NRA Membership Surges By 100,000 In Wake Of Sandy Hook Shooting

[Purveyor]

The National Rifle Association's paying member ranks have grown by 100,000 in the wake of the December school shooting in Newtown, Conn., the organization told Politico on Thursday.

In the days since the Dec. 14 massacre -- in which a gunman armed with a military-style assault rifle and high-capacity magazines shot and killed 26 people, including 20 young children -- the NRA's membership increased from 4.1 million to 4.2 million, Politico's Mike Allen reports. New members must pay a fee of $25, and in return get access to NRA events and a free gift.

In the week after the shooting, Fox News reported that the NRA was claiming an average of 8,000 new members a day. High-profile mass shootings are often followed by periods of increased interest in the NRA, but representatives said this rate was higher than unusual.

As the NRA increases its overall membership, there have also been isolated reports of former members abandoning the organization following a controversial press conference by its top lobbyist, Wayne LaPierre, in which he argued that more guns were needed in schools to prevent future mass shootings.

MORE...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/10/nra-membership_n_2449236.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

[virginia mountainman]

1. No surprise their.....

As pointed out in many other threads, one must PAY to be a member of the NRA.... You can join a mailing list for free at the 50,000 member Brady campaign and be considered a "member" of the 50,000. But don't worry, they will make their money by selling your email to other people!

Democrats better be wary of the road they are going down. They are pulling at a tiger's tail.

[Cary]

2. What is the NRA going to do?

Turn its 0.83% candidate support effectiveness rate against us?



It's a new political environment virginia mountainman. In fact there's breaking news, right this minute, of yet another school shooting. This time in California.

[Eleanors38]

7. Which ban do you think will stop these shootings?

"The suspected gunman, also a student, was taken into custody, sheriff's officials said. Pruitt said a shotgun had been recovered from the scene."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-california-school-shooting-20130110,0,6293844.story

[Cary]

8. I don't know.

Who needs military style weapons and high capacity magazines?

[Eleanors38]

16. Well, as a friend told me once during an argument...

"We could both do without your ideas and beliefs, but you have a right to blab them."

I know it's difficult to accept, but rights are not based on needs. The Aurora theater killer used a shotgun when his super-duper mag. jammed. How will a shotgun be termed "military style," esp. when the SCOTUS Miller decision specifically termed it of no military value?

Prohibition leads to prohibition, not sound policy.

[Cary]

17. I didn't ask your friend. I asked you.

Who needs military style weapons and high capacity magazines?

Notice that I answered your question. I said I didn't know. It's perfectly okay to admit that you don't know especially since I am yet to find a gun advocate, or anyone else for that matter, who can give a good answer to that question.

"Prohibition leads to prohibition" is a good bumper sticker slogan. It's a lot like "Small government," "Moochers," "Free stuff," ... Myself, I tend to ignore slogans and delve right into the facts and circumstances, like who really needs military style weapons and high capacity magazines?

[spin]

18. I assume you are talking about modern semi-automatic rifles that look similar ...

to the weapons currently used by many military forces worldwide. I own an actual military rifle, a bolt action Swedish Mauser made during the WWII time frame. Of course this rifle is outdated by today's standards but often military rifles or rifles that incorporate military technology have become popular with civilian shooters.

The AR-15 and similar rifles are growing in popularity with shooters because they offer significant advantages over older more common style rifles.

The AR-15

The AR-15 series of rifles are the ideal firearms for the purpose at hand. Having been around for several decades and having seen considerable combat and widespread use, the AR-15 has evolved into a reliable, robust, and accurate weapon. It has managed to function under all types of conditions or been improved to do so. The following describe a few of the areas where the AR-15 excels.

Flexibility

The AR-15 is perhaps the most flexible firearm ever developed; in seconds, a carbine can be switched over to a long-range rifle by swapping upper receivers. With options available for almost every part of the rifle, a rifle can be custom tailored to an individuals specific needs and desires.

Accuracy

Today’s AR-15’s are capable of providing MOA accuracy or better. The AR-15 now dominates service rifle matches.

Reliability

Current AR-15 rifles are extremely reliable and suffer none of the problems experienced at its inception. Through advanced engineering and manufacturing the AR-15 has evolved into a dependable firearm as capable as any other.

Proven Performance

As one of the most widely issued military arms in history, the AR-15 series has proven itself though nearly 4 decades of military service. It has been used by most of the armies in the free world, and is current issue for a large number of these.

Maintenance

The AR-15 quickly disassembles into its major parts without the need for tools. At this point it can be easily cleaned and inspected, and parts replaced.

