Not your (NRA) America Anymore....

Status
Not open for further replies.
There are other much broader 2A organizations out there. The problem, IMO, is many NRA supporters take an "NRA or get lost" stance. Even though NRA membership doesn't fund any direct 2A defenses like court cases or campaign contributions. Only indirect like Eddy Eagle, competitions, and funding public ranges.
 
The NRA has more members than they ever have. The concealed carry legislation that has been passed over the country in recent years has introduced a lot of urban people to guns-people who otherwise would have had no exposure.
As far as the NRA needing to "give you something-" this sounds like the liberal entitlement mindset. You need to give THEM something- money.
 
The article is wrongheaded because it's based on a false premise. Of all people, Winkler should know better.

"The NRA" doesn't exert nearly as much political influence as gun-control supporters claim. The lobbying arm of the organization has an average of $4 million to spend each year. That hardly funds a few luncheons; forget the idea that they've got a stranglehold over the legislature.

(That's less than 10% of what Bloomberg has pledged towards gun control, and less than 20% of what Gabrielle Giffords' PAC has raised this year.)

At that level of funding, what does the ethnic makeup of their supporters matter?

In reality, it doesn't. But gun-control advocates desperately need a David vs. Goliath narrative to explain why they keep utterly failing. If they can throw veiled accusations of racism into the mix, all the better.
 
mehavey wrote:

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.
Click to expand...



Bet the core of the NRA voters are smarter than all that that buy this line and spin!
 
The NRA is not the issue. It is merely a convenient lightning rod title. The
issue is changing demographics, and the political change that comes with it.

And I have not yet heard a challenge to the numbers, only the 21st century
equivalent to "...one Southerner can lick ten Yankees."

It didn't matter.
The numbers did.

Anyone got different numbers?
 
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...
Click to expand...

Interestingly though, the Democrats thought Colorado would be a lock for new gun control. Instead, it led to a major shellacking, in spite of Bloomberg spending significantly more than the NRA in the recall elections and those recall elections happening in some Hispanic-dominant districts I believe. The one Democratic candidate had to resign or else the Democrats would have lost their majority there and the governor barely won re-election. So there could be hope still.
 
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.
Click to expand...

They are trying. They have people like Colion Noir (black guy) who is young, hip, cool, and knowledgeable. And they are trying to bring on more women. They have one ad going with an elderly African-American woman. The NRA seems to be very good at lobbying to protect gun rights but rather bad at public relations, for example LaPierre's post-Newtown speech which was a disaster and then the ad the NRA ran calling Obama a hypocrite which was also in bad taste.

I also believe they read the influential gun rights blog "The Truth About Guns" by Robert Farago which gives lots of reaction into actions they take (i.e. they try something and the members say it's a terrible or stupid idea, they seem to take in the message). I say they seem to read the blog because I remember Farago writing a post about how they had contacted him on the reactions people there were giving to something they were doing that he had written a post about.
 
The biggest reason the Dems got control in Colorado is the pot vote. The Dems said they would ignore their oaths of office and allow a federally illegal drug to be used recreationally in Colorado, so enough of that voter block showed up to vote and essentially gave the vote to the Dems. Neither side wants to admit that, but that block has not voted since and do not appear likely to vote here in a few weeks.

The sheiffs are still fighting the gun laws the new Dem controlled government let Bloomberg install under threat of being "primaried out".
 
>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.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's an interesting discussion, but a different topic. I am not totally sure how CEO pay works in America versus in other countries.
 
The article is wrongheaded because it's based on a false premise. Of all people, Winkler should know better.

"The NRA" doesn't exert nearly as much political influence as gun-control supporters claim. The lobbying arm of the organization has an average of $4 million to spend each year. That hardly funds a few luncheons; forget the idea that they've got a stranglehold over the legislature.

(That's less than 10% of what Bloomberg has pledged towards gun control, and less than 20% of what Gabrielle Giffords' PAC has raised this year.)

