I fully understand the meanings given to “militia” and “well regulated” back then.
Yes we have gone over it before and since I guess we shouldn’t do it here again suffice it to say I disagree with the rather broad reading you seem to give it. We’ll probably have to agree to disagree on this.
Could one of the pro-gun people answer something for me please?
How many people in the USA own guns?
How many are members of the NRA?
thank you in advance.
Somewhere around 80,000,000 lawful gun owners reside in the USA.
There are approximately 4,300,000 members in the NRA according to Wikipedia.
So you’re saying it’s the government’s responsibility to provide both availability and funding for your 2nd amendment rights fulfillment? This is what YOU sound like.
Roughly
90mm / 3mm
Most numbers thrown around are 4 million NRA members and 80 million gun owners in the US.
Thank you catsix.
Here then is my question. The NRA represents about one out of every 20 gun owners in the USA. That is 5%.
Why do they have so much clout if they respresent so few of the people that they claim to speak for?
Cite?
I’m a rather big supporter of defending all human rights. I’d imagine most people who vigorously defend the 2nd are.
Besides, the idea that there as many people who are pro-2nd anti-1st as pro-1st anti-2nd is absurd to me. This is a particularly nutty tu quoque.
No, of course not. Quote me where I said anything like this at all.
You want to attempt to raise the price of gun ownership punitively to discourage or eliminate gun ownership. I’ve argued against that. In what way does that resemble advocating the government buying everyone guns?
You are displaying no intellectual honesty in this thread whatsoever except when it accidentally slips in here and there.
Around 60 million.
Around 4.3 million.
Both accessible through a very quick google search. It didn’t even ask if I was pro-gun before telling me.
I don’t know how either could be proven, but from the pro gun boards that I frequent, 1st amendment rights are equally supported. A popular quote seen often is “The second amendment gives the first amendment teeth”. On the flip side, I can pick several prominent boards where the first amendment is almost deified (and rightly so) and the 2nd is shat upon by the majority of denizens.
Well, I suppose you could say that. There are NRA members who don’t own firearms, but roughly yes, 1 in 20 firearms owners belongs to the NRA.
They raise an incredible amount of money through donations from members and non-members alike, and they are very organized with an entire branch devoted to lobbying.
I am not currently a member of the NRA, although I own multiple firearms. The reason that I am not a member of the NRA right now is that I think they compromise far too often.
The NRA is one of the largest lobbying organizations and they have no serious competition. The majority of gun owners in the country are lazy about protecting their rights.
1st amendment rights aren’t nitpicked like 2nd. For example, an equivalent of the Assault Weapons Ban for the 1st Amendment would be a ban on German words, because they sound harsh. :rolleyes:
Does anyone have any information or statistics on the political effectiveness of the NRA in terms of its political endorsements?
A neighbor of mine had a lawn sign which indicated he was a NRA member and he voted. he had a second one from the McCain/Palin campaign. I take it that the NRA backed the McCain/Palin ticket. And they lost.
How successful are they in poltics? And I do not mean just backing the candidate who will win regardless and then claiming their support was decisive. Are there cases of the NRA getting really angry at some office holder and being responsible for their defeat? How frequent is this?
4 million people is a pretty large active lobby. Why would they need a significant portion of the gun owning population?
Besides that, there’s no reason to infer that only members of the NRA support a gun rights advocacy agenda. I’m not a member of the NRA (despite their ridiculous portrayal as an extremist lobby, they’re actually pretty conservative and weak in their defense of gun rights), but clearly I’m a staunch gun rights advocate.
People give them money to educate, lobby, and fight for legislation. 4+ million of them. Are they supposed to say “until we get at least 50 million members, we clearly have no mandate to try to accomplish our agenda”?
Same place as the cite for the allegation that first amendment defenders don’t care about the second.
Many gung-ho gun rights activists have a MUCH more limited interpretation of the first amendment than I do.
Our experience differs then. I wish there were more people who took an expansive view of both Amendments.
Most people won’t say they are anti-either amendment. Just provide VERY restrictive interpretations of the one they care less about.
Really? Our first amendment rights are pissed on from a great height repeatedly. I’d say the repeated common endorsement of religion by government (such as the handwaving involved with ceremonial deism) is at least an equivalent of the AWB.
And, to repeat, I think both are wrong.
It’s a horrible side track, but would you say people on those boards are more or less likely than a person on, say, the ACLU board to view the inclusion of under God in the pledge of allegiance as being a violation of the First Amendment?
Well, I think it’s pretty obvious there is a large chunk of the population, and entire advocacy groups who opposed the second amendment entirely. I’m not sure more than a tiny fringe oppose the first amendment as a whole.
You made the much more specific claim - someone here just claimed that there was anti-2nd amendment sentiment out there, whereas you claimed specifically that they were equal. Not only is that a tu quoque fallacy (it’s not like both sides being wrong makes a right), but I suggest it’s pretty absurd to anyone looking at it honestly.
Where have I even suggested both sides being wrong makes it right??? That is exactly what I am saying - BOTH SIDES ARE WRONG! I want people to defend the First, as well as the Second.
And while I agree with you that there are more people out there who support the repeal fo the second than the first, I think that is an artificial distinction. If you want me to rephrase it, I’ll say that a lamentably high number of people with an expansive view of the second amendment have a restrictive one of the coverage of the first. And vice versa.
Are the percentages of each group exactly the same? I don’t know, nor do I care in the final analysis. But there are way too many of each type in each group of supporters.