Not your (NRA) America Anymore....
- Thread starter mehavey
- Start date
- Status
kilimanjaro
New member
I am one of those people who have never told a pollster my honest opinion. The reason is that they are asking for my opinion to further their own agenda, whatever it may be, and not asking because they genuinely want to determine what my opinion may be. So I refused to play that game years ago and ever since.
I know I'm lying to them, but they are being dishonest and I don't like that. I hope that my stance is contributing in a very tiny way to the perception of these people as liars with statistics.
I know I'm lying to them, but they are being dishonest and I don't like that. I hope that my stance is contributing in a very tiny way to the perception of these people as liars with statistics.
g.willikers
New member
Asking if there's a choice of "none of the above" will usually result in an instant hangup.
So much for unbiased polls.
So much for unbiased polls.
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
The other big presumption here is that the article not only presumes to know how existing demographics will vote in the future; but even how their as yet unborn/non-voting children will vote. That's a big assumption and one that few people have made successfully over that time period.
In the end, demographics mean nothing. If we continue to introduce people to shooting in a safe and fun manner, our Second Amendment rights will prosper. If we fail in that, then we will likely lose important rights.
In the end, demographics mean nothing. If we continue to introduce people to shooting in a safe and fun manner, our Second Amendment rights will prosper. If we fail in that, then we will likely lose important rights.
Demographics mean everything.
To ignore them is at your peril.
They tell your adversaries who to target.
They tell you who to target.
Children will vote as their parents -- and now even more -- their teachers tell them to vote.
Which is why I welcome every single young girl and young woman I can onto my ranges.
They raise that next generation. And they are the only ones who have a prayer's chances against what have become the teachers.
As to brainwashing....
It works:
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013...lic-unaware/#what-is-behind-the-crime-decline
.
To ignore them is at your peril.
They tell your adversaries who to target.
They tell you who to target.
Children will vote as their parents -- and now even more -- their teachers tell them to vote.
Which is why I welcome every single young girl and young woman I can onto my ranges.
They raise that next generation. And they are the only ones who have a prayer's chances against what have become the teachers.
As to brainwashing....
It works:
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013...lic-unaware/#what-is-behind-the-crime-decline
.
Last edited:
A pause for the COZ
New member
IMOP the die was cast in the late 80's with the loss of the family farms.
The US was a mostly rural population and conservative by nature.
We as conservatives made a grave error when we left the cities and left those schools.
Basically we gave that territory to the enemy.
So now we are in a pickle. Our base is shrinking while the progressive base is growing.
Its simply a numbers game and we are on the loosing side.
Already on the east and west coast the large metro area rule the state. Think the poor guys in upstate New York. They are completely powerless to the whims of New York city.
One more generation and it will be like that most every were.
Colorado was a trial balloon to see where the numbers stand.
Its our own fault though. We moved instead of fighting for our cities. Now we are gona pay.
The US was a mostly rural population and conservative by nature.
We as conservatives made a grave error when we left the cities and left those schools.
Basically we gave that territory to the enemy.
So now we are in a pickle. Our base is shrinking while the progressive base is growing.
Its simply a numbers game and we are on the loosing side.
Already on the east and west coast the large metro area rule the state. Think the poor guys in upstate New York. They are completely powerless to the whims of New York city.
One more generation and it will be like that most every were.
Colorado was a trial balloon to see where the numbers stand.
Its our own fault though. We moved instead of fighting for our cities. Now we are gona pay.
WWI saw one of the first great rural to urban migrations in our history.
After WWII the trend changed slightly with exodus to suburbia and thanks to air conditioning the South.
By 1980 those migrations were mostly done.
With the exception of white flight none of that had to do with politics.
I suspect that most of the folks that left the cities became conservatives after they arrived in the suburbs or the South.
The anti-gun control movement has pretty much wed itself to conservatism and the republican party. So the demographics of the movement are pretty much the same as the republican party.
The future doesn't look good for the republican party and it follows that the future doesn't look good for the anti-gun control movement.
Actually, I think the situation is a little more complex than that. Both parties are undergoing identity crises of sorts (it is more obvious within the Republican party due to the greater attention given to their presidential primary) and the demographics of both parties could change dramatically depending on the outcomes of said identity crises.
Also, there are many types of convservatism and liberalism and RKBA doesn't fit neatly into any one box. While generally considered to be a social issue (as opposed to a fiscal one), support or opposition to RKBA doesn't always follow other social view that are typically considered conservative or liberal. For example, there are many people who have strong "conservative" views on issues like abortion, gay marriage, or marijuana legalization, but who are luke-warm at best about RKBA. Likewise, there are many people who have traditionally "liberal" views on the same social issues but are fairly strong supporters of RKBA.
I don't think that the RKBA movement has so much wedded itself to the Republican party or conservatism so much as that the Republican party and conservatism has tried to wed itself to the RKBA movement. However, most people are not single-issue voters and I believe that there is a growing number of people who support RKBA, but are not so happy with many of the other positions of the Republican party and/or conservatism. It seems to me that both parties seem to be moving to greater and greater ideological extremes and that there is a growing number of people in the middle feeling abandoned by one or both of them. This is why I think we're seeing these internal schisms forming in both parties and why an ever growing number of people are identifying as independents.
