New Documents Confirm Koch Was on NRA-Led ALEC Crime Task Force

[ellisonz]

Monday, 14 May 2012 14:26
By Lisa Graves, Center for Media and Democracy | Report

New documents show that Koch Industries had a seat on the controversial "Public Safety and Elections Task Force" of the American Legislative Exchange Council as of at least 2011.

ALEC announced it was dropping that task force in the wake of the controversy over the tragic shooting of Trayvon Martin and so-called "Stand Your Ground" (SYG) laws. However, the co-leader of that task force, Rep. Jerry Madden (R-TX), revealed ALEC's announcement to be a PR maneuver when he reassured The Christian Post that his task force's work would continue through other ALEC task forces.

Koch Industries has vigorously defended ALEC, and has assailed reporting that noted that the company, led by billionaire brothers Charles and David, is a long-time funder and leader of ALEC and that ALEC has long advanced the NRA agenda through "model" gun bills, including Florida's controversial SYG law that was ratified by ALEC in 2005.

It turns out that Koch was a member of that ALEC task force in recent years, and that it was on the task force when the NRA was the private sector co-chair. Moreover, Koch Industries had not one but two employees who were listed as "members" present for ALEC's "Public Safety and Elections" Task Force at the last annual task force summit.

More: http://truth-out.org/news/item/9126-new-documents-confirm-koch-was-on-nra-led-alec-crime-task-force

[ileus]

1. bunch of impolite racist toter baser gunners...

[ellisonz]

3. ?

[gejohnston]

2. The Kochs and the NRA may both be

ALEC clients, but that does not mean the Kochs supports the NRA, since they don't have a financial stake in it. The Kochs did not even create ALEC. Paul Weyrich did. If the return to the gilded age returns according to the Koch dreams, they won't like the NRA much, since plutocrats like them cheered for the gun control and duty to retreat laws the NRA is currently attacking.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Weyrich

Even so, how is that different than the same obscenely rich people who are make up Brady's "membership" and the Joyce Foundation?

[Doctor_J]

6. Um...

The Brady membership is almost exclusively liberals and Dems. The NRA and ALEC are almost exclusively Repukes.

I know the difference is subtle, but given the name of this web site, maybe with a few weeks you can work out the difference.

[gejohnston]

10. bullshit

Brady membership includes right wingers like Sylvester Stallone, The Bradys themselves are Republicans. Bloomburg is a right wing corporatist. That is the whole membership. Out of the roughly 50,000 members are A couple of billionaires and a foundation is not "exclusively liberal or Dem." Without the corporate media, they would be totally irrelevant.

The NRA leadership tends to be Republican, but the rank and file members of over four million cover the entire spectrum. That is only because they have been hijacked by corporatists as a divide and conquer tactic. Since union busters and gun grabbers tend to be part of the one percent, with some 99 percenters being their chumps, I reject the idea that gun control is liberal.

I know the difference is subtle, but given the name of this web site, maybe with a few weeks you can work out the difference.

I have a specific definition of "liberal". Many "progressives" are not liberals.

[DanTex]

11. LOL.

The NRA leadership tends to be Republican, but the rank and file members of over four million cover the entire spectrum.

The "entire spectrum" from 55-year old conservative white male to 60-year-old conservative white male...

[gejohnston]

12. naw, more diverse than that

centrist to conservative. A few liberals. But the Brady membership ranges from liberal millionaire to conservative billionaire.

[DanTex]

13. Yeah, "diversity" is the first thing that comes to mind when I think of the NRA!

Not sure you get your ideas about Brady membership. Seems like you're just making it up out of thin air like you do with everything else.

[gejohnston]

14. You pulled NRA membership

out of your ass. As for Brady, look at who shows up to their fund raisers and their funding sources. That is how I came to that conclusion. Out of the "antis" here, only one actually claims to be a member.

[DanTex]

15. No I didn't.

Polls consistently show that the people most in favor of "gun rights" are older conservative white males. And, the fact that NRA members are mostly from this demographic has been documented and observed by many, for example, Gary Younge's recent account of the NRA convention that I posted as an OP:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/16/americas-deadly-devotion-guns

On the other hand, your description of Brady supporters is straight fabrication.

[gejohnston]

16. funny thing about the photo

they all looked under 50. And what polls are those?
Based on gun show attendance, the crowd is younger and more diverse than you claim. One reason to attend them, to see who is there.
A mailing list of only 28,000 and revenues nearly $4 million each one would have to kick in about $150 per year. Assuming of course, they don't get sell mailing lists.

http://lists.nextmark.com/market;jsessionid=1E1B900E849E233F0F1B5815698944BE?page=order/online/datacard&id=163065

http://www.bbb.org/charity-reviews/national/health/brady-center-to-prevent-gun-violence-in-washington-dc-1136
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_Campaign

I find this interesting.
http://www.people-press.org/2012/04/25/more-support-for-gun-rights-gay-marriage-than-in-2008-or-2004/?src=prc-headline
I will say that I find the "is it more important to" question as kind of a false choice. Both can be done. I tend to think that current federal laws do both.

