with contract jobs. The NRA is just a small fish in the ocean of life, who don’t really have that much influence in benefiting change but they just have a voice with a right to vote. Stop making the NRA into this huge and powerful interest group that they are Not! They are just citizens who believe in their Constitutional Rights to bear arms and they don’t receive taxpayer money to be funded with. How about all those Special Interest Groups who get taxpayer money to be funded with or individuals who receive grant money which is supplied by the taxpayer.
If I own a gun it’s not harming you the gun control individual unless I use that gun to cause you harm(i.e. a criminal). But if I own a gun that’s one less person the criminal has an overwhelming advantage over. Enough people with guns keep crime in check cause you have to be quite desperate to take on a victim if there’s a good chance you’re not going to get away unscathed. Controlling a tool for self defense is like controlling a resource for nutrition. You should have the right to feed yourself the best you can buy regardless if the next person chooses to eat crap. After all you’re defending your health when you eat healthy and nutritionally dense foods. Those who are healthy are stronger than those who eat poorly and are likely to do better at at school. If you run into a group that has eaten healthy and they do well on a test they’ll ruin the curve for everyone. So is the solution to make everyone eat crap or is the solution to defend yourself with nutrition so you’re on an even playing field?
What’s with all these pro-gun rights people getting offended about the article? Did you even watch it? This isn’t a neo-liberal website in the least. It was just a government and politics article that used the NRA as an example. It said litteraly nothing bad about the NRA or gun owners, and for those of you saying he called the NRA a small group, you must have not watched the article because he says the exact opposite at 2:22. Geez, I’m pro gun myself but you guys really don’t make the movement look good.
it’s not meant to be either for or against, it’s just an explanation. Exercises like this help one learn to ‘think like an economist’ regardless of emotion and opinion, and apart from political considerations. You could use the same argument to explain how a trade association successfully lobbies congress for protectionist policies.
That’s actually a good comparison. No, I don’t have to get a license or license the motorcycle, buy insurance for it or obey any traffic laws on my own property, other private property, or public land. I only have to meet laws and regulations (including licensing and insurance) for the PRIVILEGE (not a right) to operate it on public, government maintained roads. Those fees go back to the state to fund roads, police, etc. I don’t know how you draw a parallel to that and the crime of coercion.
i want my AUG for several reasons. 1. because i friggin’ WANT it. 2. because it’s great at knocking down lots of steel targets very fast. 3. because if any number of people ever try to break into my house, i’ll have 30 rounds on tap (actually 60, i have coupled mags.) 4. i’d rather have more than i need than less than i need. 5. the .223 is good for home defense because it won’t overpenetrate like a shotgun. 6. it looks scary, so the intruder will most likely surrender without a shot fired.
the reason for Switzerland’s low crime rate is not guns, but society. A country with strong gun regulations can have low crime rates if they have a well educated and financially stable society, even if its culturally diverse or extremely religious (or majority atheist) in the same way that a country with little gun control can have large crime rates if they have an uneducated or unstable society.
I just heard that on a podcast, the renaming to “gun safety”. The same podcast offered translations of more gun banner lingo. For example, “reasonable” means “legislation I want passed”. The more any group renames its main cause, the more often they lose. The average person just isn’t buying into the propaganda.
You would also have to factor in militias who are largely comprised of veterans. And they are quite certain it can be done. If im going to ask how do you expect to defeat a superior armed force, Do i go to people who have absolutely no experience with the superior force. Or the person who lived with the superior force and is still confident it can be done. Id take my chances with the latter
Conveniently doesn’t mention that the NRA also has far more industry backers who have a financial interest in making sure they can sell what they want to whomever they can. So those companies will contribute to campaigns of many politicians, and of course they’ll get something in return (actually sometimes they get a lot in return).
Switzerland is not exactly gun friendly. All guns have to be registered in a national database, including the ammo. Ammo is extremely regulated, being limited to only one round per gun per household. Guns can only be fired in government-run shooting ranges, which are also the only place people can get ammo. The only reason why the Swiss have guns to begin with is because every citizen in Switzerland is enlisted in a national militia, given their lack of a proper military.