Parts Availability

The long-term success of the AR-15 means that parts are readily available worldwide and relatively easy to come by. These parts are interchangeable with other rifles. There is no other rifle in existence with more available parts than the AR-15.
http://www.ar15.com/content/articles/idealRifle/

Now none of these reasons may make any sense to you but they do to many gun owners who feel that AR style rifles are better than bolt, pump or lever action rifles.

I feel we can have a fair debate over magazine size. One major problem is that millions of 20 and 30 round magazines already exist. It would be very difficult to pass a law requiring that all magazines with a capacity of over 10 rounds have to be turned in. Even if that happened it would do little to stop mass murders as magazines can be changed quickly with just a little practice.

[Cary]

20. Nice but none of it actually answers my question.

Who needs military style weapons and high capacity magazines?

[jody]

21. Please define "military style weapons" as you use it & I'll be delighted to answer that question. nt

[Cary]

22. Sorry but I will not be playing that game with you or anyone else.

You know very well what I am referring to.

[jody]

23. Sorry, I failed mind-reading. My guess is you don't have a definition for "military style weapons"

and if I reply you'll say that didn't answer my question.

I need a "military style weapon" that has a barrel, action, trigger, and stock for self-defense.

I've answered your question so please say "Thank you kind sir!"

[Cary]

24. That isn't an answer.

You're obfuscating. I asked a direct question. If you can't answer, that's fine. I really don't expect you to answer because the fact of the matter is that no one needs military style weapons or high capacity magazines.

[jody]

25. I answered your question. What are you trying to accomplish with your posts? nt

[Cary]

28. Except you didn't answer the question.

Normally when one asks a question they expect to get an answer. But as I said, I do not expect that you have an answer. Of course that you would not have an answer is an answer.

No one needs military style weapons or large capacity magazines.

[gejohnston]

29. they are not military style

they simply look similar. Functionally, they are the same. Define "large capacity"

[Cary]

30. You don't get it

I don't care that you don't like the terminology. Honestly. Your opinion of the terminology means less than nothing to me. It would simply mean nothing, if I didn't see your obfuscation as part of our problem. But I do see your obfuscation as part of the problem and I'm not going to let you use your distraction tactics on me. The focus here is clear. The problem is that we have an epidemic in this country and one of the steps in the right direction, to deal with the epidemic, is to ban military style weapons and large capacity magazines.

Definitions will be made in due course. If you can't handle that you can whine and cry. Again, that's not my problem. I believe the old ban had too many loopholes. I believe we will enact a strict law along the lines of what every other nation in the developed world has enacted. Suffice it to say that the ban needs to be more strict than the prior assault weapons ban. Better late than never, and then the process of cleaning up the mess can begin.

And too we have to figure out whatever else we can do to solve the problem. I'm certainly not opposed to that. I'm just opposed to your distraction.

[gejohnston]

31. I doubt you know anything about the gun laws of every other nation

or even the ones of Europe. BTW, there is no "developed" and "undeveloped" countries anymore. All of the "undeveloped countries" all have stricter gun laws than we do, and often have higher murder rates.
BTW, Mexico is "developed."

What you said is that you like arbitrary lists and definitions without knowing what they are nor do you care. Good thing the FAA doesn't take that approach to regulation.

And too we have to figure out whatever else we can do to solve the problem. I'm certainly not opposed to that. I'm just opposed to your distraction.

can't solve anything if you define knowing what you are talking about a "distraction"

[Cary]

32. I don't care about that doubt either.

We have been listening to you NRA types for awhile now. The problems are getting worse. What is it you're supposed to have solved?

[gejohnston]

33. not an NRA type,

I never pretended to solve anything. We are supposed to do that together making informed decisions.

[Cary]

34. But you're doing the NRA tactics.

You don't solve problems by distraction. You solve problems by focusing in on possible solutions, not by paralysis by analysis.

You have to start by designing a framework. Then you fill in the details, like definitions.

[gejohnston]

35. You solve problems by finding the root problem and apply the solution

that fits. It is not always easy and it sometimes is uncomfortable. Anything else is theater and political/cultural opportunism.

[alabama_for_obama]

96. An epidemic of what?

Your so called "assault weapons" are used maybe in 2% of the gun crimes, and rarely used for murders. More people were killed last year with hammers than were killed with rifles of any sort, "assault weapons" included. True stats, direct from the FBI. Look it up if you don't believe me.

So why the obsession with a class of weapons that are barely used for criminal purposes in the first place?

[holdencaufield]

50. He means weapons that scare him

So, it's a pretty broad definition.

[Cary]

55. A lot of "conservatives" are telling me this too.

It must be true then. "Conservatives" have such a great track record of being correct.

Oh, wait. Actually they don't. They actually have an amazing track record for being wrong.

[thucythucy]

77. Or maybe he means weapons like the one

that slaughtered twenty children.

