# Who does the NRA really represent, overzealous gun owners, or gun manufacturers? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 23, 2013, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-does-the-nra-really-represent-overzealous-gun-owners-or-gun-manufacturers/656510 "2013-04-23T17:38:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2013, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-does-the-nra-really-represent-overzealous-gun-owners-or-gun-manufacturers/656510/81 "2013-04-24T16:02:59Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > **RTFirefly** believes this means the NRA wants all felons to get guns. If they wanted a process that would keep violent felons from regaining the right to own guns, it would be in place yesterday. > [@](#): > > Of course, **RTFirefly** himself is eager to have each and every one of those felons vote. > > Presumably, as long as they don’t vote for candidates that would resume funding of that relief program. When’s the last time a burglar broke into someone’s house, armed with a ballot? The risks of restoring gun rights to violent felons should be obvious. The risks of restoring the right to vote to those same felons, a bit less so. As you said the other day, one of these things is not like the other. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2013, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-does-the-nra-really-represent-overzealous-gun-owners-or-gun-manufacturers/656510/82 "2013-04-24T16:09:14Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > [Yep.](http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/14/us/felons-finding-it-easy-to-regain-gun-rights.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0) So when you made you claim you surely mean to say that not all felons can own guns, but only felons who: Are non-violent, when allowed by state law, who get their civil rights restored following the process for their states, and even then it is a long drawn out process: > [@](#): > > "Felons face steep odds, though, in states like California, where the governor’s office gives out only a handful of pardons every year, if that. > > “It’s a long, drawn-out process,” said Steve Lindley, chief of the State Department of Justice’s firearms bureau. That’s what you meant to say? Were you hoping I wasn’t going to read your cite? Was that you plan? ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2013, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-does-the-nra-really-represent-overzealous-gun-owners-or-gun-manufacturers/656510/83 "2013-04-24T16:11:36Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > If they wanted a process that would keep violent felons from regaining the right to own guns, it would be in place yesterday.When’s the last time a burglar broke into someone’s house, armed with a ballot? > > The risks of restoring gun rights to violent felons should be obvious. The risks of restoring the right to vote to those same felons, a bit less so. > > As you said the other day, one of these things is not like the other. We either trust these people to have their civil rights back or we don’t. If they’ve paid their debt to society and followed the laws of their state and the process to get their civil rights why shouldn’t it include all of them? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2013, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-does-the-nra-really-represent-overzealous-gun-owners-or-gun-manufacturers/656510/84 "2013-04-24T16:12:09Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > If they wanted a process that would keep violent felons from regaining the right to own guns, it would be in place yesterday. If that’s true, then you’ve lost. Utterly. The NRA is essentially ultra-powerful. Liberals have zero recourse against its implacable might and power. ---
**Author:** ![JXJohns](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jxjohns/32/469_2.png) [@JXJohns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JXJohns)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2013, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-does-the-nra-really-represent-overzealous-gun-owners-or-gun-manufacturers/656510/85 "2013-04-24T16:18:19Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > Because DiFi = “my side.” :rolleyes: Earlier, you identified youself as “we gun control folks”. If that is the group that you identify with, she is on your side. If you want to take this moment to disavow yourself from her group, call her out as batshit crazy and foaming at the mouth, the floor is yours… > [@](#): > > Look, every time a GOP Senator says something, I don’t equate that with “the GOP says.” If you want to play that game, find someone else to play with. Like it or not, she IS one of the faces of the modern gun control movement. I’d add Chuck Schumer, Michael Bloomberg, Joe Biden and a few others to that list as well. I can’t help who your “all-stars” are, but you need to recognize the fact they aren’t just some everyday joes with an opinion. > [@](#): > > Wow, it sounds like if people on the other side just talk about stuff you don’t like that never gets within a mile of legislation, it’s enough to get you guys ‘pushing the panic button over and over again.’ Look to 1994 when people just started talking about things that never came within a mile of legislation. How’d that work out? > [@](#): > > If we’d been like that as **actual pro-gun legislation** piled up over the past two decades, we libruls would be in such a continual tizzy that we wouldn’t stop spinning long enough to post to a message board. Do you forget the multiple librul hissy fits after the Heller decision was delivered? Not enough Xanax in the world to calm some of your side down. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2013, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-does-the-nra-really-represent-overzealous-gun-owners-or-gun-manufacturers/656510/86 "2013-04-24T16:48:25Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > If that’s true, then you’ve lost. Utterly. The NRA is essentially ultra-powerful. Liberals have zero recourse against its implacable might and power. It’s really simple. Mind if I spell it out? If you and I are having a tug-of-war, it might take awhile for either of us to win. But if one of us decides to pull in the same direction as the other, rather than the opposite direction, it’s no contest anymore. We move the rope across the line. That doesn’t require that either of us be “ultra-powerful” or any of the other stuff you say. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2013, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-does-the-nra-really-represent-overzealous-gun-owners-or-gun-manufacturers/656510/87 "2013-04-24T16:56:31Z")
> [@JXJohns](#): > > she is **on** your side Prepositions are important. This one’s the difference between “she is my side” and “she is **on** my side.” She is a U.S. Senator, of course, but she is still just one of 55 Democratic Senators. > [@](#): > > Like it or not, she IS one of the faces of the modern gun control movement. I’d add Chuck Schumer, Michael Bloomberg, Joe Biden and a few others to that list as well. I can’t help who your “all-stars” are, but you need to recognize the fact they aren’t just some everyday joes with an opinion. No, they’re not. But even what they think is a long way from legislation. > [@](#): > > Look to 1994 when people just started talking about things that never came within a mile of legislation. How’d that work out? I can’t even figure out what your point is. > [@](#): > > Do you forget the multiple librul hissy fits after the Heller decision was delivered? Not enough Xanax in the world to calm some of your side down. Maybe, but we didn’t go into a “we have to block anything the GOP sends up, because of the Heller decision.” Which is pretty much what you’re saying here: because some bad people made some bad suggestions that never got very far, we can’t even support Manchin-Toomey, even though it’s much weaker sauce than the stuff in the OP of that thread you linked to. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2013, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-does-the-nra-really-represent-overzealous-gun-owners-or-gun-manufacturers/656510/88 "2013-04-24T17:04:05Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > We either trust these people to have their civil rights back or we don’t. If they’ve paid their debt to society and followed the laws of their state and the process to get their civil rights why shouldn’t it include all of them? Because there’s obviously more of a risk associated with restoring gun rights to people who’ve already committed violent felonies, than is associated with restoring the franchise to them. What are they going to do, shoot somebody with a vote for Lyndon LaRouche? ---
**Author:** ![JXJohns](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jxjohns/32/469_2.png) [@JXJohns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JXJohns)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2013, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-does-the-nra-really-represent-overzealous-gun-owners-or-gun-manufacturers/656510/89 "2013-04-24T17:11:38Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > Prepositions are important. This one’s the difference between “she is my side” and “she is **on** my side.” She is a U.S. Senator, of course, **but she is still just one of 55 Democratic Senators**. That’s a good one. Keep thinking like that. Just don’t be surprised that nothing gets passed as long as she’s still office. She is personally responsible for a good chunk of the NRA’s members. > [@](#): > > I can’t even figure out what your point is. What happened in 1994? Hmm… Oh yeah, an entire class of firearms was banned based upon they way they looked, not their impact on crime, not their “lethality” just because they looked menacing. That legislation started as simple conversations that were miles from turning to legislation that eventually turned to shitty law. > [@](#): > > Maybe, but we didn’t go into a “we have to block anything the GOP sends up, because of the Heller decision.” Which is pretty much what you’re saying here: because some bad people made some bad suggestions that never got very far, we can’t even support Manchin-Toomey, even though it’s much weaker sauce than the stuff in the OP of that thread you linked to. Those “bad suggestions” were amendments along with the M&T amendment. DIFI introduced her AW and high cap magazine ban and it lost 40-60. Lautenberg added his own high cap mag ban and it lost 46-54. These were not bad suggestions, they were bad law and treated as such. The major difference in latest crap amendments and what you read in the thread I linked to is that some of the suggestions in that thread will actually have an impact upon gun violence, rather than the “weak sauce” (your words) M&T amendment, which would do nothing. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2013, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-does-the-nra-really-represent-overzealous-gun-owners-or-gun-manufacturers/656510/90 "2013-04-24T17:18:02Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > :dubious: It’s entirely fair to say that NRA members are more overzealous (about the politics of it all) than the average gun owner. It was not always so, but has been so at all times since the “Cincinatti Revolution” of 1977. Since you insist on pursuing this little sidetrack… No. “overzealous” is a value judgement. More zealous than one ought to be, not more zealous than the next guy. It’s fair to say NRA members might be more zealous than the average gun owner, not that they are, but “more overzealous” doesn’t really make sense grammatically, and it certainly does set up the debate as a choice between the lesser of two evils. The fact that some people can’t even see that says more about their own assumptions, politically, than anything else. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2013, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-does-the-nra-really-represent-overzealous-gun-owners-or-gun-manufacturers/656510/91 "2013-04-24T17:30:08Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > . . .and it certainly does set up the debate as a choice between the lesser of two evils. That is exactly what this whole thing **is,** the “two evils” being guns and gun control. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2013, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-does-the-nra-really-represent-overzealous-gun-owners-or-gun-manufacturers/656510/92 "2013-04-24T17:36:24Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > Because there’s obviously more of a risk associated with restoring gun rights to people who’ve already committed violent felonies, than is associated with restoring the franchise to them. What are they going to do, shoot somebody with a vote for Lyndon LaRouche? If they want to shoot somebody they’ll shoot somebody. Laws against gun ownership won’t prevent that. They can always just buy a gun off a streetcorner or steal one. But what those laws will do is prevent them from lawfully owning a gun and using it for self defense and hunting and target shooting. If states want to have their own laws about how felons regain their civil rights after serving their time I’m fine with that. It shouldn’t be easy, but as your own post states, it’s not easy. What’s the motivation for the governor of MA or CA to grant someone their right to own a gun back? If they do that and a crime is later committed they are going to get the fallout. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2013, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-does-the-nra-really-represent-overzealous-gun-owners-or-gun-manufacturers/656510/93 "2013-04-24T18:23:52Z")
> [@bobot](#): > > O.K. I don’t have a horse in this race. Politics pisses me off, and beer makes me happy. Is the above to say that Mr. Busch beer sold his NRA soul to Obama so that he could buy Modelo? (As a beer freak, I am slightly familiar with InBev and their buying “opportunities”) I wonder if the NRA is going to boycott Busch beer now. > [@waterj2](#): > > Like you, I’m skeptical of the claim that it’s all for the gun manufacturers. On the other hand, back during election season, the NRA had a [Tumblr page](http://iamthenra.tumblr.com/), and it really seems to be more of a celebration of buying more guns than anything else. Now that I look at it, I can’t recall why I remember that this was an official NRA page, but I’m pretty sure I did verify that at the time I heard about it. The NRA processing time for new members tripled at one point because of how many people were applying for membership. I remember an NRA article celebrating the large population of new gun owners and telling long time gun owners that they should be patient with the shortages and to be nice to the newbies. > [@PhillyGuy](#): > > Good point. The gun manufacturers support the NRA not to gain control, but to avoid the Smith & Wesson scenario. That was my impression. > [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](#): > > They are all about their membership. I think they are all about a specific vision of the second amendment and even if their membership numbers fell, unless there was a change in the leadership, their policies would not change. [quote=“RTFirefly, post:62, topic:656510”] I’ve been in a lot of gun threads, but I’ve yet to see any that don’t involve more guns, arming more people.Speaking of blatant misrepresentations. [QUOTE] ☹ I’ve been proposing licensing and registration for a while now… Of course the logical companions to those rules would be pre-emption of local and state rules and a national carry permit. > [@](#): > > The current system is like the Maginot Line, all you have to do to get around it is go through