At that level of funding, what does the ethnic makeup of their supporters matter?

In reality, it doesn't. But gun-control advocates desperately need a David vs. Goliath narrative to explain why they keep utterly failing. If they can throw veiled accusations of racism into the mix, all the better.
Click to expand...

Would have to partially disagree with you on this. The NRA is highly influential in the federal government. It is more limited in the states, but at the federal level, it is very strong, perhaps the most powerful lobby in Washington. But where its influence comes from is not from its spending budget, but rather from the numbers of Americans who support it. It is four to five million Americans, but I've read (can't verify) that there are also many more Americans who support its basic mission.

And that is its power. Being able to bring out the votes. The ability to possibly knock the Democrats out of office in big enough numbers to change the makeup of the legislature, or maybe even prevent a president from getting elected. Look at how President Obama is so loud about gun control as of late. He was dead silent for the most part in the run-up to his re-election. And the brilliant David Axelrod was his main advisor, so that means Axelrod must have recognized the danger politically for Obama to speak out on gun control.

In terms of spending, it is very true that the NRA is out-spent by people like Michael Bloomberg. It also is nonsense when the antis claim that the NRA is some industrial gun lobby. The gun industry is tiny in comparison to other industries. It is small in comparison to other individual companies within other industries even (I think gun industry revenues are about $12 billion or so a year; there are companies that make more than that). So there is no way that the NRA could be an industrial lobby and have the influence that it has.

In terms of ethnic makeup, if the non-white ethnic groups support gun control and increase in numbers enough, it could begin to shift the balance over time, so that is why education and vigilance is very important. What we really need on this, IMO, is a pro-gun rights President who could go into the Hispanic and Latino communities and speak to them on issues like gun rights and explain to them, in detail, the gun rights positions, for example explain the truth about "assault weapons," "high-capacity magazines," the history of the concept of the right to self-defense, etc...so that even if said Latinos/Hispanics disagree, they at least see that gun rights people are not being unreasonable.
 
mehavey said:
... The issue is changing demographics, and the political change that comes with it.

And I have not yet heard a challenge to the numbers ...
Click to expand...

Look again at the article linked in the OP. The article throws out a lot of "numbers" but contains only one link to a Pew Research report on Gun Rights vs. Gun Control. Winkler cheery picks current "numbers" from that report to which he applies demographic trends to conclude that gun rights are doomed.

Now look at all of the Gun Rights vs. Gun Control report. The report shows a 20-year trend of increasing support for gun rights. And the demographic trends that Winkler claims will doom gun rights are the same demographic trends underlying the past 20 years of increasing support for gun rights.

Look at the sidebar to the right of the Gun Rights vs. Gun Control report and click on another Pew Research report on Growing Public Support for Gun Rights. Rather than the 20-year span of the previous report, that report covers the two-year microcosm from December 2012 (the week after the Newtown shootings) and January 2013 to December 2014.

Now look at the table Broad Increase in Support for Gun Rights in the Growing Public Support for Gun Rights report. The "numbers" in that table tell a much different story from Winkler's predictions. Support for "Protect right to own guns" increased in 24 of the table's 26 categories; support fell by 2 points for Hispanics and 1 point for Liberal Democrats. On the flip side, support for "Control ownership" decreased in 22 of 26 categories (including Hispanics); support grew by 1 point for College Degree and College Graduate and 2 points for the 30-49 age group, while Liberal Democrats was unchanged.

Finally, look at the tables Increasing Number Say Gun Ownership Protects People From Crime and More Conservative Republicans, African Americans Say Gun Ownership Protects People From Crime in the Growing Public Support for Gun Rights report. Overall, people made up their minds about the utility of guns and undecideds dropped 11 points. 90% of the change broke toward guns "Protect from being crime victims" and only 10% chose guns "Put people's safety at risk."
 
