NRA members compared to those of TFL?

Yea, your right, the pole here wasnt focused on it, but the conversation evolved into a fair amount of discussion about non-retail background checks.

Regardless, the vocalized thoughts in that thread appear quite different from the NRA members contacted for the university poll that covers several questions.
 
Regardless, the vocalized thoughts in that thread appear quite different from the NRA members contacted for the university poll that covers several questions.
Click to expand...


I don't know why that would be surprising. This is site heavily involved with gun rights and the NRA is a broad canopy organization of shooters from all walks of life. There is no monolithic school of thought to try to characterize it as such is a pointless endeavor.
 
Its surprising because the spread is so wide to the point of completely opposite.
90+% for background checks at gun shows in their poll vs 75% against additional laws here.

Of course the poles are far from identical, but still.. that’s a big difference amongst folks with a common interest in firearms.

The members of TFL are from equally broad walks of life, perhaps morso.
 
"Walks of life" is not the deciding factor, its education on the particular issue. TFLs membership is, by and large, FAR more educated on firearms and legal/constitutional questions than is "John Q Public".
 
"Walks of life" is not the deciding factor, its education on the particular issue.
Click to expand...

WoL is too generic of a term.

Education certainly is not the only deciding factor. If that were true anyone could be educated enough to adopt a particular "right" view point about anything.
 
Alabama Shooter, BF didn't say education in general, he said education on firearms and related legislation.

You are free to disagree, but if so please point out why antis virtually always campaign on feelings, instead of facts. If well educated on the subject, they should be able to provide strong facts with well-vetted statistics to back those facts. Instead, time after time we see them cite debunked studies and rigged surveys.

Why is that, assuming equal education on firearms and related education?
 
Ever heard the phrase "the exception that proves the rule."?

What it means is that feeling the need or being able to to point out an exception proves that the rule exists because it is the rule itself that spotlights or points out the exception.

Notice that I said "by and large". TFL members are not vetted by education but most don't/can't stay here long without getting an education, even by accident.

On average, our membership is FAR more educated in firearms and legal/constitutional issues than is the general public. That is by far the biggest difference between us and the general public. We have doctors, lawyers, high school drop outs, police, pastors, soldiers, mothers, woman's rights activists, every race and creed, left, right, middle, gay, straight, EVERYBODY.

The difference... by and large, is what we KNOW instead of what we "feel".
 
On that note, Alabama Shooter, why don't you share some of the valid, verifiable facts you feel the antis have used in their arguments? You seem to suggest they raise many such, from the totality of your arguments so far.
 
Ever heard the phrase "the exception that proves the rule."?
Click to expand...

Sure, but when the exception is a moderator what is the rule then?
On that note, Alabama Shooter, why don't you share some of the valid, verifiable facts you feel the antis have used in their arguments? You seem to suggest they raise many such, from the totality of your arguments so far.
Click to expand...

You would be hard pressed to show where I had ever implied that.

Are you going to start calling me "anti mole" again and send out more warnings to people not to listen to me?
 
Whoa!

Lets step it down a notch or two there, eh?

It doesn't matter who says this one wrong thing. No ones making the point that we all know everything or any one of us is never wrong.

The point is, on average, TFL membership is far more educated on the issue than is the general public. That's why we poll differently. Plus, we are by definition, the "enthusiasts", which also lends to different polling.
 
The point is, on average, TFL membership is far more educated on the issue than is the general public. That's why we poll differently. Plus, we are by definition, the "enthusiasts", which also lends to different polling.
Click to expand...

That was partly my point. There is a lot of preaching to the choir here and shouting down those who hold a slightly different view point. It goes beyond education and more into a fervent belief. That is the same reason the anti's lose so often. The only chance they have is when they can generate enough of an emotional response to cause people to shut down their brains.

We don't need to become that.

Once people lose their objectivity they have lost their cause and don't even realize it. Facts, data, proper analysis of such is the proper way of doing things.
 
On average, our membership is FAR more educated in firearms and legal/constitutional issues than is the general public. That is by far the biggest difference between us and the general public. Plus, we are by definition, the "enthusiasts", which also lends to different polling.
Click to expand...

That seems to be the most plausible explanation for the polar opposite responses.