This is about spot on. The RKBA movement kind of got STUCK with Republicans. AND, until recently they took us pretty much for granted. After all, in the view of the political handlers, where else were we gonna go????
(note that while I use the terms Dem/Rep, Left/Right and Conservative/Liberal, I understand that the terms are all inclusive, and that the people involved ARE NOT. )
With virtually all the gun control coming from the political left, gun owners, who wanted to continue to BE gun owners had little choice (and no effective choice) BUT to support the political Right.
This is logical, and sensible, but I am not convinced it is actually correct. I think these days, most people decide which single issue is most important to them in their personal lives, and vote for the candidate that comes closest to matching their position ON THAT ISSUE, and essentially hold their nose about everything else.
As an example, I knew a woman who did firmly believe in the RKBA. Not firmly enough to get off her couch and DO anything about it, but neither would she do anything to support gun control. She didn't own any guns, but did believe we had the right.
This same woman also believed we had the right to smoke pot. She got off her couch, and voted for Clinton, TWICE, because she believed he would legalize pot.
Even though she believed, it was pretty clear which issue was more important to her. And the fact that she was so wrong, is something I can still twit her about, to this day.
People may identify with a group, or a party, the will support a position on principle, but I think, when it comes down to casting their vote, in the privacy of the booth (or mail in ballot?) they will vote for what they feel affect them most on a personal level, and high moral principles be dammed, if they don't happen to fit.
No, not everyone fits this, there are people who go for the "best" (=least worst) overall, and there are the true believers who follow their chosen messiahs (person OR principle), no matter what, but I think, by the numbers, the majority of people are somewhere in between the extremes.
johnwilliamson062
Moderator
I think this is true, but for the vast majority of people the single issue is simply Republican or Democrat. It terrifies me how many people walk into a voting booth and simply check every candidate of a certain party in partisan races irrespective of their stance on any issues. Just imagine the changes this country would see if candidates party affiliation did not show on the ballot. "Republicans are pro-gun, so I just vote Republican." I've seen it in several elections where an anti-gun Republican took the gun vote over a pro-gun Democrat.
RKBA movement, especially the NRA better find some way to separate from Republicans. The GOP is going down hard IMO. The fact that they likely won't win the next election no matter who comes out of the primary and considering how many are upset with Obama/Democrats is plenty of evidence in support of my position. You can say that isn't true, but the polling numbers are not and have not been good for Republicans.
Who registered voters "are going to vote for" has never been a good predictor. The best predictor is "based on what you know about how your friends and family are going to vote, who do you think is going to win." This effectively makes a MUCH larger sample size and also does some correction for those who decide ot to vote the day of the election as they think their vote is wasted on a hopeless candidate and such. You can look up the polls before elections versus recent results if you don't believe me.
Why isn't it reported widely if it predicts so well? Easy. It would kill news viewership and readership.
The NRA has always followed the money
The NRA is all about money and politics. They are not in the business to be your friend, but to funnel money. I've often wondered why the NRA hasn't been more forthcoming about the history of gun legislation. In 1938 Justice McRenolds stated in his decision regarding the 1936 National Fire Arms act that he was upholding the defendant's conviction because a sawed-off shotgun was not a contemporary weapon of the military thus inferring that Second Amendment allowed any citizen to own any gun the military used.
You would think the NRA would get this decision out to the public and argue before the courts this monumental decision. They never have used this fact.
It's all about taking your money. They have never supported any particular legislator with funds...Why not? They are just like the John Birch Society in that they talk all day long, but will not fund campaigns for those politicians who will advance their ideology.
The NRA is all about money and politics. They are not in the business to be your friend, but to funnel money. I've often wondered why the NRA hasn't been more forthcoming about the history of gun legislation. In 1938 Justice McRenolds stated in his decision regarding the 1936 National Fire Arms act that he was upholding the defendant's conviction because a sawed-off shotgun was not a contemporary weapon of the military thus inferring that Second Amendment allowed any citizen to own any gun the military used.
You would think the NRA would get this decision out to the public and argue before the courts this monumental decision. They never have used this fact.
It's all about taking your money. They have never supported any particular legislator with funds...Why not? They are just like the John Birch Society in that they talk all day long, but will not fund campaigns for those politicians who will advance their ideology.
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
Finianmac, your "facts" are incorrect in the following areas:
1) You misunderstand the ruling and the significance of Miller, in which the ruling of the lower court was remanded, not upheld.
2) Miller has been cited 1879 times in Second Amendment law, including by NRA in their Second Amendment cases and related gun litigation..
3) The NRA does not support particular legislators with funds because that is against both federal law and the NRA charter. The NRA-ILA and NRA-PVF supports particular legislators with millions of dollars a year - including $23 million just from NRA-ILA alone in 2013.
1) You misunderstand the ruling and the significance of Miller, in which the ruling of the lower court was remanded, not upheld.
2) Miller has been cited 1879 times in Second Amendment law, including by NRA in their Second Amendment cases and related gun litigation..