Where did I say the NRA executives didn’t make money. It says right in my post 13.3% of that 231 million goes to administrative costs, which include employee salaries. LaPerrie makes $972,000 a year. Which is less than the CEO/President of the Boy Scouts of America, United Way Worldwide, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute/Jimmy Fund, The Shriners, The Cystic Fibrosis Foundation amongst others.
Buying guns at gun shows is no different than buying them outside a gun show. Face to face transfers with a private party require nothing. Transfers with a license dealer require a form 4473 and a call to the ATF. No you probably won’t need to shoot a person 30 times. You shoot until the immediate threat to your person and those you are responsible for, is eliminated. That can be more than one attacker obviously. Your statistics (though polluted) do not change our right to self defense.
The NRA was instrumental in making hunter safety courses mandatory in all fifty states.You have to have a hunter safety card to get a hunting license,Accidental deaths were reduced dramatically after these laws were passed.The NRA teaches firearms safety classes to Police and Civilians all over the US.I highly recommend joining to anyone.The right to arms is a constitutional right,It is your responsibility and duty to educate yourself on how to exercise that right safely.
Dictionary . com states: rea•son•a•ble adjective 1. agreeable to reason or sound judgment; logical 2. not exceeding the limit prescribed by reason; not excessive 3. moderate, especially in price; not expensive 4. endowed with reason 5. capable of rational behavior, decision, etc. None of which even remotely sounds attached, in any way, to Liberal thinking or politics.
I asked to take this discussion to another venue. I was saying I did not have enough space to gently remind you of the limitations to push you toward another venue. I sound weird because I have to condense fairly well thought out, and cited claims that span thousands of characters into 500. I edit out hundreds of characters every time I reply to you. Why would you expect that level of compression to yield a well formed, and easily understood point. I do the best with what I have.
Lol i was playing Devil’s advocate. Just wanted to see how people felt about different topics. I understand that there are instances in which violence is the only way. However i don’t think we should always look to violence for the answer. I believe that through the right circumstances and correct judgement that people can deal with global problems though less violent means. Also what do you think about CISPA and how it got so much support. How does that threat measure up to gun safety problems?
“You’ll never admit that you fighting off an armed gang with your AR15 is a very low probability.” Actually, I can show you a case where that happened. As for someone or people breaking into your home, most people hear the come in. “You are far far more likely to die of heart disease, cancer, an auto accident, suicide, etc.” You are right, however, seeing that this is the case don’t you think that passing further restrictions on firearms should be off the table given that.
If the NRA was taking care of itself first, why is it non-profit? Last year they had an income of $231 million and used that to the effect of 75% on education and training services, 13.3% on administrative costs and 11.7% on fundraising costs. Of the 231 million only $14.8 million is from firearms company (last year 50 different ones).
“While the rates per 100,000 of total firearm deaths, firearm suicides and firearm homicides were already reducing by an average of 3 per cent each year until 1996, these average rates of decline doubled to 6 per centeach year (total gun death)…” Jake O’Shaughnessy (14 Dec. 2006) University of Sydney.\r
Gun regulation is implemented from state to state, not city to city. It’s not harder to buy guns in urban areas vs rural areas. The only things that cities do that would be considered “high regulation” is have more weapons free zones than rural areas. The only thing that the gun free zones do is prevent law abiding citizens from conceal carrying a handgun.
The NRA is powerful because the nearly 6 million members like me not only support it financially but believe in it’s cause. It’s not about being a gun lover or hunting. It’s about freedom and liberty and having the ability and absolute right and duty to repel by force if necessary all those enemies to the constitution whether they be foreign or DOMESTIC.
Regardless of his potential view on the NRA, he does hit the nail on the head at ~3:20 when he says to be weary of giving government certain powers to begin with. This was exactly the rationale for the 2nd Amendment and the rest of the Bill of Rights. Those are natural rights of the people and therefore limits on government, not rights given to the people by the government. This is why the NRA is so powerful.
A well regulated militia is not a restriction, it is the justification. In order for the state to be free, a group of people between the age of 17-45 (militia) need to assemble and practice marksmanship, tactics and weapons handling. The word “regulate” had a much different meaning in the 18th century. Just like the word “gay” has a different meaning today than it did 50 years ago. The founders didn’t want todays definition of “regulation” reading the Federalist Papers would confirm that.
