You can always tell you're in for some fun when you get a comment from Commenter Stephen , who has a blog entitled "Sensibly Progressive."
I guess titles like "Merry Colonoscopy" or "Attractive Gangrene" were already taken.
Anyhow, Stevie sez:
First off, the NRA serves it's 4 million members. People like me. And many others. It's an organization run democratically and members, not the "firearms" industry, cast the votes. On the other side is the 50,000 or so members of the anti-gun groups.
In 2008, NRA Treasurer and CFO Wilson H. Phillips Jr. claimed NRA membership to be "about 3 million."
Wait a minute: "about 3 million NRA Members"? What happened to "four million members strong"? Where's the missing million members? Shouldn't the Treasurer and CFO of the NRA know the membership numbers? Unless, of course, the NRA is being less than, uh, forthcoming. This would, however, help explain why an organization that gives every adult member a choice of one of three free magazines with their membership dues has a total circulation for these publications of less than 2.7 million for the six months ending in December 2007 according to the Audit Bureau of Circulations.
But numbers don't matter, right? The NRA is "run democratically." Not so fast, O Sensei of Sensible. The only NRA members who get ballots are those who are lifetime members of the NRA or are members for 5 consecutive years or more. Over the past decade, this means only about half of the NRA's 3 million members are eligible to vote. What this means is that the NRA undergoes a very large turnover; that is, fewer than half its membership stays in the NRA for 5 years. But that's not the striking statistic. Of the roughly 1.5 million who are eligible to vote--only about 100 thousand actually do so. IOW, one in fifteen eligible NRA voters exercise their vote. In US elections, low voter turnout is descibed as anything being less than 35-40% of eligible voters voting. In the NRA's case, only 6% of their eligible voters turn out. Low turnout is seen as an indictment of leadership; it means the electorate is apathetic, indifferent or opposed to the leadership. That's why you often see despotic regimes like North Korea or Saddam's Iraq boast about 99% orchestrated turnout at elections.
Jadegold: “What this means is that the NRA undergoes a very large turnover; that is, fewer than half its membership stays in the NRA for 5 years.”
ReplyDeleteMeaning there are a whole heck of a lot more people interested in the NRA’s cause than the THREE million (you happy, Jade?) active members. Unless of course all those people who stopped paying their dues were convinced by Jadegold to turn their guns in for smelting and joined the BC.
Actually, TS, the NRA gives away most memberships for free. Most gunshows offer free memberships, as do some gun ranges. Some firearm companies offer free memberships if you purchase from them.
ReplyDeleteGoogle 'free NRA membership'--you'll get about 3M hits.
But let's entertain your fantasy for amoment; let's say there are a " whole heck of a lot" people interested in the NRA. You have to ask why they're not staying.
First off, I'd like to apologize to 2nd rate bloggers for counting Jade Gold among your number. Anyone who's read any of his posts would understand this as satire and couldn't possibly take me seriously.
ReplyDeleteBut in any case ... it's cool that instead of taking on facts he just attacks me personally and the NRA in general. Hopefully this is the strategy he is going to propose for other anti-gunners -- as that hasn't worked either.
But in any case ... whether the NRA has 3 or 4 million members or what the turnover rate is doesn't matter ... that's a lot of people! About a hundred times what the anti-gun groups can count. And as for the voting rate ... I can vote in NRA elections having been a yearly member for the required time, but don't care to. Following the candidates for the NRA elections would be too much work, so instead I keep my ear to the ground to make sure there aren't any idiots to vote against and let my more active pro gun brothers and sisters bear the electoral load.
But in any case ... I vote every year for the NRA in general when I renew my membership. And many memberships are given away for free, but none are automatic; you have to apply for them or accept them in some manner. And everyone who applies and pays for a membership -- or just accepts one -- is putting their weight behind the NRA.
And as has been said ... I have no problem with the NRA working with the gun industry. There is plenty of corporate money behind the anti-gunners, and as a fan of their product I WANT the gun industry to succeed.
Post that "advice column" for anti-gunners, Jade Gold. I could really use another laugh!
Awww, Stevie--don't be upset.
ReplyDeleteYou claim that I didn't address the facts; in truth, I did. You claimed the NRA has 4M members--I showed that isn't the case. You claim the NRA leadership is democratically elected--again, I showed that about 3% of all NRA members actually vote.
Now, can you tell us what "corporate interests" support "anti-gunners?"
Actually ... your statistics are from 2008. I know from working gun shows for the CSSA and signing up new members that the election of Mr. Obama swelled the ranks considerably, as did giving free memberships to service members. If it's not at 4 million I'm sure it's close. But if you want to count that as a victory be my guest ... but I stand behind the statement that all members vote for the movement by being members.
