[mike101]

I recently read, on this forum, that there are now about 102 million legal gun owners in the US. I was wondering if anyone knows, offhand, what percentage of the adult, voting population we are.

I'd like to know in case I ever run into Rosie, and for my next letter to Ubergrupenfuhrer Lautenburg. :D

[Werewolf]

Well there's 300 million americans now (uhhhh... that includes illegals I believe) and 2/3 of them are voting age which means 200 million. If there's 102 million legal gun owners (I doubt this) then a little over half of the voting population own guns.

That said: So what?

I imagine that 80% of those 102 million bought their gun for some esoteric reason and haven't touched it or fired it since. A lot of the rest are hunters only - most of who have no interest in or even an understanding of RKBA.

Take the combined membership of the NRA, GOA, JFPFO(?), SAS etc and you got about 5 million folks, maybe, 4 million of which are in the NRA. So at max less than 2.5% of the voting population are gun owners who give enough of a :cuss: to vote RKBA.

One of these days the pols are gonna wake up and figure this out and start ignoring the big hammer the NRA carries. Or maybe not - the NRA has lots of money and money is power in politics.

[mec]

they've woken up and realized it several times and every time they did, they got their butts stomped in the next election.

[M2 Carbine]

I've heard different figurers, usually about 80 million gun owners.

There are enough gun owners that if they voted and voted pro gun there isn't a politician that would even dare to say the words gun control.

With just three million members, even klinton credited the NRA with costing the democrats big time.

So you can imaging the influence that we gun owners would have if just 15 percent of gun owners would join and support the NRA.

[beaucoup ammo]

And if 50% of legal gun owners who are registered to vote would do so, that clout would ratchet up even more.

[hoji]

Too bad people in general are just too lazy to get off the couch ,turn off the NASCAR video, put down the beer and vote:cuss: :banghead:

[lacoochee]

Instead the important number is the total number of gun owner's who vote versus the total number of people who actually vote in our general elections. The 6 million members of the NRA plus the members of other various pro-gun organizations out there whose members are not also members of the NRA is probably closer to 8 million. In perspective, that makes the pro-gun lobby the largest such organization in the country, and if you are going to pay to belong to these groups trust me these people vote and in droves. Sometimes, it changes the outcomes of entire elections. For example in 2006 almost every Democratic candidate that ran and won, actually ran to the right of the Republicans they were challenging, especially on guns, fiscal responsibility, and immigration this would not have been possible without a lot of independent pro-gun folks voting for the candidate that supported their position, political parties aside.

So, let's see, in 2004 122,293,332 people voted (the highest turn out since 1968 percentage wise), let's assume for arguments sake that all 8 million of pro-gun organization members voted, 6.5% of the total electorate. The margin of victory in the presidential election was, 2.4%, you do the math, the impact of this voting block is very significant.

[cookie4u1]

Over the weekend I was at the Indy 1500 gun show and it was packed.I kept wondering where all the people come from. It seems that at least here in Indiana we should have no trouble with gun rights except that I think alot of these people only show up at the shows. At the range it seems that I run into the same group of shooters over and over.Kind of makes me wonder if people ever shoot what they buy and would they just sit back and watch their rights erode.

[230RN]

Werewolf nailed part of it:

A lot of the rest are hunters only - most of who have no interest in or even an understanding of RKBA.

One other big problem I see is that so many of these gun owners are agrarian folks --farmers and ranchers and the like, who somehow have the attitude that big city politics does not affect them. I deal with a lot of the farmers and ranchers around the state, and I see this all the time --and not just with RKBA issues.

"What the heck, I can shoot off my back porch any old time I want."

"What the heck, if I want to shoot, I can go up to the draw on the North Forty and shoot all I want."

"What the heck, the Second Amendment protects my right to have a gun."

So when it comes time to look at day-to-day RKBA issues, they are kind of "ah, who cares?" about it. The thinking seems to be, "What's true now must be true forever."

Were I a member of the Executive Committee on the NRA I would push for making a big pro-active outreach effort toward the farmers and ranchers of each state. Especially the blue ones.

I once wrote to the NRA asking how come they didn't advertise more, and the upshot of the response was that the big media outlets won't accept ads from the NRA. (This was quite a while ago.)