[Doctor_J]

17. Oh, come on

the NRA membership is more than 80% repuke, probably 90%, with a large chunk of those being far right militia. OTOH those who favor increased gun control are 80-90% liberals, Dems, and progressives. And the Cock brothers love having the drooling Fox Nationites waving guns at rallies for the president and other Dems - that part of the 1%, along with all of their hand-chosen candidates that have infested state houses, governors mansions, and the US Capitol, aren't grabbing guns.

[gejohnston]

18. how naive

and totally full of shit. The Kochs only like it as long as it is a divide and conquer tactic.
When Bernie Sanders ran for the house, the NRA supported him over the Republican. Bernie still gets a C from the NRA. Mitt on the other hand, let's just say all Obama has to do is ask Mitt "which one of us signed a gun ban"? Obama would sew up the swing/independent/non aligned voters in the west and midwest.

OTOH those who favor increased gun control are 80-90% liberals, Dems, and progressives.

Very few are liberals. Liberal implies open mindedness and critical thinking. Progressives, some are. Dems, its in the party platform. There are very progressive and liberal Dems that are pro-gun. Then there are anti Republicans like the ironically named Dick Luger. It is less of a left/right than it is urban/rural and to a lesser degree working class/upper and rich. That is why it works as a wedge issue.

[DanTex]

19. Completely delusional.

Sometimes I wonder how you managed to remain convinced of so many things that are so obviously false.

On the generic gun control question, liberals support gun control 74-25, whereas conservatives oppose 75-21. That's far bigger than the differences based on region, or on urban rural. And when it comes to income, people earning less than $30K per year are the most in favor of gun control of any group. Basically, the "gun rights" crew are white, conservative, rural, male, Republicans. But conservative is the single best predictor.

Here's the data (though I'm pretty sure you don't have much use for factual evidence...)
http://pewresearch.org/assets/pdf/gun-control-2011.pdf

[gejohnston]

21. a simple question giving a false choice.

and the percentage differences are not that great. If the question were specific proposals, it would be more accurate. Question is who are the activists? The ones who show up? How many 1 percenters or even 20 percenters do you see at a shooting range, NRA convention, or gun show?
I go to some Brady type event (which are hard to find) I find a couple of rich people.
Rural, and generally white, I'll give you that. So what?
There are a few prohibitionists. I have yet to meet anyone on the other extreme.
Everyone is for "gun control". Even most conservatives are for gun control. I have never met anyone who was not for gun control. Supporting current laws is supporting gun control. The only disagreement is to what degree.

[Starboard Tack]

4. No surprises there.

[Doctor_J]

5. Support for NRA = support for Kochs and ALEC

Thanks, gunsters!

[hack89]

7. So please suggest a progressive organization that defends the RKBA.

I would be happy to join.

[Doctor_J]

8. So you are willing to belong to/support an organization

that supports every stripe of un-American legislation, because you believe the Kochs and ALEC are holding off this massive liberal assault on gun rights (which does not exist BTW).

Wow.

[hack89]

9. Who said I support the NRA?

I agree with their defense of the 2A because I have no choice. If the Democrats were to explicitly renounce future attempts at gun control it would not be an issue.

[gejohnston]

20. Not a massive liberal assault

Certainly not massive, and not liberal by my definition.

The Elite

The dominant ideology of crime (see Reiman 1984:Ch. 2) has at least two facets clearly relevant here. First is a focus on one-on-one harm. This focus keeps attention diverted away from the more serious forms of social harms caused or tolerated by elites such as death and injury from occupational diseases and hazards, pollution, and infant mortality among the poor (Reiman 1984:Ch. 2).
Second, when holding individuals and groups legally responsible and/or morally responsible for crime, it is implicitly assumed that fundamental social or economic conditions are not responsible (Reimar,, 1984: 119). Blaming gun owners, the "gun lobby," and/or gun manufacturers, or guns in general, diverts attention away from other more basic factors. The relative lethality model takes disputes, their intensity, and the willingness to use violence in general to settle disputes, as givens rather than conditions to be explained and ameliorated by reference to basic social or economic features. Both models ignore the possibility that the causes of violent crime may be in the political, racial and economic inequality, unemployment alienation and value distortion generated by capitalism (see Bonger 1916: Pt. 2).
A specific example of these ideological functions is the frequently drawn regional comparisons of homicide rates. Both are higher in the South and the conclusion drawn is that there is some type of causal connection between the two rates (e.g. Alviani and Drake, 1975:102). What such speculation ignores is the persuasive evidence that the high late of criminal violence in the South is due mainly to the lower prevailing socioeconomic conditions of the region" (Wright, Rossi and Daly, 1983:13).
Because elimination of these alleged causes might require radical changes in the political and economic structure (Quinney 1974:186-192), it is in the interest of those who benefit disproportionately from the status quo, including those whose reforms are limited to "social tinkering," to keep attention focused on convenient scapegoats such as firearms.2