ReplyDeleteAnd instead of "corporate backing" for the pro-gun movement, though they do have some, I really meant well funded organizations like the Joyce foundation. NRA, on the other hand, is a grass roots organization that is member supported, which is why people actually vote based on NRA positions.
The real debate, though, is over gun ownership and gun rights. And that's where you lose and didn't even want to play after I smacked you down.
The fact is that anti-gunners have no legitimately logical arguments in their favor, which is why they are completely basing their arguments on fear.
On the pro-gun side we have facts -- like statistics. As well as a tradition of gun ownership and a Federal constitution which fully supports our right to own firearms.
But by all means ... say something more negative about me and/or the NRA. That'll win hearts and minds over! *snicker*
Stevie: I think you're confused. First, you tell us there is corporate funding or the "anti-gunners"--then you renege on providing any names.
ReplyDeleteYou mention the Joyce Foundation but neglect to note there grants to so-called "anti-gun" groups is pretty small. Most JF monies actually go to universities and medical groups. In fact, gun violence is a small part of the JF's funding which also goes to environmental, education, and cultural causes.
If the NRA only had half a million members, it would still be 10 times the members of the Brady Campaign.
ReplyDeleteJadegold: “But let's entertain your fantasy for amoment; let's say there are a " whole heck of a lot" people interested in the NRA. You have to ask why they're not staying.”
ReplyDeleteWhat I have to ask is; who cares? They are a big organization with lots of members. People come in; people leave. It’s to be expected. Quite frankly I am not obsessed with the NRA like you are and I am not trying to read into the ebb and flow of their membership numbers. It is not like they are struggling as an organization after all.
Jadegold: “You mention the Joyce Foundation but neglect to note there grants to so-called "anti-gun" groups is pretty small.”
Umm, I see this mentioned all the time by the pro-gun side- how what little anti-gun money you had is drying up along with public support.
Whether large or small, JF provides a very large percentage of funding for anti-gun groups, with Michael Bloomberg picking up MAIG's budget.
ReplyDeleteBottom line is ... NRA doesn't need Sugar Daddy's, because they have members who pay dues and make donations. The anti-gun groups don't.
That's why we're winning, and appear to be on track to continue to win for sometime to come.
NRA doesn't need Sugar Daddy's, because they have members who pay dues and make donations.
ReplyDeleteIgnorance is bliss. I'll bet the NRA doesn't agree with you.
Consider this: the NRA never contested any gun law on its 2A Constitutionality until after Heller. In fact, the NRA didn't even want to pursue Heller.
OTOH, the NRA has always been there when the firearms industry wanted something. For example, the NRA has fought tooth and nail to limit arms sales to foreign countries and has been involved in fighting gun regulations in other countries.
OK, explain the Disclosure Act to me if the NRA is on the up and up. Why does the NRA need to be exempt from telling who funds it?
ReplyDeleteEven in your comments you show that you haven't truly followed the debates or issues. Again ... just proof that when you're anti-gun only the fact that you fear firearms matters, nothing else (certainly not common sense).
ReplyDeleteWhy did the NRA not get involved in major 2nd amendment cases pre-Heller? Because SCOTUS was so inundated with liberal, activist judges they would have lost until we got the most recent make-up of the court (as is proven by the Heller/McDonald voting record). The NRA is smart -- once you lose a case, it's lost forever. Some would argue that the judgments we've gotten are weaker than they should be (which I agree with) but personally I'm still glad we got them.
But in any case ... Heller and McDonald rulings do HUGE things for the gun industry. They can now sell guns in DC and Chicago, and soon will roll back other restrictive laws to promote gun ownership. If the NRA was strictly for the gun industry (and I would still appreciate their efforts, as they defend my personal rights as well) it wouldn't change their stance on the 2nd amendment. But they do serve their membership, or we wouldn't be members, and the fact that our goals and the gun industries goals are the same make for an effective partnership.
Fighting the UN arms treaty business was in the interests of American gun owners as well. A UN treaty, particularly pre-heller, could have been a back-door into gun control.
Why was the NRA against the reporting requirements? For the same reasons all affected organization were. Why were they content with a carveout? Because it helps them (since they are a grassroots organization with millions of members) and hurts the anti-gun groups (since they are supported by large organizations and have virtually no membership).
So where is that post on how the anti-gunners can start winning? I need a good laugh today!
Why did the NRA not get involved in major 2nd amendment cases pre-Heller? Because SCOTUS was so inundated with liberal, activist judges they would have lost until we got the most recent make-up of the court (as is proven by the Heller/McDonald voting record).
ReplyDeletePrior to Geo Bush's appointment--the SC was composed of 7 Justices appointed by GOP presidents. In fact, this was the case since 1985.