What’s your definition? The NRA has a couple million members and can influence Congressmen just by threatening to inform their members how they voted.
Another reason the NRA almost always wins is because pro-gun voters actually vote based on guns. The majority of voters who support gun control it’s not even a top ten issue for them. Be honest, how many of you who support gun control are going to support candidate A, with an NRA rating of F, but who also wants to cut Social Security vs. candidate B, with an NRA rating of A, but a staunch supporter of the social safety net?
Or better yet, how many of you in red states will support a gun control Democrat in a primary over an NRA Democrat, knowing that it would increase the chance that a Republican would win? I’m sure there will be some noises about primary challenges against the four Democrats who voted against the amendment. Anyone want to bet how many of those will result in a new Democrat in that seat?
With millions of members. If they aren’t grassroots, I’d like to know what is. And there are bigger lobbying groups money-wise with less influence. In the end, the NRA is backed by their voters. No one fears NRA advertising campaigns. They fear facing candidates with a better NRA rating than them.
](Grassroots - Wikipedia)
The NRA in no way, shape or form fits the description of a grassroots movement. Please stop using misleading terms. If you are going to claim you didn’t realize what the term actually meant, then please stop using words you don’t know and/or understand.
In so far as the NRA ratings have any meaning at all, it seems to be that “F” is synonymous with (D), and “A” is synonymous with ®. And given that political party is so strongly correlated with views towards the social safety net, I’d be surprised if those hypothetical candidates even exist.
As for “grassroots”, the term means a movement that’s organized from the bottom up. Occupy Wall Street is an excellent example: A bunch of little people all came together. There wasn’t anyone on the top calling the shots or scheduling events or even printing an official newsletter: Everything that happened did so because of individuals using their individual resources to pool together. By contrast, the NRA was formed by the gun manufacturers, organized by the gun manufacturers, and is run by the gun manufacturers. The number of members is certainly impressive, but it doesn’t say anything about how it was organized (and in fact, many grassroots movements don’t even have formal membership rolls at all).
I’m not sure what you mean, but I thought it was established fact that the NRA gets most of it’s funding from gun manufacturers. That wasn’t always the case. At one time it really did represent gun owners. I used to be a member in fact.
but that’s the thing. My impression is that they present such a biased view of the issues and their membership either doesn’t get or doesn’t trust other sources that they are able to effectively manipulate them.
I mean even with Alex Jones, if you just read his tripe long enough and nothing else, it almost starts to sound plausible (depending on the issue - somethings require complete ignorance of certain subjects).
Your impression is correct, they are biased. Just as every other advocacy group is biased. The question that needs to be answered is why they are better able to persuade their members than other groups.
I think part of it is that the leaders of the current push for gun control come from states that actually do substantially infringed on gun rights. Illinois is still not in compliance with the Heller decision and New York wouldn’t issue a concealed carry permit to a saint. I can forgive gun rights supporters for not trusting these guys(Obama and Bloomberg).
IDK, but my guess is that a big part of it is carry over from when they really were a genuine advocacy group for gun owners. Sure, they had a bias but presumably it was one that was in your favor. I think over the years that was co-opted but the trust and goodwill that had been built up remained.
If things like this don’t substantially eat away at that, and I think you’re starting to see that they are, I don’t know what will.
This is just silly. The NRA is the most perfect example of an issue driven movement that represents the interests of it’s members that you could come up with.
You could take every dollar they have away tomorrow and it would barely dent the power that they have. Microsoft alone, just one company, spends more on lobbying than the NRA does. (8 Million in 2012) Google spent twice that in 2012. The computer and software industry spent 133 Million lobbying that year.
Is anyone crying about how powerful the mighty software industry lobby is?
How does this compare to the NRA? They spent 3 Million in 2012.
It seems to need to be repeated in every thread: The NRA’s power comes from it’s members. The millions of people who consistently vote for their gun rights above other issues that take their direction from the NRA.
That’s what makes the NRA powerful. It’s the perfect example of people working together to exert political influence.
It’s not exactly grassroots, since it has established leadership and structure. But if it were somehow shut down tomorrow a grassroots movement would immediately form which would rebuild it immediately.
Don’t the majority of gun owners (something north of 80% I heard) support expanded background checks? Didn’t the NRA itself speak in favor of them not too many years ago? I don’t understand how the NRA claim to represent anyone but the most extreme elements in its own organization. Well and the gun manufacturers.
A super majority of NRA members support universal background checks. So the NRA does not support the views of its members. It is a rogue lobbyist, at the beck and call of gun manufacturers.