Belgium/gun show/buy a gun from someone off Craigslist. Manchin-Toomey would have extended the line partway across Belgium. And this was too much for the NRA. What percentage of guns used in crime do you think wer purchased at gun shows? Sure we should close it but without any record of who owns which guns (or sting operations), how the hell do you know if a private citizen has sold a gun without a background check? > [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > I cannot fully discern what this is supposed to mean, but if this is intended to suggest that they did not support universal background checks in Montana, then you are wrong on this point as well. > > Even in Montana, 79% of the people supported a universal background check. > > [http://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/MT\_FactSheet.pdf](http://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/MT_FactSheet.pdf) > > This is one of the reasons that Max Baucus’ retirement is a good thing. Bring on Schweizter! Baucus voted for the 1994 AWB and almost lost his senate seat over it. I see your cite from the Bloomberg organiztion but no link to the poll itself or the methodology. Are these things important or can I just take that 79% number and say that Montana supported this bill? > [@XT](#): > > If they had focused on a few of the saner proposals they probably would have gotten them through… > Instead of getting a few rational things through, they pretty much got nothing accomplished except to show their hand and set off the more paranoid elements on the gun ownership side…and even worry or cause concern with the saner, more middle of the road gun owners that maybe there was something to the paranoia. It was stupid, but predictable. I was a little disappointed. I think gun violence is an issue, there are almost as many people who die from gun violence as there are people who die from car crashes (30K versus 40K). Licensing and registration are clearly constitutionally permissible and has a history of working, instead they went with a constitutionally questionable bill that has a history of making no fucking difference in the body count. > [@RTFirefly](#): > > Because DiFi = “my side.” :rolleyes: She is certainly the standard bearer for your side. Her sentiments were at the forefront of the anti-gun push and Obama had adopted much of her approach. Next time choose more carefully. Success has a thousand parents, failure is an orphan so right now DiFi is an orphan. The recriminations within the anti-gun crowd right now are not only directed at the evil NRA, a lot of it is directed internally at people like Di-Fi. > [@](#): > > If we’d been like that as **actual pro-gun legislation** piled up over the past two decades, we libruls would be in such a continual tizzy that we wouldn’t stop spinning long enough to post to a message board. What pro-gun legislation has the anti-gun side let slide without tizzying? As far as I can tell, the most significant pro-gun legislation was passed in 1789 when they adopted the constitution. I can’t think of very many pro-gun laws that were passed after that (I suppose the law clarifying that gun manufacturers are not responsible for the criminal acts of others any more than knife manufacturers are responsible for the criminal acts of others, is pro-gun but it seems directed at cutting off frivolous nuisance lawsuits). > [@RTFirefly](#): > > The risks of restoring gun rights to violent felons should be obvious. The risks of restoring the right to vote to those same felons, a bit less so. You realize that not all felonies are violent felonies right? But I generally agree with you that we should severely restrict the ability of even non-violent felons to own firearms. > [@RTFirefly](#): > > Prepositions are important. This one’s the difference between “she is my side” and “she is **on** my side.” She is a U.S. Senator, of course, but she is still just one of 55 Democratic Senators. She was the standard bearer for your side for the critical weeks when a comrpmise could have been reached. Next time choose more carefully. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2013, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-does-the-nra-really-represent-overzealous-gun-owners-or-gun-manufacturers/656510/94 "2013-04-24T18:29:08Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > If they want to shoot somebody they’ll shoot somebody. Laws against gun ownership won’t prevent that. They can always just buy a gun off a streetcorner or steal one. Laws against **anything** will fail to entirely prevent that thing; that does not make the laws useless. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2013, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-does-the-nra-really-represent-overzealous-gun-owners-or-gun-manufacturers/656510/95 "2013-04-24T18:42:49Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > That is exactly what this whole thing **is,** the “two evils” being guns and gun control. And THIS is the problem. You are assuming that guns are evil. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2013, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-does-the-nra-really-represent-overzealous-gun-owners-or-gun-manufacturers/656510/96 "2013-04-24T19:05:49Z")