This argument seems logical at first, but it ignores self-defence. The same factors that make a firearm dangerous in the hands of a criminal make it effective for self-defence. Restrictions may make it harder for a criminal to get a particularly dangerous gun (raising the cost of committing a crime). But they will also make it harder for a victim to get a gun (lowering the cost of committing a crime because unarmed victims are easier to attack). The net effect could go either way.
Another thing he doesn’t mention is that the pro-gun folks spend their time, energy, and money to defend rights enjoyed by the pro-gun and anti-gun crowds alike. Everyone ends up with Rights that they either desperately want or desperately hate; but the point is that nothing is taken from these groups, unlike if the anti-gun crowd gets their way.
I’ll still say they could have invaded the US mainland if the Emperor would have wanted it, but strategically it would have been a terrible mistake, that doesn’t mean tactically they could not have done it. Keep in mind that Yamamoto and Kuribayashi (Defender of Iwo Jima) studied war in the US. It wasn’t only our guns they were familiar with, but our mindset. Kurbayashi wrote his wife to tell her no matter how well he defends, the US will keep coming. Surely on our own homeland we wouldn’t stop.
Very interesting example of political lobbyist parties and why they succeed or fail. Ignoring the apparent dig at the NRA and the Constitutionally recognized rights of self defense and ownership of “arms” it does offer a good look at what and why some organizations weld so much power even when they shouldn’t. A reverse example is environmental groups who often propose and push legislative agenda’s that most people don’t support since it takes the issue to far, but they have agenda’s and bases that are motivated and see rewards in the protection and use of natural or “environmentally clean” area’s for their efforts.
I agree. That is a problem when looking at official crime figures. An example being that soon after police proceedures were changed that would treat rape allegations better (such as a woman officer in charge), rapes went up (in reality more were reported). That’s why I would like to see the Gun Lobby cooperate to get reasonable outcomes rather than the NRA’s negative behaviour.
The point of the article is to point out the power of IGs despite size, what matters most is money. Politicians don’t give a care about your right to own weapons, they care about who is going to pay the most for representation. They wouldn’t care unless it effected the chance of their reelection. At the end of the day, the defense industry has enough money to buy enough policy makers to protect their industry whether the NRA exists or not. That is not to say that self interests should not be expressed or valued, however, don’t for a second believe that huge businesses that make money off of weapons are going to go down (in sales) without pouring copious amounts of money and men into governmental offices – even if there came a day when the general public supported the idea of more strict regulation. TL;DR: Given the amount of money currently generated by the gun industry, as well as their influence in Congress, gun rights probably won’t be in much jeopardy.
So, what I got from this article is that even though the NRA has a very large group size (roughly 5 million members) plus the other 75 million or more individual gun owners in the country, it’s a problem that the legislators listen to suggestions from them because there might be an unknown number of people that have no stake in new legislation and want it a different way. You can’t complain about lack of sway if you don’t bother organizing.
You are talking about areas in the USA where guns may be “illegal” but the law is very difficult to police. No one stops & searches your vehicle. I am talking about Australia where after strict gun control & legislation in 1996 there has been no mass shootings (over 4) & the only Mass Murder was the Childers Fire of 2000 which resulted in stricter fire regulations at hostels/hotels/etc.
Listen very carefully at the end…. if we had a small limited government that sticks to constitution, none of these issues would have been a problem. Letting government unconstitutional power is the source of our political problems. What part of “congress shall make no law against bearing arms” wasn’t clear?
I didn’t say that at all. I don’t want to conflate the issue. Let’s stick to why I do not support a weapons ban, and specifically why that would be. Take this one issue at a time, as we only have limited space to reply. As, it is only a solution if it actually takes weapons of the table regarding function. To not remove, or regulate function is to simply ban features. Features that do not change the lethal characteristics of a weapon.
Job: check Girlfriend: Broke up about a month ago, distance. Real responsibility: I’m assuming a job, bills, and a house payment counts right? And yeah, let people buy heroin and crack. Least then they have an excuse for acting as stupid as you. Who says I even own an AR-15? I got an 870, a Savage 22lr, and a M91/30. Here’s your whole argument in a nutshell “Haha look at that guy, so different, it’s weird right guys! Better make stereotypical remarks!”