Interestingly in the Quinnipiac Poll, it appears that the college educated NRA members are more more likely to agree with additional laws and more likely to oppose armed police officers being placed in public schools.
Its disconcerting to see that minds trained at the collegiate level appear to lack such critical-thinking skills.
 
Last edited:
Dashunde, education does not always equal common sense.

I have a lot of well-educated family and friends. Oddly enough, the majority of them have little use for self-labeled "Academics."

It's an Ivory Tower thing.

Too much school, not enough living.
 
^ Same here, and I'd add that they seem to form their opinions on emotion rather than fact.
I'd expect it from the Arts members of my family, but not the Sciences members too.
 
Last edited:
Dashunde, the thing is, some of the sciences types think of everything as a math problem. Unfortunately, life rarely allows one to cleanly solve for Y.
 
It seems polls frequently provide the results that the organization paying for the poll often want simply by the phrasing of the questions asked.

Do you favor background checks for gun purchases? Yes, but that is because in my state, prior to the NICs check, there was a waiting period to allow the state or local government to conduct a background check on the buyer. So the NICs check is far better in my opinion.

Do I favor background checks in addition completing Form 4473 on gun purchases? No

Prior to the NICs check being implemented, law enforcement would have a table at local gunshows to do an "instant" background check which would allow the gun buyer to take the gun home with them the same day. You paid for this service. The waiting period was not a "cooling off" period but time for governemnt to complete a backgound check. So, the check done was "instant" and legal.

TFL members are certainly better educated about the particulars of background checks and so forth. I don't think the NRA has anything to do with anything in that regard.
 
Of course, the NRA does their own polling of their members - the entire membership - and get results to these questions as well.

When organizations do polling and surveys they use them as a gauge. The media then tries to explain the results. Hardly ever do they consider the organization doing the poll, the funding for the poll or the questions of the poll.

My first question would be how did they identify someone as an NRA member? The NRA clearly did not offer up their membership list.

If the media reported that 75% of TFL members believed X. My first question would be how did they get a list of all our members.

Same in this case. If the question was, Are you an NRA member? My answer to that question would be a lie. So I am not shocked that the TFL survey conducted by the TFL of the TFL shows
A polar opposite result to the quinnipiac poll.

Also important - quinnipiac polling founded by Andy Tannebaum, centered out of Connecticut and filled with academics is going to have a slant no matter how hard they try not to. In fact it is hard to find a polling institute that does not. Calling them independent is really a joke regardless of who they are. It might also be important to know that Tannenbaum is/ was a lobbyist for the Sierra Club. So again, not shocked how the results display themselves from the quinnipiac poll.
 
The method of operation for the dishonest politician is to confuse or obfuscate the issue at hand. So the civilian AR-15s are no different than the fully automatic military versions. The .223 round is "high powered". Banning assaut weapons (semi-automatic rifles) will create a safer society. And if 90% of Americans support background checks, then of course 90% of Americans support their proposed new expanded universal background checks.Those unfamiliar with firearms and history, tend to accept such claims at face value. I sincerely believe that the senators who voted against the Manchin-Toomey bill, were receiving phone calls and letters from their constituents, by large majorities, in opposition to the bill.
 
Brian Pfleuger said:
The trouble, I think, is the same as with so many other things. Issues are not defined and the respondents are not necessarily educated on the topic. So, the opinions are uniformed.
Click to expand...

Indeed. I would guess that most respondents to any random poll about gunshows have never been to one.

I am certain that most people who weigh in on internet discussions of background checks do not understand the current arrangement. Is a randomly contacted person, who may have never contemplated the issue before being contacted by a pollster, likely to be more informed? If you let me write the poll questions, I could likely show wide support for eroding or abolishing the entire Bill of Rights.

If most NRA members do support UBCs, this speaks to the wide membership of the organisation.

rifleman1952 said:
I sincerely believe that the senators who voted against the Manchin-Toomey bill, were receiving phone calls and letters from their constituents, by large majorities, in opposition to the bill.
Click to expand...

Given the potential problems with this amendment and that it is presented in the aftermath of a political hysteria, a "Don't just do something! Stand there!" position seems prudent.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top