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.