3) The NRA does not support particular legislators with funds because that is against both federal law and the NRA charter. The NRA-ILA and NRA-PVF supports particular legislators with millions of dollars a year - including $23 million just from NRA-ILA alone in 2013.
Last edited:
You know, part of the problem with the NRA's "image" is due to the fact that the NRA (directly) is NOT and CANNOT BE a political organization.
Yet the other side, and the "free" press CONSTANTLY hammer the NRA and talk about how it IS political.
And since the first politician first came out with "if nominated, I will not run, if elected I will not serve" we have been conditioned to accept people who say they are not political, actually being political.
So, between this, and their enemies chanting how political the NRA is, all the time, people who simply don't know better, doubt the honest truth.
Yet the other side, and the "free" press CONSTANTLY hammer the NRA and talk about how it IS political.
And since the first politician first came out with "if nominated, I will not run, if elected I will not serve" we have been conditioned to accept people who say they are not political, actually being political.
So, between this, and their enemies chanting how political the NRA is, all the time, people who simply don't know better, doubt the honest truth.
johnwilliamson062
Moderator
I'm not talking about my circle of friends. I'm talking about a questions the pollsters ask. They ask thousands of registered voters about THEIR circle of friends. Effectively getting a sample size of tens of thousands.
Combined with the question of who a registered voter intends to vote for they also see how many people are saying they will vote for candidates they don't think will win. Many of those people don't show up to vote.
Those two numbers have pretty reliably predicted elections weeks ahead of time for the last 50+ years. Not just who wins overall, but which states and how much.
Last edited:
This is what you are up against:
>
> Administrators at Vassar College and Oberlin College agreed
> to personally shred a pocket Constitution after an undercover
> reporter posing as a student complained that she felt “triggered”
> by its distribution on campus.
http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=6946
Unfortunately, you just can't make this stuff up.
>
> When the complaint was brought to Wendy Kozol, Professor/Chair of
> Comparative American Studies at Oberlin, she agreed after a long pause
> that “[t]he Constitution in everyday life causes people pain,” ...concedes
> that her hesitancy reflects her belief that the document is flawed, and
> suggests working with student groups to host a dialogue concerning “
> the ways in which the Constitution in everyday life causes people pain.”
>
> “So, obviously my end goal is I want the Constitution to not have such a
> central part here at Oberlin
>
As the twig is bent, so grows the tree, ...and these twigs are being woven into an intricate 1970s macramé that will form
the core of the next generation's upbringing.
And to bring it back home...
>
> Carol Lasser, Professor of History and Director of Gender, Sexuality, and
> Feminist Studies at Oberlin, likewise concurred that “[t]he Constitution is
> an oppressive document” because it intentionally makes change a slow
> process.
>
> She then observes that “[t]he Constitution is not a sacred document in that
> sense,” citing the Second Amendment as an example and asking, “[w]hat
> could be clearer than, I mean at least from my point of view, that the
> founders never envisioned giving people carte blanche to own assault rifles?”
>
And there you have it folks. This is what passes as "History" at an increasing number of institutions of "higher" learning:
Complete & willful lack of understanding as to the intent of making Constitutional change "hard" and not subject to the mob;
and the the 2A's core intent as a check on the state itself.
>
> Administrators at Vassar College and Oberlin College agreed
> to personally shred a pocket Constitution after an undercover
> reporter posing as a student complained that she felt “triggered”
> by its distribution on campus.
http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=6946
Unfortunately, you just can't make this stuff up.
>
> When the complaint was brought to Wendy Kozol, Professor/Chair of
> Comparative American Studies at Oberlin, she agreed after a long pause
> that “[t]he Constitution in everyday life causes people pain,” ...concedes
> that her hesitancy reflects her belief that the document is flawed, and
> suggests working with student groups to host a dialogue concerning “
> the ways in which the Constitution in everyday life causes people pain.”
>
> “So, obviously my end goal is I want the Constitution to not have such a
> central part here at Oberlin
>
As the twig is bent, so grows the tree, ...and these twigs are being woven into an intricate 1970s macramé that will form
the core of the next generation's upbringing.
And to bring it back home...
>
> Carol Lasser, Professor of History and Director of Gender, Sexuality, and
> Feminist Studies at Oberlin, likewise concurred that “[t]he Constitution is
> an oppressive document” because it intentionally makes change a slow
> process.
>
> She then observes that “[t]he Constitution is not a sacred document in that
> sense,” citing the Second Amendment as an example and asking, “[w]hat
> could be clearer than, I mean at least from my point of view, that the
> founders never envisioned giving people carte blanche to own assault rifles?”
>
And there you have it folks. This is what passes as "History" at an increasing number of institutions of "higher" learning:
Complete & willful lack of understanding as to the intent of making Constitutional change "hard" and not subject to the mob;
and the the 2A's core intent as a check on the state itself.
Apparently "oppressive" now means "won't let me oppress somebody I disagree with".
It is hard to imagine that someone could get a PhD in History and yet remain so spectacularly ignorant about American History in general and the Constitution in specific.
But I'm sure she has all her Political Correctness points lined up, and that's what's really important.
From her profile on the Oberlin website:
- Status