Which in turn is funded by the Open Society Foundation (George Soros), the Joyce Foundation, and the Ford Foundation, among others.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Universal Background Check and Universal Gun Registration-Breitbart
- Thread starter DaleA
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Which in turn is funded by the Open Society Foundation (George Soros), the Joyce Foundation, and the Ford Foundation, among others.
Which in turn is funded by the Open Society Foundation (George Soros)
Not the first time Ol'Georgy has funded the latent and incipient phase either!
I guess the question is, is the NRA membership increasing or decreasing...and why? Why is it so difficult to determine NRA membership numbers? I do know, among my gun supporting friends..NONE belong to NRA and a few are quite vocal about how the NRA hasn't done the gun friendly side of the spectrum any favors..starting with Wayne LaPierre.Which in turn is funded by the Open Society Foundation (George Soros), the Joyce Foundation, and the Ford Foundation, among others.
Spats McGee
Administrator
I suspect (without knowing) that the NRA is hesitant to give out precise numbers or the names of its members. There are lots of organizations out there (in addition to the usual tinfoil-hat-gang) that don't really want the gov't knowing the identities of their members. From a legal perspective, there is the issue of chilling the right of association &/or speech, if whose membership is what organizations is all available to the public.I guess the question is, is the NRA membership increasing or decreasing...and why? Why is it so difficult to determine NRA membership numbers? . . . .
The NRA claims increased membership, but you could still have a decrease in funding in spite of that. Life members may not contribute annually, people who are going through tough economic times may not contribute, as well as people who are dissatisfied with NRA policies.I guess the question is, is the NRA membership increasing or decreasing...and why? Why is it so difficult to determine NRA membership numbers? I do know, among my gun supporting friends..NONE belong to NRA and a few are quite vocal about how the NRA hasn't done the gun friendly side of the spectrum any favors..starting with Wayne LaPierre.
It has always been the case that only a small percentage of gun owners are members of the NRA, or other gun rights groups for that matter. The majority like to bitch and moan, but do nothing to actually help the cause, be it financial support, letter writing, or other types of activism.
LeverGunFan
New member
While there are several published articles that discuss NRA membership, has anyone ever seen an article that discusses the membership of an anti-gun organization, or how they receive their funding? I suspect that many of the anti-gun organizations have very small memberships, and that they receive most of their funding from corporations or deep pocket donors, but I've never seen any data to confirm that. The NRA claims to have about 5 million members, but I've never seen any other organization (pro or anti) make any statements regarding membership numbers.I guess the question is, is the NRA membership increasing or decreasing...and why? Why is it so difficult to determine NRA membership numbers? I do know, among my gun supporting friends..NONE belong to NRA and a few are quite vocal about how the NRA hasn't done the gun friendly side of the spectrum any favors..starting with Wayne LaPierre.
Guess that's my point..maybe the NRA should streamline its leadership positions in hard times and tighten their administrative belt, as well as broadening its appeal to those gun owners who aren't social conservatives. Stick to the the gun issues. Dont alienate those you dont have to.
and for right above
has anyone ever seen an article that discusses the membership of an anti-gun organization
Not a zero sum gain..'pro or anti'..many people(like me) and groups somewhere in the middle. Own/use/carry guns but dislike the 'there are bad guys everywhere', 'only solution to a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun', 'gun grabbers, the 'antis'.....mentality. Besides, 'good guy with a gun'..define that please. Are all who have a gun, 'good guys'?
The NRA claims increased membership
I had an interesting discussion where an individual who had never touched a gun in their life joined the NRA as a result of Parkland Shooting here in Florida.
A naturalized Canadian citizen who felt that the backlash against gun ownership was misplaced and wanted to learn about guns. After purveying the internet on social media and arguing with some anti-gun individuals the claim was made that "all your arguments sound just like the NRA".
This person did not know or have anything to do with the NRA so they joined to see what it was about.
Not your Grandfathers typical NRA member but maybe..just maybe..a more common member in the 21st Century.
Stick to the the gun issues.