I am a gun rights supporter, but not an NRA member. I support, like many Americans, the right to own a firearm. The reason why guns haven’t been swept off the streets is not due to small interest groups like the NRA; its due to one of the 10 original constitutional rights granted to citizens. Citizens need to have the ability to fight off potential threats, whether its an intruder in your home or participating in a revolution to fight for freedom.
Many have suggested that mass shootings tend to happen only in “gun free zones”. What I am suggesting is that without security at the entrance to these “gun free zones” then a sign is useless. Never said ALL but have you heard of random checks? Its like DUI, in Australia we have random breath checks, all accidents where police have been called to the scene ALL drivers are checked. That comparison with rape victims is different as rape is the deliberate act. Leaving keys in the ignition is not.
That’s true, but the government is a bunch of people, too. The only difference is it’s a lot more structured, through (unfortunately) bureaucracy (a more effective system would be more dynamic, able to adapt easier, though that also allows for more mistakes). PS That link I read is way big. I read like half of the page. The consensus seems to be “it’s complicated”. PS I don’t see the non right in making gun ownership stricter. wikipedia(.)org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_by_state
The point being that anyone who wants a gun can get a gun regardless of what politicians write down on a piece of paper. It’s perfectly legal to manufacture a firearm (other than a machine gun) in America. However if that wasn’t the case it still wouldn’t prevent people who are inclined to break the law (criminals) from manufacturing their own guns. This is actually quite common in countries with strict gun control.
That leads me to the example of “i don’t want to take away any persons right to vote. I just think we should have literacy tests in order to vote.” I understand why you would like the idea of back ground checks. Have you ever looked at the practical limitations? With the last universal back ground check proposal If i wanted to borrow my grandfathers musket for a 3 day hunt, i would need a background check to get the gun, and my grand father needs one to take it back.
“The NRA is wrong due to the fact Amendment II does not say anything about hunting/ personal right to bear arms.” The right of the people to keep and bear arms… is pretty obvious language isn’t it? 2A is about state militias as well as it is about the people’s right to defend themselves. A right to life & liberty wouldn’t be much of a right, if the right to defend your life & liberty wasn’t allowed. Hunting also went without saying. It’s how many people fed themselves & sustained their life.
“That was the NRA’s solution to protect students at school ” That was only one solution, another would be let Teachers conceal carry in schools “I am talking about Australia BTW.” Didn’t see that anywhere. FYI Australia has population of 22.4 million, we have over 300 million. “You say that ir doesn’t work?” No,I’m saying it does work.
the nra is powerful because they provide something a lot of people want. an organization dedicated to help them keep their firearms. they are the only thing standing between them and the government. the more the government pushes control over people the more the people run towards freedom. when people feel safer with a firearm than without, for whatever reason, they will go where they have to to stay safe. self preservation, its in all of us.
So how do you measure an event that happens but because no one was hurt and nothing was stolen there isn’t a Police report filed? Or a situation where a gun is presented and the crime stopped but because of the less than friendly nature of the local authorities the victim doesn’t report it? This kind of unreported event happens all the time.
We have a volunteer military made from civilians. The 41 out of 50 states that have banned the civil militia really does put a damper on the plan. Quite frankly I am not sure why we are funding a standing army anyway. Article 1 section 8 of the constitution makes it fairly plain to see that the framers had intended us to use the civil power as the militia. Any funding passed 2 years is unconstitutional. thus individual ownership becomes necessary to allow for the regulation of the civil militia.
In the political philosophy of Lockean natural rights that was a primary factor in how the government of this nation was set up, the government nor anyone else has any moral ground to infringe on the rights of an individual, unless that individual, by his own actions, has infringed on the natural rights of another. In that case, the government promotes society by punishing those that infringe on another individual’s natural rights as per the social contract in Lockean theory. A person has the right to defend themselves with whatever tools they see fit, but they do not have the right to tell someone else what they can or cannot defend themselves with, even if they themselves follow their own rule. In objective natural law, the latter is objectively immoral. It is the true existential threat to continued civilization to force the capitulation of the natural rights of the non-consented. In all cases, erring on the side of liberty is the morally upright thing to do.
