Do we win because of the NRA rather fragmented groups?


PDA






usmarine0352_2005
April 22, 2013, 01:07 PM
.

Whether you are for or against the NRA, in the key area of public opinion they really are the only name in the pro-gun movement that the public knows. Sure there is the SAF and other organizations, but I can guarantee that 95% of the American public has never heard of any of those other organizations.

Now the anti-gunners have a ton of fragmented non-united groups such as Mayors Against Illegal Guns, Americans for Responsible Solutions, the Brady Campaign and a host of others. Because of this, they can not get one united voice and can't agree. Anti-gunners also can't point to one group like the NRA and say, "This is our group for gun control." The NRA really is the only name in pro-2nd Amendment that the public knows.

Senators and Congressman know that if you cross the 2nd Amendment the NRA will do their best to make sure that their constituents vote them out of office. Because of this fear the 2013 gun control laws were defeated.


Now, if the anti-gunners get together and join forces to make one large anti-gun group rather than many fragmented groups, we could be in trouble.
.

If you enjoyed reading about "Do we win because of the NRA rather fragmented groups?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Sam1911
April 22, 2013, 01:20 PM
Could be, maybe, but remember as well that these gun control groups have utter pittances in terms of membership. They're really tiny organizations, mostly of political actors and heavy-duty private financiers.

On the other hand, the NRA can say, "We represent 5,000,000 voters..."

These other groups can't claim 1/10th that, all together, maybe not 1/100th.

il_10
April 22, 2013, 01:35 PM
It's a convincing argument, but I don't think the synthesis implied in your conclusion could happen. The trouble with the anti-gun groups is they all think a bit differently.
Your average pro-gun person isn't die hard like most on this board are; they're okay with a few anti laws as long as they don't affect the kinds of guns he shoots and they ways he goes about getting those guns. On the other hand, they don't mind if everything stays the way it is or gets better (from a pro-rkba standpoint). More restrictive laws? Well, I guess if it'll make people safer and doesn't affect me. Less restrictive laws? Cool. But he still likes guns enough to support or be represented by a pro-gun group, and the only one he's likely heard of is the NRA.
So, the NRA, which has been around for a looooong time and is starting to take a more 0-compromise position, works for pretty much the whole spectrum of gun people.

On the other side, are the anti-gun folks. The divisions come because these folks really ARE divided. There are lots of Fudds who want a rifle to deer hunt with, but no handguns because they kill people. There are trap shooters who want their shotguns but don't see guns as defensive tools. There are people who want registration, background checks for everybody, bans on any "scary" looking guns, and all points in between. The trouble, from their position, is that from one point on the spectrum, another point ISN'T an acceptable position, like it is from the pro-RKBA position. The only place on the anti-RKBA scale that would accept happily every ecroachment would be the total-and-complete-ban-and-confiscation crowd; to them, every little step is helping the end goal, but those people are a HUGE minority over the simply un (or mis)-informed who are making decisions the best they know how to try and make us all safer. Misguided though their efforts are.
Just my .02

gym
April 22, 2013, 01:56 PM
Yes

Bio-Chem
April 22, 2013, 01:56 PM
The great thing about the NRA is that while it only has 5M members it's clout is much larger. There are quite a few non-NRA members who still are politically active in step with the NRA. I'd bet for every dues paying NRA member there are 3 others who don't pay dues, but still help the NRA show political clout.

2zulu1
April 22, 2013, 02:47 PM
Back in the 60s the only 2A organization was the NRA, and they did a good job for the pro 2A movement given their opposition. The anti 2A organizations are better organized now than they were 40+ years ago, but, it's public opinion to support the 2A now that's changed. I believe the major shift in supporting the 2A comes from, in part, women involvement in shooting sports, plus refusing to be a victim programs.

The public no longer needs newspaper editorials and the evening news on network TV as their only source of current events, as it did in past years.

I believe the average American is a lot smarter than politicians, but there's certainly a geographic schism in our country IMHO.

If you enjoyed reading about "Do we win because of the NRA rather fragmented groups?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!