And there are no weapons that scare you? None?

Ooooo how brave you must be.

[holdencaufield]

80. Not bravery

Just knowledge


Never fear an object ... fear him who would wield it.

[thucythucy]

82. How will "knowledge" protect you

from someone with a Bushmaster? How will knowledge protect the next children to be massacred?

"Never fear an object?"

So folks ought simply to ignore all those unexploded landmines, munitions, in Iraq, Vietnam, Cambodia, the DRC, Verdun...?

Yeah, right.

[holdencaufield]

84. You understand the difference ...

... between animate and inanimate objects, right? You understand that a Bushmaster or a bazooka cannot discharge on their own, right?

Firearms are objects -- they do not act independently, they are acted upon. That even holds true for landmines -- something has to set them off you just don't know where they are. However, I don't believe we're discussing a ban on the civilian use of landmines in the US, are we? I'm pretty sure that's already banned.

Do I fear a Bushmaster in the hands of a trained soldier? Absolutely not, there are certain situation where the presence of an armed soldier or LEO can actually relieve fear. Would I fear a pocket knife in the hands of a violently insane person? You bet.

[thucythucy]

88. And you understand the difference between

independent thinking, and repeating a silly aphorism such as "never fear the object..."

You didn't specify that your aphorism, which sounded general in the extreme, was only meant to apply to Bushmasters and pocket knives.

Having been places where unexploded landmines were an issue, I damn well was afraid of these "inanimate objects." And being afraid of the people who placed them there--some of whom were no doubt long since dead--would have made no sense at all. Unless you're saying that, as the "something" that might have set them off, I should have been afraid of myself?

And anyway, your last paragraph belies your aphorism entirely. "Would I fear a pocket knife in the hands of a violently insane person? You bet."

So it IS the pocket knife you'd fear, yes? And if you're afraid of a pocket knife, why would some of us being afraid of the presence of a Bushmaster--say in the hands of some strange "right to public carry" zealot walking through downtown Portland--seem so very unreasonable to you?

[holdencaufield]

90. You're being obtuse ...

... is it deliberate?

If I feared a pocket knife -- why would I have one in my suit pocket this very second? It's a nice one too -- very sharp.

As for open carry -- I don't fear anyone exercising their Constitutional rights -- it doesn't matter if it's the right to free speech or the right to bear arms.

[thucythucy]

93. Good for you.

I think though you'll find that after Sandy Hook -- and the further massacres that, sad to say, are almost certain to continue -- that fewer and fewer Americans are going to support your gun rights absolutism.

Gotta go--work tomorrow.

Best wishes.

[alabama_for_obama]

95. The Korean shop owners

Caught in the middle of the riots surrounding the Rodney king verdict. They used their ar15's and mini-14's to great effect, and theirs was the only area not destroyed by looting and mobs.

Any time the police decide they are going to pull out of your neighborhood so that they can go protect the rich guys with more important and expensive property, it's really nice to have a couple friends with "assault weapons" to protect the neighborhood.

This incident mentioned was neither the first, nor the last time that citizens have used their lawfully owned arms to defend themselves, nor will it be the last.

[Eleanors38]

38. You asked me who (others?) needs these items. Ask THEM.

You want me to speculate on the motivations of others? That is a meaningless approach. I have within my armory a bolt action rifle for deer hunting, based on a military-style design (see: Mauser, Krag, Springfield, etc.). I have killed numerous deer with it, and eaten them. Do I need the rifle? No, there are numerous life alternatives, none of which I "need" to engage either. I also have a semi-auto rifle capable of ripping off 10 rounds in -3 seconds. Guess I don't need that either; guess we don't need this exchange, though it is better that we have it than not.

Beyond the meaningless, ill-defined notion of what constitutes "military-style," and what simply constitutes high capacity, I can't answer. Therein is the problem: You have failed to justify why YOU need to (presumably) ban these things; you have failed even to define them so anyone can get a clear idea of a proposed ban, or how one article constitutes ban-worthiness while another does not. Said another way, the ball is in your court. Pick it up.

Gee, I thought my bumper sticker had more than a kernel of truth to it. But, I'll try another: Imagination is as good as many voyages -- and how much cheaper.

[Cary]

42. You don't make the rules Eleanors38

There is no "ball" in my "court" or anyone else's. I reject your word salad, as I have every right to do. You can have a hissy fit over it, as you have right to do. I'm not impressed.

A kernel of truth? Sure, every good lie has one of those. Saddam Hussein could have had weapons of mass destruction. There is indeed some doubts about anthropogenic climate change since there is a kernel of truth in the idea that climate does change over time. Jews are very wealthy and influential given our minute demographics, so maybe there is a kernel of truth in The Protocols of the Elders of Zion?