You can never “uninvent” viruses and bacteria either. What you can do though is build medical facilities and teach people proper sanitary procedures etc. Even if you cannot stop something completely, there can still be actions you can take to minimize the harm. Same idea goes with guns. Even if you can’t stop the manufacturing of guns, you can still have universal background check and better mental health care to reduce the gun violence.
1. Why not make tax’s voluntary? They would still have enough money to keep it’s core function. Yes in Ben Franklin time the us government was unimaginably small, if only he had foreseen it’s rapid expansion. He really thought the Constitution would limit it but it only delayed it. Like I said, what will happen when the government comes for the money the citizens owe them?
There would not have been a cold war if we had a militia, for one. The arms race was largely do to Truman. We had no need to even use the first Abomb. We had already leveled almost every other city in Japan. We left the two untouched for a reason, to show off. Japan surrendered the very moment the USSR entered the Manchurian front. They knew we would be reasonable. Let’s face it, civil war does not end well, but that realization does not stop people. Polarization from these issues dose not help
So I am limit on a 10 rds magazine right millertas? And that is all I need to defend myself and my family? Then let me ask you this simple question…. If what you say is true about limit citizens to7 to 10 rds per magazine, then why does Law Enforcement and the Military still use 15 to 30 rds magazines? Aren’t they suppose to be better train in the use of firearms?
This wasn’t objection to the NRA but objection to the fact that a minority of well organised people can form a monopoly on Government. There could be Obama care activist who could pull the same stunt as the NRA to get Government on side. He is even states his grievance at the end is that small groups can go against the will of the un-organised majority, and that it is the Government itself that is the problem and not the groups of people.
I like perusal all viewpoints.I understand Learn Liberty’s conservative/Republican perspective in life and process of governance and capitalistic values. Not to say I agree with their viewpoints at all; I actually look at things alot more towards achieving environmental sustainability and human life maintenanc and engineered altruistically/ethically (more democratic I guess, but I am bound to no direction. Just common sense). I’d never remove guns, but rather see it dwindle as society smartens.
Its not even close to a “no brainer” that’s why its such a fierce national debate. Stripping firepower away from Law-abiding Americans, handing over even more control to the government, in times like this, with what’s happening foreign/domestic is a really risky thing to do…this thing is much more complex than you are willing to accept. Americans need to explore other avenues to combat these types of crimes, avenues that don’t involve disarming law-abiding citizens.
The purpose of a military is to have a method of offense toward an enemy or threat. The purpose of the militia is defend ones home, community, state or country. Key word is defend. No one proposed that a militia help the military. Standing armies in a time of peace are expensive and most of the time unnecessary, hence our founders didn’t want them (See Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution).
But it’s the implemintation of their incentives, how did you miss that part. They have there interest at state and things to lose if they don’t work for it. Yes they have the correct amount of power for their work ethic but they are met with less resistance for those that would oppose them because the ethic of those who oppose have less incentive to do so.
If the Gun Lobby doesn’t compromise soon then the USA is only one or two Mass Shootings away from even the most conservative politicians to stop listening. That’s what happened in Australia and it will happen in the USA. Try registering every gun and having one person responsible for that firearm, just like motor vehicles. The technology is there and can be done. “Responsble”, “Law Abiding” Gun Owners need not worry.
Russell, Russell, Russell…tsk tsk! Now you are playing stolen valor? I am going to give you a test on the M16 which you can’t find or Google. 1. Your M16 is jam and will not fire. What action do perform? 2. If you are in the Army, how many rounds are given to you to qualify with your M16? 3. When you break your M16 down into two parts, what are those two parts called? 4. When zeroing your M16, where are the rear and front sites setting should be at? 5. What does the AR stand for?
Well arguably the right to own weapons for self preservation (an extension of the natural right to life) could be applied to weapons such as tanks, and even nuclear weapons. I’m an anarcho capitalist, so I view all state weapons control laws as illegitimate. Unlike a gun which is only a threat if it’s pointed at someone, a nuclear weapon is omnidirectional. It’s a threat to everyone within its blast radius, but if it could be stored safely then I see no reason why someone can’t have one.
Despite the antigun group talking points, the “Club” known as the NRA does not anywhere near a significant amount of their money from the gun industry. Its perhaps over 95% is from individual member dues which average between $25-35 per year, or through individuals giving money through their political branch, which is regulated by the law.
