According to Mother Jones, NRA membership is somewhere between 3 and 4 million. Obviously, membership varies from year to year. Cite. How does 1.3% of the population manage to maintain such a stranglehold on a national gun policy?
Possible answers:
Money. The 1.3% along with gun manufacturers contribute to the political system in a manner disproportionate to their actual number.
The NRA scorecard. Every politician is graded by the NRA (actually by the PAC of the NRA) based upon their voting record on gun rights.
Threats and intimidation? I don’t know. I’m grasping. Feel free to add your own.
I submit that it is not the NRA that is preventing legislation from passing but gun owners themselves. According to the Washington Post, 36% of households have a gun. Cite. To me, this is where the real power lies. This leads to my resolution:
Resolved: That those that support increased gun regulation should stop focusing on the NRA and start focusing on gun owners.
Certainly gun owners are a motivated voting block as a whole and some relative few are highly active in politics showing up to legislative sessions and whatnot.
The NRA is the entity that effectively organizes those people. They have exceptionally detailed information on legislation being proposed and make it very easy for members to know where and when to show up or who to write or call to oppose that legislation.
Further, the NRA spends a fortune on outside spending (as opposed to direct lobbying). Buying ads and whatnot.
Perhaps their most effective tactic is “primarying” any conservative candidate who does not toe-the-line to their satisfaction. For instance the NRA went after Joe Manchin (West Virginia senator) who is reliably a gun supporter and had been recommended by the NRA after Manchin sponsored a bill requiring background checks at trade shows. Manchin even worked with the NRA on the bill and added things they liked to the bill. The NRA still went after him in the next election.
It is that ability to rile up the base (which are about as close to single-issue voters as you can find) and spend massive amounts on ads that scares incumbent republicans from getting anywhere near gun legislation.
So yes, the NRA is powerful. Very powerful but it derives that power from a comparatively small but extremely motivated and big enough base to achieve their legislative goals.
I don’t know the numbers (and unable to easily look it up now) but I’d be willing to bet most of their money comes from the gun industry.
The NRA only has something like three million members. While that is not small neither is it particularly large (especially if it is true that over a third of Americans own a gun)…
According to the link in the OP, it is not true that 1/3 of Americans are gun owners but that 1/3 of houses have a gun in them. I don’t know if the number of gun owners is discernible. If I own a gun, does my wife count as a gun owner too? I honestly don’t know.
While it is possible that the gun industry contributes a substantial portion to the NRA, the gun industry isn’t really that large compared to most other industries. I don’t understand how they are different than the car industry, which dwarfs guns by comparison, but is highly regulated.
Ok. Even at a third of houses that is still far more than their three million members which was the point I was trying to make.
As for the gun industry being small (depends what you consider “small”) there is no industry on the other side spending money to push back. No industry running ads in opposition to them on the gun issue.
I think their most potent threat is not in the general election, because let’s face it, eight out of ten NRA members are voting Republican no matter what, but in the primaries. They can use their clout in the primaries to keep Republicans in line. This is where they can get the most leverage.
The idea that “the NRA is a front for the gun industry” is commonly advanced by gun control proponents, who are commonly from the left side of the political spectrum, and often play the “evil big business” card. With considerable success, I might add. But it’s not true.
The “gun industry” itself is minuscule, with annual sales of around 15 billion. (In comparison, entry into the bottom of the top ten U.S. industries list starts at around 800 billion.
The NRA is powerful because the principles it espouses are shared by many, many Americans who vote. Simple as that.
Taking as accurate the percent of folks that support UBC, that figure doesn’t speak to the depth of that support. If it’s weak or tepid support for UBC, then other things could motivate or crowd out their feelings on UBC.
Here are the questions asked in the last one. Some of those poll questions look to me like classic push-polling techniques. I don’t think it’s an honest or representative survey. YMMV.
Seems like they’re doing a decent enough job representing gun owners to win a favorable opinion from most of them.
Also, as far as I know, the most recent survey on gun ownership was this one by the WSJ / NBC News in August (PDF). It found that 48% of respondents answered “Yes” to “Do you, or does anyone in your household, own a gun of any kind?”
ETA: I suspect headlines trumpeting the news that nearly half of all American households own a gun are rather sparse.
According to Whack-a-Mole’s last poll, 26% of gun owners are NRA members. Sadly, I suspect that tells us more about the (in)accuracy of Whack-a-Mole’s cite than anything else.
The thing is, an organization need not actually enroll a numerical majority of their interest group to be an effective advocate. ISTM the NRA doees not mind if a large number of gun owners are “free riders” who do not pay dues but agree with their goals, benefit from their effort, and will let their elected officials know.
Also, as mentioned earlier, their constituency (both members and sympathizers) is more likely to hold a hard line on this specific issue and be highly motivated about it. The opposite side of the gun control issue contains a lot of people for whom it is NOT a deal-breaker.
The lobbying power of the NRA is leveraged beyond that of any similarly sized organization because every politician knows that every member is a gun owner and at least some of them ain’t wrapped too tight.
Ignoring E-DUB’s snarky swipe at gun owners, JRD is correct. I have family and friends throughout rural Texas and Oklahoma with many (most?) gun owners of different types - farmers needing pest control, hunters, target shooters, those owning guns for protection, etc. Few to none are NRA members nor do they actively seek NRA input or guidance on voting. What they do have is similar viewpoints as the NRA and vote similarly.
Overemphasis on the NRA is confusing correlation with causation. The NRA could disappear tomorrow and precious little would change about voting habits.