The NRA is highly influential in the federal government. It is more limited in the states, but at the federal level, it is very strong, perhaps the most powerful lobby in Washington. But where its influence comes from is not from its spending budget, but rather from the numbers of Americans who support it. It is four to five million Americans, but I've read (can't verify) that there are also many more Americans who support its basic mission.
Click to expand...

This is essentially it, and something the anti's can't stand. They get huge amounts of cash from uber rich supporters, and still lose most of the time.

The NRA is 3-5million or so, who are pretty cohesive voters on gun rights issues. And there is another group, even larger, that is the "silent" NRA, those people who aren't members, but agree with and vote with the NRA members on most things.

There are many, many more people who believe in gun rights than those who actually spend the money and join the NRA. And, politicians know this.

I have heard how it has been an unwritten rule for ages, in political offices and newpapers, etc that for every person who takes the time and trouble to write a letter to the editor or congressman, there are 10 or so others who feel the same way, and while they don't bother to write, they will bother to vote.

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.
Click to expand...

I think you might look bit beyond the stereotype and look at the actual culture in latin countries, as it pertains to gun rights and legality.

In the end, it doesn't matter what ethic/cultural group you are in or are from, if your interest in guns is primarily recreational, you won't break a gun control law.

If your interest in guns is due to a need, you will do whatever you need to do, including breaking gun control laws. If a non gun person feels threatened enough, they are going to get a gun. IF they can get one legally, (and in time) wonderful. If they can't, they will get one illegally if their need is great enough. When people get desperate, legal matters often take a backseat to safety.
 
Today, only a few crackpots representing anti-gun pockets even try to introduce such bills, with no hope of passage.
Click to expand...

Maybe at the National level, but at the state level, with the recent decision regarding NY and CT, it will be death by a thousand cuts, and those cuts started a long time ago.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
(That's less than 10% of what Bloomberg has pledged towards gun control, and less than 20% of what Gabrielle Giffords' PAC has raised this year.)
Click to expand...
It is important to note that the yearly membership revenue for NRA likely exceeds both of these anti-gun sources, but that money isn't available to the political arms of the NRA.
I base that claim off of there being ~5 million members and the cheapest membership being $15. It depends how NRA has used the lifetime memberships and how many people are paying full price for the membership and not the $15 rate.
 
That entire article is an unmitigated piece of propaganda BS. What more do you expect from the Washington Post? They spit out numbers from some poll and expect me to buy it. What were the exact questions asked? I'd like to know. A few facts that were absent were the rates for compliance with the new "laws" in Conn. and NY. Pretty dismal for the anti's there. Let's not forget that this year will in all probability prove to be the biggest year for gun sales since such data has been kept. So all those buying guns are just going to roll over and hand them back to uncle just because he says so. I think not. Pretty much demonstrates the idiotic thinking of the gun grabbers. Let's see, Elmer, we got laws passed in NY and Conn., with maybe 10% compliance so we'll just do it again nationwide and it will surely work this time. Stupid is as stupid does. And they have the nerve to call us gun owners dumb? I'll make a bet with the author of the article; I bet that the NRA will outlast the Washington Post.
 
The Washington Post is sort of the Pravda for the Liberal-Left. They present "The Party Line" they way" they" want it "debated".
Rather snobbish to imply that because gun owners are "less well educated"
that their opinions and feelings and beliefs are not to be taken seriously. Then again it was a Columbia University/Harvard Law School graduate who refered to a large number of Americans as "bitter clingers".
 
That entire article is an unmitigated piece of propaganda BS.
Click to expand...
That's why it disappoints me. Winkler is a smart guy. He's not always on our side, but he's not always against us, either.

His book Gunfight is a very good book on 2nd Amendment history that actually tries to be objective.

Then he comes out with drivel like this.
 
I don't recall the NRA ever asking what race I am, or any other personal information. How does the Washington Post know what the demographics of the NRA are?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top