Imperative. Stick to the guns, gun safety, training, and legal aspects. Offer workable solutions to today's issues involving gun violence and not simply resist "gun grabbing".
Get ahead of the issue and push a solution to reducing gun violence.
Last edited:
Ok, just went to NRA website, ‘Stand and FIGHT’ hat and endorsement by Oliver North, then a pic of Wayne...yikes..this gun owner is gonna pass.I had an interesting discussion where an individual who had never touched a gun in their life joined the NRA as a result of Parkland Shooting here in Florida.
A naturalized Canadian citizen who felt that the backlash against gun ownership was misplaced and wanted to learn about guns. After purveying the internet on social media and arguing with some anti-gun individuals the claim was made that "all your arguments sound just like the NRA".
This person did not know or have anything to do with the NRA so they joined to see what it was about.
Not your Grandfathers typical NRA member but maybe..just maybe..a more common member in the 21st Century.
Diavidsog above gets it....
If ya get into somebody’s grill and start yelling at them, expect them to yell back.
USNRet93 said:Ok, just went to NRA website, ‘Stand and FIGHT’ hat and endorsement by Oliver North, then a pic of Wayne...yikes..this gun owner is gonna pass.
Which of those three is the problem for you?
When someone wants to take something away from someone else, the person doing the taking has made the first move. And it's not unreasonable that the person susceptible to loss may choose to stand and FIGHT.
You tell someone that buys and sells guns with their friends and neighbors that they won't be able to do that anymore unless a BGC is performed, the first move has been made. Some may choose to stand and FIGHT against such a change, especially if there is no clear benefit to them within the change. Just because you may not wish to stand and FIGHT against such a proposed change doesn't make you right and those who resist (or stand and FIGHT) wrong. It's much the same way with types of firearms and accessories.
There are several firearms I have no desire to own. And there are many firearm accessories I have no interest in owning. But I will stand and FIGHT when someone comes along and wants to take those things away from my fellow gun owners, mainly because I will want them to stand with me when someone comes after the guns and accessories I have chosen to use responsibly. I'd like to think I have their back and they have mine.
Some may feel better about themselves if they take a loss rather than fight, an approach that will likely ensure their loss. If the loss didn't affect others and was limited to themselves that would be fine. But such is often not the case.
You tell someone that buys and sells guns with their friends and neighbors that they won't be able to do that anymore unless a BGC is performed, the first move has been made. Some may choose to stand and FIGHT against such a change, especially if there is no clear benefit to them within the change. Just because you may not wish to stand and FIGHT against such a proposed change doesn't make you right and those who resist (or stand and FIGHT) wrong. It's much the same way with types of firearms and accessories.
There are several firearms I have no desire to own. And there are many firearm accessories I have no interest in owning. But I will stand and FIGHT when someone comes along and wants to take those things away from my fellow gun owners, mainly because I will want them to stand with me when someone comes after the guns and accessories I have chosen to use responsibly. I'd like to think I have their back and they have mine.
Some may feel better about themselves if they take a loss rather than fight, an approach that will likely ensure their loss. If the loss didn't affect others and was limited to themselves that would be fine. But such is often not the case.
Which of those three is the problem for you?
In order to defeat the enemy, you must get inside his head, understand his perception of the world that makes up his reality. We are in a war of ideas and we do not want to lose.
Let's take the message:
Stand and FIGHT!!!
Protect MY Second Amendment Rights!
Concealed Carry Weapons Classes Offered in your Area, click here to learn how to defend yourself.
VS
Help Reduce Crime by Learning not to be a Victim!!
Help Stop Accidental Gun Deaths and Keep the Children Safe!
Concealed Carry Weapons Classes Offered in your Area, click here to learn how to responsibly and safely protect your family.
Both messages guide people to Concealed Weapons Classes to learn the same knowledge set.
Which do you think will resonate with more people and delivers a better message?
When someone wants to take something away from someone else, the person doing the taking has made the first move. And it's not unreasonable that the person susceptible to loss may choose to stand and FIGHT.
No matter how right you are....
