Yeah, the best is when they get together, and babies get shot. Yay, America!!
Huh? 
I question the premise of the OP. If one compares the US starting from 1972 has, in fact, reproductive rights decreased overall?
I long ago vowed not to sleep with any Republicans. Does that count?
You can have my fun when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers. Or, you can just take me to the fair!
The John Hopkins poll that backed your last cite did not use NRA lists to contact members. It relied on the participant to identify whether they were a member or not. One has to wonder how accurate that poll truly was after looking at the surge in membership numbers.
That sounds like a glaring oversight. Do you have a cite so I can read up a little more?
It’s in your last cite:
It may be true. However. the significant rise in membership numbers along with the lack of any substantial or notable outcry from members regarding the failed legislation should make one wonder. If 75% of members were truly at odds with the leadership, you’d think they would be demanding change. I’m a member. I haven’t seen anything worth noting in that regard.
Here is a link to the study:
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1300512?query=featured_home&#t=article
If I am reading it wrong, I apologize.
Of course we have a package. We just don’t go boasting about it nor waggling it hither and thither. 
It’s just housed indoors and from it springs the entire human race. I’ve long thought that Oakminster’s Lysistratra suggestion could move things along rather rapidly for any women’s cause.
Maybe some of it is generational. The second wave feminists were a fairly nasty bunch of women and blood was shed, figuratively speaking. They got a lot done. War is like that.
This generation talks a fine game and is sufficiently snarky but seems to be stuck in gridlock in many of its most urgent issues.
Thanks. Sometimes I’m a skimmer, rather than a reader.
If I follow correctly, it sounds like you suspect a coordinated or coincidental trend of mis-representing NRA membership without having to show their credentials.
Does a scientific survey even have access to NRA membership lists? I thought the NRA protected their members private information.
But to your other point about membership swelling, I don’t find it hard to imagine gun enthusiasts who felt under siege to be motivated to join. Just as I can imagine that people who disagree with the policy may just let their membership lapse once it comes around for renewal. I can also imagine that some members may have a preference but not so passionately that it would persuade them to drop a longstanding membership.
Caveat: just wild-ass guesses on my part. I feel like I’m hijacking the thread. (But thanks for the extra insight!)
No, but there are a lot of them. And while they only control 50% of the vote, they control 100% of the vagina.
Yes, but in Texas if they withhold the vagina you can shoot them. It’s the law!
In my personal opinion, prochoice political forces blew it badly, strategically speaking, from the early 1980s onward.
ERROR #1: Letting RTL opponents claim the moral argument while they, the prochoice faction, defended the right to an abortion on the grounds that it had been ruled legal.
ERROR #2: Mincing around on cautious tiptoes about any ethical reason why abortion SHOULD be legal when they did, occasionally, depart from “Abortion is our right because it has been made legal”. Lots of short buzzwordy phrases nearly all of them sounding like prim euphemisms. For way too long they refrained from arguing that RTL forces were really trying to punish sex with unwanted pregnancy; and they still refrain way too much from going head-to-head with RTL folks about which sexual-social moral values are the good set: open sexual freedom or a return to the 1950s
ERROR #3: Dancing away from the idea that death or killing is involved, again sounding like they were squirmy on the subject and preferred euphemisms. The Kleenex approach: no issue it’s just tissue! so it’s OK to throw it away! And thus letting RTL paint them as baby killers, fetus murderers.
In summary, they’ve been reactive rather than proactive on the topic since 1973, letting the opposition frame the arguments while their own argument has mostly been of the form “ooh, no, not really, what they’re saying isn’t the way it is at all, move along, nothing scandalous to see here”.
Instead they should have been framing it as a moral issue themselves and exposed the moral hypocrisy of their opponents far earlier and angrier and loudly. They’ve done some of that around the issue of whether or not RTL folks care about babies after they are born or only before, but not nearly enough about the moral righteousness of a non-double-standard sexual freedom. They should be outing every RTL or RTL-supporting person who is sexually active outside of the deliberately reproductive zone, doubly so for any who are found obtaining abortions for themselves or their relatives while continuing to espouse their politics. They should be publicizing the RTL faction’s close ties and fondness for restricting or banning birth control, that should be a HUGE issue since birth control reduces unintentional pregnancies and abortions and yet the RTL folks tend to oppose it, their leadership more than their rank and file.
That’s part of it. There’s also the whole “women’s contraceptive services don’t have to be covered by insurance companies” thing, as well.
Only if they withhold it fraudulently, after sunset. If you’re going to quote the law, you better get it right!!
I’m not sure of this premise. Aside from the many post above that women’s rights != reproductive rights, I also don’t think the NRA is characterized quite right. From the gun rights side, the GOA has criticized the NRA because they feel the latter offers too many concessions. Gun control types look at the NRA and see them as obstinate and rejecting “common sense” restrictions, but often don’t realize that the NRA doesn’t see those as common sense. The GOA operates on the “slippery slope” ideology, and resists any law/statute/change, even if unlikely to reduce rights in the short or long term.
That’s an excellent idea, isn’t it, ladies? 
Step into this alley for a moment, Oak. The guys wanna have a little talk with you. [swings baseball bat]
wat
Yes !