Well that’s a blur of unrelated issues. I’m not sure any of the issues you mentioned above walk on a right protected by the constitution. But laws like the Media Shield law, the political and corporate control over our media do walk heavily on 1A. Slander and Libel laws do not infringe on the first amendment unless abused. Neither do laws applying to yelling “Fire” or “Bomb” in public places, since the crime is not really the use of free speech, but the public disturbance it causes.
Of course. Background checks, Limited Magazines backed up with effective policing and a more community outlook (that is the main reason that violence happens – the lack of “community”). “Responsible” Gun Owners should have no problem with these. As a motorcycle rider I have to wear an approved helmet – I really don’t have a problem with it.
That’s not due to guns. If it were, the states and cities that impose heavy restrictions on guns would have less gun violence and the states that impose few restrictions would have more. The opposite appears to be true. The cities of Chicago and Washington D.C. have some of the tightest gun laws in the nation yet they also tend to have some of the highest violent crime rates in the nation. Internationally, Switzerland is very gun friendly but has very low gun crime rates.
Hello there, I’m another one of those bozo tough guy’s that probably lives next to bozo tough guy #1. I wouldn’t allow his gun to get taken away, neither would the neighbor on the other side of me or the one across the street. Together we all probably have more firepower than our local police force. Plus we are friends with a couple of those police and they are proud owners of AR-15’s and will not give them up. I actually had to click show to see your comments b/c you were majorly out voted here
Driving a car is a privilege, meaning that it can be regulated. *Rights* are limitless to the extent of which they can be exercised without infringing on the rights of others. For example, Me owning an automatic AR-15 would not infringe on any of your rights. Of course, it goes without saying that shooting or killing someone with it is illegal. But simply having an AR is no reason for alarm.
Because the NRA represent “We the people” to elect patriotic candidates. We the people runs this country; We pay the NRA to represent us. Exactly the intention of our founding fathers. “Governments are instituted among men; deriving their just power from the consent of the governed……” 1776 Declaration of independence. So if gun grabbers say the NRA runs this country like it is a bad thing. Well technically they are correct, but it isnt a bad thing.
Not too sure what you are getting to BUT to say that a country which had the best medical services, feed itself quite well, had investments overseas and was safe for all to walk the streets, and now has danger & regular bombs much bigger than Boston on almost a daily basis and most importantly since 2003, 110000 to 1000000 deaths from the war in a country of 34million as “better off” I’d hate to see a country which was worse off.
I don’t agree with a lot of what the NRA claims, but I think it’s important that they exist. I don’t think it would that great for the government to have control of all the guns, and it would be terribly naive to think that power would never be abused, or that criminals wouldn’t have guns if gun control laws were very strict. Furthermore, it’s actually law that police have no obligation to protect people, in addition to the popular belief that police rarely show up when called anyway.
Let’s not forget, the NRA also usually consists of a stronger and more dedicated group of members, who are standing up for their legal and Constitutional rights. This provides a LOT more incentive and activism, as opposed to sheeple groups like MAIG, the Feinstein following, and Learn Socialism here. According to this article’s frat party analogy, they would probably be a frat not only smaller than the NRA, but also consisting of those who would be too lazy, high, or incompetent to clean up at all.
I think limitations on defensive weaponry in federal ban legislation is largely manipulative. As the key features that are addressed in the ban are not consistent with what people believe will be banned. The rate of fire, the power of the bullet, and the ability to take magazines all untouched in current legislation. Just as fast, just as powerful, just as many bullets, just not in the shape of an AR-15. It is largely a symbolic ban; iconography that falsely states “I made the US safer”.
Unfortunately it prevents unreasonable regulations. The justification for gun regulation is same reason why there are speed limits on the highways or why you cannot carry weapons onboard an airplane. People have the right to buy/sell guns, but they are also subject to regulations. I hope libertarians like you(I assume?) understand what the American social contract is since all of your philosophy is based on classical liberalism. On a side note, how did you discover my one-month old comment?
You can’t uninvent the gun. Even if every government, and every individual stood over the Marianas trench, and threw their guns in. Someone could just make another gun afterwards. They’re not particularly complex machines. In fact it’s entirely possible to make a machine gun from scrap metal using basic tools.
