Not your (NRA) America Anymore....

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

mehavey

New member
Make all the "...can't happen here..." noise you want, the numbers foretell the future:

> The core of the NRA’s support comes from white, rural
> and relatively less educated voters. This demographic is
> currently influential in politics but clearly on the wane.
> While the decline of white, rural, less educated Americans
> is generally well known, less often recognized is what this
> means for gun legislation.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/post...9/the-nra-will-fall-its-inevitable/?tid=sm_fb

I'll be fascinated (and certainly welcome) any/all arguments to the contrary, but barring dramatic changes in what is occurring now,
the cards are falling in logical sequence. And given the SAFE act court rulings of late/fragility of the SCOTUS makeup, the 2nd Amendment
-- for all it's simple clarity -- will be "common sense regulated" out of existence.

Again, I welcome dissenting opinion (and even better.. numbers).
 
I don't have numbers. I can only offer you my own observations as a 54 year old.

For the past 20 years, gun owners have made far more advances than they have lost.

30 years ago congress would have, and did trip all over themselves enacting new gun restrcitions and "assault weapons" bans. Today, only a few crackpots representing anti-gun pockets even try to introduce such bills, with no hope of passage.

30 years ago, the idea of concealed carry was an unrealistic fanatsy in most states. Florida was expected to be the new OK Coral. (yes I know a few places had it that nobody ever talked about.) Now there is only a few states that do not have some form of it, and it in most, it keeps improving.

I can understand that in a few anti-gun states it can be frustrating, and may seem like things are getting worse based on that, but overall, the US is a lot more pro-gun and more accepting of self defense than anytime in my life that I remember, with a few exceptions (gun free zones) that are beginning to feel the heat. Its true that yesterday's NRA was mostly rural outdoorsmen, hunters, and farmers, and those poeple have declined, but there is also a new generation of young people being raised to see good people who carry as normal, and not assume they are either police or criminals as was the case in my younger days, and these are young people who do not necessarily live in rural areas.
 
High density urban centers are increasingly lower income, lower education, higher birthrate, higher crime and controlled by anti-gun persons.

Birthrate and immigration as doing as much to crush the middle class where the bulk of the gun owners are positioned as anything else. I have 2 boys, but half of my educated gun owning friends have no kids. We only have a few friends with more than 2 kids, all blended families and or adopted kids. I just did a quick bit of math and my closest 10 friends (all of whom have a wife except one) equate to a birthrate of about 1.2.
 
I think the many gun right advances are only temporary. I have more gun rights than ever, but I don't think it will be permanent.

Political views are shifting, elections, referendums and ballot measures go to the highest bidder. People that are comfortable with the way things are don't vote.
 
A right should not be dependent on an ethnicity. If this is a fear, spread your message. Convince the unconvinced.

EDIT: not sure if this thread is appropriate for the section or the board as its quite political.
 
The author states that folks other than white rural citizens mostly oppose our gun rights.
No facts included, just opinion and assumptions masquerading as fact.
And a lot of wishful thinking on his part.
 
If the Washington Post was known for presenting overtly objective assessments in the stories they publish, I might be worried.

I'm not. Having seen articles spun based on first hand knowledge of the incident they published, I believe it is more appropriate to liken their 'amber journalism' to "stories told" by 3-to-5 year old kids.

Conversely, if WaPo could be sued for the libel they publish, they'd have been out of business in the 80's.

Clearly another slow news day.
 
I have more gun rights than ever
Click to expand...

But, I am an American and I know that we have far less gun rights in 2015 than we had in 1915, which were only slightly less in a few places than we had in 1815. In 2115, I do not think Americans will have guns, heck I doubt America can last another 100 years.

If I focus on me, might be better. If I focus on the country as a whole, a LOT worse.
 
Oh, yeah - the "crushed by demographics" argument. That case has been made in politics for decades and, as this article notes, those dire predictions have been wishful thinking.

People change and much of that change has been pro-gun over the last half century.
 
I would look at washington and oregon and see what happens in a strong pro-gun environment

Those two situations should be a wake up call for those that think it can't happen in their gun friendly states
 
To the anti-gunners, you are a knuckle-dragging Neanderthal bitterly clinging to guns and religion, either of which makes you a sub-human redneck, not worthy of equality of rights, and certainly unworthy of any respect or consideration as fellow citizens or peers in the United States of America.

To these people, it doesn't have to be about guns, it could be anything. You don't live, eat, recreate, think, or act like they do, so you are inferior and the sooner you die off and leave the planet, the better they like it.

The sooner we realize they not only want our guns, but our very souls, and those of our children, the better able we will be able to counteract them.
 
Possible such changes are why gun rights proponents must remain vigilant and continue educating as best we can people inclined to support gun control on the misconceptions, distortions, and flat-out lies that the gun control movement likes to make.

I do truly wonder about Latinos on guns. The stereotype I have of Latino men is that they tend to be the kind who would believe in their right to self-defense to protect their family and hence their right to possess the tools to protect themselves. Remember also that Latinos tended to vote about 60% for Democrats and 40% for Republicans; that has changed of late, but mostly over concern about how the GOP would deal with illegal immigration.