> [@XT](#): > > Even assuming that the NRA ‘really’ represents gun manufacturers, how does this diverge from the lobbying wants of the gun owners who are members? To me, the NRA is a gun rights lobbying group, so ISTM they naturally would meet both groups requirements…right? My dad and his company are both members/contributors to the NRA, and he seems pretty happy with their efforts wrt lobbying for things he thinks are important, so I guess I’m not seeing the issue between whether the NRA represents one over the other…like I said, ISTM they represent both, and that’s the way both groups within the NRA want it. One thing I’ve heard of that’s a potential divisive issue is product safety and liability. If the issue is liability for a manufacturing defect, gun manufacturers are going to be on one side and gun owners are going to be on the other. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2013, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-does-the-nra-really-represent-overzealous-gun-owners-or-gun-manufacturers/656510/97 "2013-04-24T21:03:25Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > I recall seeing reports as far back as the late 80s/early 90s that the NRA leadership’s positions and what they advocated for were in disagreement with what over 90% of the common membership believed. The general membership of the NRA and the leadership appear to be pretty different groups of people with separate agendas. > > How much of that is industry money and how much that is the fact that only the most intense believers are likely to make gun advocacy their career I don’t know. > [@RTFirefly](#): > > I have a hard time believing this. It’s been obvious for decades where the NRA is coming from, and people don’t tend to keep on sending in their dues to organizations whose direction they are unhappy with. > > Maybe there was a period of a few years after the 1978 coup when there were still a lot of nonpolitical sportsmen and gun enthusiasts in the NRA, but that was 35 years ago. By now, if you didn’t like what the NRA stands for, you wouldn’t be a member. There are surely exceptions to that, but not in numbers that matter. > [@RTFirefly](#): > > You mean the batshit stuff I linked to hasn’t done the trick? Holy cow. RTFirefly: You seem to underestimate the power of tribal appeals. Der has it nailed. The NRA is composed of delusionals, gulls, and a small number of gun manufacturers. It is controlled by the manufacturers and the delusionals. Today, 3/4 of the current and former NRA membership supports background checks for example. Not only does the NRA oppose this measure, they promised that they would include such a vote on their scorecard. In other words they _lobbied_ to keep guns in the hands of lunatics and criminals. They could have taken the passive route, but they decided not to. [PolitiFact | Lee Leffingwell says polls show 90 percent of Americans and 74 percent of NRA members support criminal background checks before all gun buys](http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2013/apr/04/lee-leffingwell/lee-leffingwell-says-polls-show-90-percent-america/) This site pegs NRA membership support of background checks at 57%: [http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2013/04/18/1886811/morning-joe-host-shames-senators-who-killed-gun-reform-were-the-90-percent-and-were-going-to-win/](http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2013/04/18/1886811/morning-joe-host-shames-senators-who-killed-gun-reform-were-the-90-percent-and-were-going-to-win/) The evidence is incontrovertible: the NRA is an industry lobby that poses as a human rights organization. Its membership is composed of loons, gulls, paranoids and those of weak disposition. ---
**Author:** ![MsRobyn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/90ced4/32.png) [@MsRobyn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MsRobyn)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2013, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-does-the-nra-really-represent-overzealous-gun-owners-or-gun-manufacturers/656510/98 "2013-04-24T21:30:52Z")
NM ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2013, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-does-the-nra-really-represent-overzealous-gun-owners-or-gun-manufacturers/656510/99 "2013-04-24T21:31:42Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > :dubious: It’s entirely fair to say that NRA members are more overzealous (about the politics of it all) than the average gun owner. It was not always so, but has been so at all times since the “Cincinatti Revolution” of 1977. Cite? I was once an NRA member. I run in circles with loads of NRA members. Which of us are overzealous? I falsify your assertion all by myself, and to reinstate my membership I need only pay minimum dues, around $20. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2013, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-does-the-nra-really-represent-overzealous-gun-owners-or-gun-manufacturers/656510/100 "2013-04-24T21:37:40Z")
nm [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-does-the-nra-really-represent-overzealous-gun-owners-or-gun-manufacturers/656510.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/who-does-the-nra-really-represent-overzealous-gun-owners-or-gun-manufacturers/656510.md?page=6)