Yet there are literally thousands of small weekly local printed news outlets (you either get them for free or find them on your doorstep sometimes) who are starving for advertising revenue and might well accept advertising from the NRA and other pro-gun groups.

And there are a lot of "farm journals" which are distributed to the farmers and ranchers who would also probably accept advertising from pro-RKBA groups.

And there are thousands of local Granges which might welcome a visit from an NRA representative. Also, I haven't been to the National Western Stock Show for years, but shouldn't there be an NRA booth there?

That's what I would push for if I were on the Executive Committe.

Are you listening, Mr. La Pierre? Mr. Selleck? Ms. Froman?

(OK, all you NRA bashers who feel "Wul, I dint agree with this or that what the NRA did, so I think the NRA is wuthless" please just stand aside for a while and listen.)

[308win]

230RN makes a good point. People will read journals that deal with their livelihood/vocation/avocation from cover to cover. One way to make a point is by analogy tied to something that affects the target audience's livelihood. I may be way off base but I have always wondered why the liquor industry isn't weighing in on the suits/ordinances/PR campaigns, etc. that attempt to place fault on the firearms industry for how their products are misused. It doesn't seem much of a jump to me to put Anheuser Busch in the same predicament.

[beaucoup ammo]

I was fortunate to spend time with Gen. Joe Foss many years ago. He was president of the NRA at the time, and I mentioned my interest in firearms...handguns specifically.

He stressed the importance of the NRA, of course..but was passionate about voting. "Our vote is truely our most potent weapon"...or words to that effect.

He happened to be on the cover of Time that week so I asked him to sign my copy, which he was gracious enough to do. It's framed and hanging by the gun case. Hell of a man. Didn't learn till after he'd left that he was awarded the Medal Of Honor. Oh well, enough rambling...I'm going to the range if they're open..it's cold!

[ArfinGreebly]

I imagine a number of folks don't join the NRA because "they don't support MY use of firearms."

So . . . here's your new NRA membership/contribution "funds allocation" card:
I want my NRA membership dollars to support
[ _ ] Sport shooting only (skeet/trap/target);
[ _ ] Hunting of all kinds, but only hunting;
[ _ ] Duck and upland game bird hunting only;
[ _ ] Big Game and varmint hunting only;
[ _ ] National Defense only;
[ _ ] Self Defense only;
[ _ ] All aspects of defense, hunting, and shooting, in accordance with the Second Amendment as written.

Now, everyone can support just that one thing that's important to his own interests.

"They would never take MY gun, it's a bird gun.
"Okay, fine, just check the 'birds only' box and send them a check."

[Prince Yamato]

How many are we?

More than in '94 :D

[230RN]

Prince Yamato wrote:


How many are we?

More than in '94

Yeah, but probably not enough more to compensate for all the illegal voting that's going on due to motor voter registration, multiple registration in different counties, voter "importation" from other states, etc, etc, etc.

Here in Colorado, in many Counties, all you have to do to prove residency is show three months' worth of untility bills. Not hard to do in heavily populated areas like Denver....

...Do you think your local Clerk and Recorder can really keep track of all the John Smiths and Jose Garcias who can use the "other" John Smith's or Jose Garcia's utility bills to register to vote as a resident of your county?

That, Sirs and Mesdames, is why we must emphasize outreach to the rural/agrarian areas, especially of the blue States!

[mike101]

So, voter apathy in general among gun-owners, and among hunters and agrarian folk in particular, is what I'm seeing here.

I notice that the antis always make allowances for hunters, like Kerry always does. I think that's just deceptive manuvering on their part. Once they get all of the other guns, I'm sure the hunters would be next. Kerry already tried to have 30-30 ammo banned, you know, because of all those 30-30 assault rifles.;)

Do you think most hunters know about this, or even care enough to look into a candidate's position on gun control?

[Zoogster]

The 2nd defends the right to be able to kill and deter harm by having the means to kill with a firearm.
This allowance for hunters, the 'sporting purposes' some of our alphabet soup agencies cite following the media or politicians acceptance of 'lawful hunting' is just BS manuevering. They know what was effective in other countries in banning arms and what tactics worked in decreasing arms by type over time in anticipation of such more radical bans.