When you focus on "MY MY MY" vs "WE WE WE" you are going to lose.
Simply put, listen to the legitimate problems they want solved.
1. Protecting Children at School
2. Reducing violent crime and gun deaths
3. Eliminating mass shootings
All of those are reasonable and things we should all support. We cannot and must not lose our 2nd Amendment rights by allowing such as simplistic and ineffective message as "guns are the problem" to take over.
The left is not screaming "MY MY MY", they are screaming "WE" trying to isolate gun owners as fringe members of society who pose a threat to the greater good.
We need to block their efforts to create that perception. How do we do that? Offer realistic and achievable solutions that do not involve destruction of the 2nd Amendment.
We address the exact same problems that they talk about emphasizing a solution or program. At the same time, we reach as many folks as we can especially those who are NOT exposed to a shooting sports. Change the message from "MY" rights to showing how "WE" are part of the solution not part of the problem.
The NRA is trying to address these things and they do have some good programs. It gets buried in the wrong rhetoric so that instead of emphasizing the good, reasonable, and realistic solutions it becomes the "Stand and Fight!!!" appeal to emotion for MY MY MY!!
David, while you may not care for an appeal to emotion, you will note that your alternate ideas also rely on that same appeal. "Think of the children!" is by a now a decades old joke.
The sense that advocacy for a civil rights is selfish isn't any more intuitively correct than the risible notion that restriction of those rights is a selfless act for the common good.
The first, but I believe you misunderstood the question.
USNRet93 is going to "pass" because he saw on the NRA website a "‘Stand and FIGHT’ hat and endorsement by Oliver North, then a pic of Wayne..."
LaPierre isn't my favorite advocate, but that doesn't bear on the merit of the NRA's work. An exhortation to stand and fight for a right is particularly aggressive or exotic. These aren't elements that one would expect to dissuade a reader who believes in the importance of the right to join with others who also believe the right is important.
The sense that advocacy for a civil rights is selfish isn't any more intuitively correct than the risible notion that restriction of those rights is a selfless act for the common good.
davidsog said:Which do you think will resonate with more people and delivers a better message?
The first, but I believe you misunderstood the question.
USNRet93 is going to "pass" because he saw on the NRA website a "‘Stand and FIGHT’ hat and endorsement by Oliver North, then a pic of Wayne..."
LaPierre isn't my favorite advocate, but that doesn't bear on the merit of the NRA's work. An exhortation to stand and fight for a right is particularly aggressive or exotic. These aren't elements that one would expect to dissuade a reader who believes in the importance of the right to join with others who also believe the right is important.
David, while you may not care for an appeal to emotion, you will note that your alternate ideas also rely on that same appeal. "Think of the children!" is by a now a decades old joke.
Task Force Violence....same path, same mentality, will end with the same result of mission failure because they only see one tool in the toolbox.
http://milnewstbay.pbworks.com/f/USMC-SF-AFG-MarineCorpsTimes-19Feb08.pdf
It is not a decade ago and things have changed. Maybe you are aware of the many jokes about millennials and social justice warriors, etc...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SwYd5cRlROE
If we do not reach this new generation then all the pontification or being right in the world will not matter.
The sense that advocacy for a civil rights is selfish isn't any more intuitively correct than the risible notion that restriction of those rights is a selfless act for the common good.
Not what I said and you missed the mark completely. It is not an either/or proposition giving up one for the other.
What I said was we need to use facts, reason, and offer solutions to address the issues being raised in order to protect our 2nd Amendment rights.
Unfortunately there does not appear to be any emperical evidence that BGCs effectively address any of the three problems you list. Given that, I can see why there is opposition to expanding BGCs.
It absolutely does not address any of those problems but is being sold as a solution by the left for those issues.
It polls well as most people are ignorant as to why BGC is not a good idea or ineffective.
That polls cause folks with 37 years in elected office react in order to keep their jobs.
Touting "Save my 2nd Amendment Rights" does little to get the facts out as too why BGC are not effective or reach out to the undecided to change those polling results.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.