When you say universal background checks what you really mean is a ban on private sales. If criminals can buy guns in the privacy of hotel rooms, or back alleys without the state knowing what makes you think making that more illegal is going to solve anything? What do you mean by better mental health care?
First off, the way they record crime in the UK is extremely flawed… the intentionally under record stats in order to make them appear lower. Secondly, the UK’s homicide rate has risen over the past 100 years, even though numerous gun-control measures have been put in place. On a final note, the homicide rate in the US has dropped (almost by half) in the past 20 years regardless of gun ownership being the highest ithas been since 1993.
Same Ref liberal adj. 1. relating to or having social and political views that favour progress and reform \r 2. relating to or having policies or views advocating individual freedom \r 3. giving and generous in temperament or behaviour \r 4. tolerant of other people \r 5. abundant; lavish: a liberal helping of cream \r 6. not strict; free: a liberal translation \r Sounds more reasonable than a Conservative.
Maybe I did misunderstand. But you said “Did you look at gun crimes in the UK before the gun ban?” so it looked like you were saying there was less “GUN” crime because there were less guns. Which I took as if someone said if they outlaw baseball bats there will be less murders with baseball bats, but murders with scissors went up.
I defend all of the Amendments. I don’t pick an choose. Funny how you remove militia from that portion of the Amendment you choose to drop. ” well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. Militia: Defense activity or service, to protect a community, its territory, property, and laws.
Clearly you have confirmed the difficulty of such statistics & how inaccurate they can be (100,000 to 4.7 million). I’d suggest that it is closer to the lower figure than the higher. Of that there would be a majority that a killing would not have occured as a result of that crime. That is why I rely on the “gut” feeling & experiences from frontline experts such as the doctor & paramedic in my article about Jo’burg SA. BTW phone surveys are notoriously inaccurate.
I don’t know.. that makes sense to me with matters of equality, but the firearm is soooooo debatable. Also, like everything always does, this is coming down to gray area. For example, instead of saying get rid of the 2nd amendment, I say enforce background checks. You can keep the right, but the details are where it gets complicated, and because the NRA is involved in those details, to me, it’s an interest group.
My point is that the logical case for gun control simply isn’t clear cut. Even if gun control does prevent a mass-murder, it may not actually have been successful. It may be that the same gun control laws stopped people from defending themselves. In fact, we can be pretty sure that both will happen. What we can’t know (without empirical research) is what the net affect will be.
the UK classifies violent crimes differently. THey classify some things as violent crimes whereas the US does not. Now I say, but I don’t doubt the UK has a higher crime rate overall. As Tomas Sowell put it “they (the UK) have made burglery a hazard free occupation”. He also said “burglers in the UK don’t case a place before they rob it… If you don’t be careful who you rob in the US, you might be met with a hail of bullets”.
So, that is the assault weapons ban, and why supporting it does not solve any problems. As it’s stated purpose is to remove weapons with capabilities to mow down people. If it is semi-automatic, it can do that without any modification, aside from magazine capacity. With recent developments in 3D printers, even a magazine ban would not have the ability to stop a driven individual with 300 dollars, and an internet connection. I guess I need more room. Hold up.
No one, except the owner of the article has the power to erase comments and block you. However, as I stated before, your comments must hold weight, otherwise the folks with down vote you. Your comments can still be read, it’s just that someone has to click on them to reveal what you wrote. Here is a tip for you. In a gun debate, whomever comes up with the most and best logic based on facts WINS. If you wish to battle people in a debate, polish up on facts,and try not to use emotion to appeal to us
No, however, a person with a clean record and no mental health issues should be allowed to own a weapon of their choosing for self defense. Before you counter, a fully automatic firearm is horrible for self defense and so requiring a special license to own them makes sense. However, an AR-15, semi-automatic firearm (meaning one bullet per trigger pull) is an ideal home defense weapon due to its light recoil, easy maneuverability in close quarters, and its magazine capacity. (Because people miss)
There is a difference between restricting & infringement. You cant yell “fire” in a public place.I get that. That makes sense. I cant take my gun into a federal building. I get that. That also makes sense. What doesn’t make sense is the government telling me what I can say in an everyday conversation, in my private life, etc.. and what gun I can carry or how many bullets I can have in the magazine. That isn’t going to stop anyone who is going to do it anyway.