When arms are for killing as the 2nd says they are for then you do not need to defend the 'sporting purpose' argument or any other such nonsense spoon fed to the public. That nonsense is only so at future dates they can ban more and more as long as you can still hunt, or hit a target with a .22 etc. When eventualy like in the UK or Australia most things have been banned or regulated down to only allow over under shotguns, .22 for target shooting (don't need a potent round to make a paper hole) and a couple severely limited rifles for hunting. Then you get a massacre, or all those over unders which are easy to shorten into very compact sawn off shotguns become the prefered criminal weapon.
Then they vanish or are so severely restricted and limited that ownership consists of storing it at a 'club' to visit and shoot targets occasionaly.
After all thier sporting purpose is obviously not worth the risk they pose to people. Your ability to put holes in paper or break clays is not more important than society's safety.
Or jumping through lots of legal hurdles you get permission for some nuetered single shot to dispatch some animal with.

All of this is avoided when people don't fight that argument and instead focus on the very reason we have the right: to kill other people with them as in the constitution and as was discussed in the context of making the constitution. It does not sound PC, but it is the truth. If such and such weapon is better at killing, yeah so what? That is the purpose of the weapon to begin with. We may hope to not have to use them for such a purpose, but that is why we have the right to bear them.

The constitution does not mention sporting uses, hunting, skeet shooting etc. It mentions being able and capable of killing tyranny and defending against danger from other men. Period.

The reason Antis and people with an anti agenda like to focus so much on the skeet shooters and hunters is they know they are not backed by the constitution and as such will not argue it as thier right. They will instead talk of responsibly enjoying a hobby. The antis can then focus on people that misuse the tools of said hobby for other things, like killing people, as if that is not the purpose for which arms are protected by the 2nd. They can then point to ways to reduce firearms ability to kill other people without infringing on 'legitimate' uses of firearms like hunting. Once they have the 2nd protected group legislated away then they can much more easily stop the hunters etc that are not protected. It is simply a strategy and nothing more. They do not actualy like or understand the hunters any more than the rest of gun owners.

RKBA is right to keep and bear arms to deter and stop threats to our life and liberty as is discussed by the founding fathers.

[230RN]

All true, Zoogster.

But what do we do about it?

[expvideo]

Just because we all own guns doesn't mean we have anything else in common. Sure we could get all the gun owners out there voting, but it wouldn't make a difference, because they would still vote diversely. I carry a gun, car keys, a wallet and a blackberry. None of those items effect my political affiliation. I do care about my RKBA, and I vote accordingly, but it doesn't automatically make me a republican. I know plenty of people who are "leftist liberal" democrats that happen to carry a handgun, and I know plenty of people who are "right wing nutjobs" who also carry guns. I also know plenty of "right wing nut jobs" that are very opposed to the idea of carrying a gun.

My point is, just because there are 80 million or 103 million or whatever it is gun owners, doesn't mean that all of them plan to vote for the same candidates. Plenty of gun owners are very strongly democrat.

[mike101]

OK, so am I, usually, but I would be willing to vote for a moderate Republican who was pro RKBA. I wonder how many Republicans would be willing to vote for a moderate Dem?

I think, to get anywhere, about half of us are going to have to jump ship, and vote for the "other" party. Of course, that's assuming that anyone runs who is openly pro-gun. Not much of that going around these days.

[RockyMtnTactical]

I do believe that the '94 AWB created a lot of angry gunowners and made a lot of people look at "assault weapons" that otherwise may not have...

[Prince Yamato]

I do believe that the '94 AWB created a lot of angry gunowners and made a lot of people look at "assault weapons" that otherwise may not have...

+1

[07Lway]

The problem is that RKBA is not #1 issue when they vote. Most people won't make a whimper until someone is at their front door to confiscate their Winchesters and Mossbergs.

They do not realize how important getting involved with politics really does have an affect on things. Sure, my one vote and your one vote doesn't mean nothing to things, but when you add my one vote with yours, Bob's, Jack's, Becky's, and Paula's it starts to make a difference. If not in national elections, then at least local ones.

Luckily we have been able to keep some politicians in line thanks to some of our bigger lobbyist. We just hope that it will stay that way.