Raymond G. Kessler IDEOLOGY AND GUN CONTROL ¦Quarterly Journal of Ideology ¦
¦Vol. 12 #2(1988) pp. 1-13.
http://faculty.sulross.edu/rkessler/

[Doctor_J]

22. Take DC for example

a large percentage of the permanent residents would like the authorities to help them get guns off of the streets. these residents are overwhelming 99%ers. But the 1% swooped in from outside, at the behest of the NRA and their 1%ers, and told the locals, "Sorry, while we profess to promote local government, that is actually a lie, and you'll have increased gun access whether you like it or not".

And rkessler needs a proofreader

the high late of criminal violence in the South is

then, the fact that he writes off the correlation between gun nuttery and gun crime is laughable on its face. I know of no one (including gun control advocates) who doesn't believe that crime correlates with poverty. OTOH, the propagandists insist that the gun access is completely unrelated. They fail the sanity test at that point.

[gejohnston]

23. couple of things

a large percentage of the permanent residents would like the authorities to help them get guns off of the streets.

The streets, as in out of the hands of gangsters and thugs. We all agree on that. That has nothing to do with DC law. DC law says you can't have one in your home for target shooting or defending yourself. As you can see, DC law is not stopping gangsters and felons from getting them. Can't blame Virginia or Texas, because the ATF trace data says Maryland is the largest exporter.

these residents are overwhelming 99%ers. But the 1% swooped in from outside, at the behest of the NRA and their 1%ers, and told the locals, "Sorry, while we profess to promote local government, that is actually a lie, and you'll have increased gun access whether you like it or not".

Not what happened at all. The NRA had nothing to do with it other than try to undermine it. A private security guard wanted a gun for his home. He went to a two man law office and the Second Amendment Foundation. DC hired an army of corporate lawyers that also represent the likes of Koch, BP, etc.

then, the fact that he writes off the correlation between gun nuttery and gun crime is laughable on its face. I know of no one (including gun control advocates) who doesn't believe that crime correlates with poverty. OTOH, the propagandists insist that the gun access is completely unrelated. They fail the sanity test at that point.

What are you talking about? Gun access is completely unrelated. Can you name one place where crime went down by stricter gun laws? Or prevented criminal access?

[Doctor_J]

26. Confused

What are you talking about? Gun access is completely unrelated. Can you name one place where crime went down by stricter gun laws? Or prevented criminal access?

Are you asking me to list civilized places where gun control is in place and where crime and gun crime are far lower than here? Should I list them alphabetically? Austria would be near the top, and United Kingdom near the bottom. Lots of others in between. Also, since "stricter gun laws" are a thing of the past, anything that comes after that is nothing but conjecture. And please, read what you write "Gun access is completely unrelated (to gun crime)". You're being ridiculous.

and even more confused

DC law is not stopping gangsters and felons from getting them.

You don't say. Maybe it's the entire US/NRA (they're becoming inseparable) culture of "we hate laws" is doing it.

[gejohnston]

27. are your critical thinking skills always this lacking?

Are you asking me to list civilized places where gun control is in place and where crime and gun crime are far lower than here?

Gun control exists everywhere, including the US. Parts of the US (mostly with the highest murder rates) have stricter laws than European countries. Their murder rates were the same before they passed strict gun laws. UK's was actually lower.

Should I list them alphabetically? Austria would be near the top, and United Kingdom near the bottom.

UK has the worst murder rate and violent crime rate in Europe and parts of the US.

Lots of others in between. Also, since "stricter gun laws" are a thing of the past, anything that comes after that is nothing but conjecture. And please, read what you write "Gun access is completely unrelated (to gun crime)". You're being ridiculous.

I said violent crime. Shall I list the countries that have stricter laws than the US, stricter laws than Austria for that matter and astronomical murder rates?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

Most gun control advocates don't believe that shit.

Data from a 2005 national telephone survey were analyzed to test competing theories of why people support handgun bans. Instrumental explanations, which stress belief in a policy's likely effectiveness, accounted for less than 25 percent of the variation in support. The results supported the culture conflict perspective. Those who endorsed negative stereotypes about gun owners, and who did not believe in the need to defend their own homes against crime (versus relying on the police) were more likely to support handgun bans.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047235209000932
Based on the ignorant and bigoted language used most antis here, most of them fall in the majority. Only one or two actually makes or even tries to make a half way argument that less guns equals less crime.

[PavePusher]

24. The vast majority of crimes are not gun-related. n/t

[eqfan592]

25. "Gunsters?"

Yet another post very deserving of the following:

?width=500&height=432