Gun control group disbands after losing funding

[beevul]

Gun control group disbands after losing funding
Monday, July 6, 2009, 8:50 AM
By Pat Curtis
An Iowa group once active in lobbying for gun control has disbanded after losing a major grant. The November 1st coalition began after the November 1, 1991 shootings on the University of Iowa campus and was later renamed Iowans for the Prevention of Gun Violence.

U-I professor Rex Honey served on the board of directors and hopes to revive the group. "I will try in autumn to get some students involved at the University of Iowa, given that the campus was what started our organization in the first place," Honey said. "So, it's not that we don't think there's an issue any longer."

Honey says most recently the group has relied on volunteers to lobby the legislature. "There was a grant with the Joyce foundation for a period of close to a decade from the mid 90s well into this decade, and that funding did end," Honey said.

"That meant we could no longer hire staff, so everything was done on a volunteer basis." The organization recently helped stop a bill to loosen restrictions on county officials who issue gun permits.

http://www.radioiowa.com/gestalt/go.cfm?objectid=50574BB9-5056-B82A-379E1A4DD3EAA3AB

Interestng.

I wonder why the joyce funding ended.

"Iowans for the Prevention of Gun Violence"

"Coalition to Stop Gun Violence"

"The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence"

They always seem to be concentrating on the guns, and not so much on the violence...except when theres political hay to be made of a new tragedy. And they always have names that would not lead the lay person to believe they are against guns per se...though thier actions most of the time, show otherwise.


Would those things perhaps have contributed to the "marginalization" of gun control groups?

And could it have led to the funding troubles that this one, and others too, have had?

[Turbineguy]

1. At least their name

indicated what they were about.

[iverglas]

7. yeah, not like the posters in this forum

who yammer on about "civil rights" when what they are talking about is their "right" to have whatever firearm and however many firearms they want and do whatever they want with them ...

(Don't tell me, I now. They don't want tommyguns and they don't want to take their guns to, uh, hmm, the legislative assembly maybe? And I wouldn't suggest they did.)

[LAGC]

15. I think you're just jealous.

You wish you could own a "Tommy-gun" up there in Canada. While we still can down here, we have to jump through a lot of hoops to pay for and register our full-autos. But they sure are fun to target shoot with!

You do bring up a good point though when you mention "taking guns to the legislative assembly" -- you do realize that that's where the first forms of gun control in California came from, right? White outrage against the Black Panthers who did that very thing (peaceful, but armed march on the state legislature) in the 1960s to get their grievances addressed... it really goes to show just how racist the roots of the gun control movement here in the U.S. really are, including the all the Jim Crow laws before it.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/32884.html

[jody]

2. Now if anti-RKBA Dem senators and congresspersons would shut up the Dem Party could own congress for

the indefinite future.

[sasquatch]

3. Then we could have two parties, the Progressive Democrats and the Conservitive Demcorats

[Deadric Damodred]

4. That would be fine.

There's only a small minority of extremists left in the Democrat party that are still stuck in 1994, the rest are either pro-gun or are smart enough not to touch it with a ten foot pole.

[TheWraith]

11. That's fine by me.

Speaking as somebody who's still represented in Congress by a Republican, I'd take a conservative Democrat over any Republican every day of the week and twice on Sundays.

[SteveM]

12. Well, I would be a progressive along with other 2A advocates (nt)

[frebrd]

5. K&R!

[Indy Lurker]

6. Where did the funding go?

I could start a gun control group if they gave4 me a grant.

I already know all the talking points.


50 cal are too big for civilian use.

Pocket guns are too small for civilian use.

Assault weapons are so powerful, they can shoot through police vest.

Besides, no one NEEDS an assault weapon to hunt.

No one NEEDS to buy more than one gun a month.

Close the gun show loophole. Gun can be purchased at gun shows without a background check!!!



Did I miss any?

[Deadric Damodred]

8. Yes you did miss a good one.

Black is too evil a color for a gun, and pink, green, red, blue, orange, purple, yellow....etc...all make them look like toys. So not only is a gun never the right size, it is also never the right color.

[rrneck]

9. Guns are designed to KILL!!!!!!!! nt

[virginia mountainman]

13. Here comes your check from the Joyce Foundation!!!! LOL!! NT

[Tim01]

10. K&r nt

[Tejas]

14. gun control groups = moochers

Unlike them, I spend money out've my own pocket to preserve my rights.

[gorfle]

16. Yeah, it's funny, eh?

gun control groups = moochers

Unlike them, I spend money out've my own pocket to preserve my rights.

Unlike grassroots organizations like the NRA that raise their money by having millions of paying members, groups like in the OP have to rely on angel investors to survive.

[DonP]

17. Now you're gonna get it

How dare you suggest that the NRA is a grass roots organization!

Of course you are absolutely correct, gun control is a top down funded lobby and gun owners support the NRA at $35 a year, but that never stopped some of our gun control oriented friends here.

Every gun grabber here "knows" that the "Multi Billion $ firearms industry" supports the NRA with millions in contributions, or so I've been told repeatedly. I'm sure the "Round Up" programs that Midway USA and Natchez and others run to support the NRA would really piss them off, if they even knew about it.

I'm sure Sara Brady could do the same thing for their group. But what would she get businesses to round up?

[iverglas]

18. uh huh

Every gun grabber here "knows" that the "Multi Billion $ firearms industry" supports the NRA with millions in contributions, or so I've been told repeatedly.

Of course, I'm sure that YOU know that the NRA is a non-partisan membership organization, while the NRA-ILA, on the other hand, is

http://www.nraila.org/About/

the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America.

... In NRA Headquarters in Fairfax, Va., and in offices in Washington, D.C., and in Sacramento, Calif., the Institute employs a staff of more than 80, with a team of full-time lobbyists defending Second Amendment issues on Capitol Hill, in state legislatures and in local government bodies.

While NRA is a single-issue organization, the Institute is involved in any issue that directly or indirectly affects firearms ownership and use. These involve such topics as hunting and access to hunting lands, wilderness and wildlife conservation, civilian marksmanship training and ranges for public use, law enforcement-related issues, product liability, trapping, crime victim rights and criminal justice reform.

Now, can you maybe provide us with a list of the donors to THAT "NRA", the one that's actually in question here?

Then there's the NRA-PVF:

http://www.nrapvf.org/

The NRA Political Victory Fund (NRA-PVF) is NRA's political action committee. NRA-PVF ranks political candidates—irrespective of party affiliation—based on voting records, public statements and their responses to an NRA-PVF questionnaire. In 2004, NRA-PVF was involved in 265 campaigns for the U.S. House and Senate, winning in 254 of those races. These victories represent the re-election of pro-gun majorities in both the U.S. House and Senate.

So -- which NRA is "NRA" money spent in elections and on other political agitating coming from -- and where did it come from in the first place?

Surely somebody must know.

[Hoopla Phil]

20. I guess the people have spoken with their wallets then.

[Katya Mullethov]

19. Not entirely true

Asking for money can be work , and the market has spoken . They dont want much of that .

There is still the distinct possibility that they might possibly channel a small percentage of their fungicidal assets towards efforts to trod the Bill Of Rights . That sets my jaw .

Let them move on to whatever is trendy . When they start sucking the bile from that bloated , leathern Green Fuels tit ...THEN you can call 'em moochers and carpetbaggers .