I would look at washington and oregon and see what happens in a strong pro-gun environment

Those two situations should be a wake up call for those that think it can't happen in their gun friendly states .
Click to expand...

I think in those states the reason for the passage of the so-called universal background checks is because of how common-sense those laws sound. People don't know what they actually entail. I had known for years the nonsense about assault weapons bans, but after Newtown happened, I was really curious as to why the NRA was so against universal background checks. I then got more into gun rights and learned of what they really entail.

So I mean while passage of universal background checks in those states is not a good thing, at the same time, it isn't like the population voted for a magazine capacity limit or assault weapons bans. I am concerned though that the anti's are going to try having state ballots for things like assault weapons bans though. They are trying to do through direct democracy (i.e. mob rule) what cannot be accomplished through representative government.
 
> The core of the NRA’s support comes from white, rural
> and relatively less educated voters. This demographic is
> currently influential in politics but clearly on the wane.
> While the decline of white, rural, less educated Americans
> is generally well known, less often recognized is what this
> means for gun legislation.

This is the kind of prattle that American liberals like to tell themselves.

I'm not a total fan of the NRA - I'm a member, and they deluge their members w/ spam and dubious insurance offers. And, I'd be interested in knowing what salaries are for the NRA upper management.

That said, they *are* effective in countering political organizations who want to disarm the American public.

It's a natural right for people to be able to defend themselves from criminal attacks, and to use arms against their government if it turns into a dangerous tyranny that won't allow normal channels of opposition and correction.

The "gun control" that would stop these deranged killings that happen every few months, would be the sort of forced confiscation that occurred in Australia - essentially leaving the public only with weapons of the type prevalent before WW1.

American liberals want to put deranged murderers in the position of revoking a natural right that was very intentionally instituted by the Founders, in the Constitution.

The mindless aspect of all this is aggravating.

What would the next step be if the maniacs start using vehicles to run over crowds of people on sidewalks?

Hollywood immerses the public in movies and TV that repetitiously exposes millions of people, some of them nuts, to increasingly bizarre depictions of violence.

If these liberals feel so free in wanting to curtail one Constitutional right, allowing the government to largely disarm US citizens, why are they hesitant to seek a less drastic move in allowing curtailment of the media's "right" involving depiction of violence? Hollywood influences? Hollywood money?

What about these psychtropic drugs that have been increasingly prescribed to children in recent decades, often to keep active male children quiet and sedated? How many of these deranged young mass murderers have ever had exposure to these drugs? The drug industry makes a lot of profit off this stuff.
There's some reason to believe they can have long lasting unexpected effects on the human brain.

I think there's a lot more to be considered about this subject than is actually getting considered.
 
I do not have a problem with high salaries for the NRA upper management because to hire decent management requires decent pay, whether for a non-profit or a for-profit.
 
As the OP, I'm still waiting for differing numbers.

Demographics do matter.
Look at how the last 7 years came about.
and quite possibly the next 4-8 given current trends.

The tragedy in all of this may be that we are -- in fact -- a representative democracy.
 
Well, speaking from Colorado, we've seen a lot of changes in the past 20 years.
The rural community of all ethnic backgrounds has had its voice shouted down by much smaller, denser urban areas.
I see the point of the OP.

I will probably be owning just a six shooter and bolt action .22 in another 20 years.


No one has a gun violence solution that takes free will out of the equation, but, you know, give them enough time, they'll get there...
 
The NRA needs to reinvent themselves. I don't believe they will be successful with the current approach. Long standing members, gun rights threats and club memberships are not enough. They need to se themselves, mass marketing and provide something tangible besides a magazine every month.
 
>I do not have a problem with high salaries for the NRA upper management because to hire decent management requires decent pay, whether for a non-profit or a for-profit.<

Well, you might want to think that one over......

From Forbes magazine, June, 2014:
"Across the board, the more CEOs get paid, the worse their companies do over the next three years, according to extensive new research. This is true whether they’re CEOs at the highest end of the pay spectrum or the lowest. “The more CEOs are paid, the worse the firm does over the next three years, as far as stock performance and even accounting performance,” says one of the authors of the study, Michael Cooper of the University of Utah’s David Eccles School of Business."

Many American companies paying their CEOs hundreds of times the average wage of the companies' employees, have far poorer performance than comparable foreign companies with much lower paid CEOs.

As for the NRA, I googled around and found that Lapierre (the top guy at NRA) made a little under 1 million in yearly pay, as per a 2010 IRS filing for the NRA. I don't think that's too excessive, considering the organization does seem effective.
 
I find the linkage between gun rights support and lower education levels to be offensive. I didn't go to college and grad school for 8 years for nuttin'. :)

As far as I'm concerned, it's exactly backwards - any rational, thinking, unbiased person can see the issues and the motivations of the other side and make an informed decision... regardless of education level.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top