Amazingly that one, proven over and over to be a forgery, survives to this day.

[Eleanors38]

44. Sorry you are so upset, but when you propose bans

it is your obligation to define terms; the ball is indeed in your court. Of course, you don't have to pick it up or define terms, but reasonable dialogue starts there.

I'm not sure of why you posted all that Protocols stuff, or climate change biz. All I said was "prohibition leads to prohibition." And it usually does.

[Cary]

46. There is no such obligation

Dialogue will happen regardless whether you deem it reasonable as will legislation.

[sylvi]

47. No, it won't.

Legislation depends on very precise language and definitions. Otherwise it gets thrown out in courts of law because it's too vague.

There's not going to be a law that reads, "Assault weapons are banned, m'kay?"

[Cary]

53. I have 28 years of litigation experience.

I have a pretty good idea how the law works or doesn't work. I also have a pretty good idea as to how laws are made and improved.

I don't believe I have ever said there will be a law that reads "Assault weapons are banned." I certainly haven't said it here. What I said was that I, personally, am under no duty whatsoever to give you or anyone else the kind of specifics that gun advocates are demanding from me.

And I'm absolutely 100% correct about that.

What's your next canard?

[Eleanors38]

98. You propose bans, you provide the rationale. nt

[Cary]

99. I have provided my rationale several times.

You don't approve. BFD.

[GreenStormCloud]

54. The U.S. doesn't have a Dept. of Needs.

Free people don't have to get a bureaucrat's approval to buy something. All they have to do is want it and have the money. I will not attempt to justify my "need" for any particular gun to anybody, except my wife.

[thucythucy]

78. Wow, I didn't know that.

"Free people don't have to get a bureaucrat's approval to buy something."

I'll just hop on over to Amazon right now and buy my first hydrogen bomb. Add it to the stockpile of nerve gas I've been hankering for.

Thanks for the heads up!

[Starboard Tack]

63. "I know it's difficult to accept, but rights are not based on needs"

Where does it say you have a right to own a semi-automatic rifle or handgun, or even a shotgun for that matter. The Second Amendment makes no mention of guns, period.
Regarding Aurora, if he'd started out with a single or double barreled shotgun, the slaughter would have been considerably less.

[Eleanors38]

97. Where in the First does it say you have a right to electronic communication?

Or freedom of expression via the Internet? It doesn't, does it?

"Arms," in the context of the times, was far less specific than "press." It was meant to describe firearms designed to be held in one or both arms and operated there, and like the press not to constrained by the tech of the day.

The Aurora shooting was carried out in large measure with a shotgun. Neither of us will know what the result would have been were your bushel basket of prohibitions imposed. A bomb perhaps?

[Starboard Tack]

109. My proposal leaves plenty of guns adequate for SD, hunting and sport shooting.

[Eleanors38]

110. Often forgotten is the stasis developed around civilian arms ownership.

Americans are armed (or potentially so) with the same weapons which have been around for many generations. I'm not interested in going goldie-oldies while inevitably the thug is able to arm up with the stuff that came out just a little thereafter. Neither are the police.

[Starboard Tack]

111. What absolute nonsense.

A good revolver is as accurate as anything your neighborhood thug is likely to have and if not then you are in deep doo-doo. A shotgun is as good for home defense as any AR-15.

[Eleanors38]

113. Wrong. Civilian gun ownership plateaued years ago with semi-autos. nt

[Starboard Tack]

112. OK, I think we're done

[Eleanors38]

114. You were checked, Starboard. I guess you are angry.

[krispos42]

37. Anybody who shoots.

That's the short answer. Here's the long one:


Why are military weapons styled the way they are? Does anybody ask that?

Because the old, traditional, wood furniture (the non-threatening kind) was limited by the physical properties of wood. You don't just carve a pistol gripped stock out of a chunk of wood; it would not be very strong because of the direction of the grain.

Along comes mass production. Now we have standardized screws and fasteners and our guns have receivers to fasten things to, so now you can have smaller pieces of wood that are bolted or screwed into metal. Instead of one long piece from the buttplate to the foregrip, you have several pieces screwed firmly into steel.

So now comes along semi-automatic rifles. You don't have to move your hand around between shots, so having a protruding pistol grip become more ergonomic. It's easier on the wrist, helps reduce the recoil absorbed by your shoulder, and helps steady the gun better. I'm not personally a fan of them, but that's me.

The first pistol grips were wood bolted to the guns, because of the superior grippiness of wood. Later on they switched over to grippy textured plastic.

And why plastic instead of wood? Plastic is generally cheaper, it's waterproof, can be injection-molded and machined, and is often lighter.


And why black? Well, it helps cut down the sun's glare. And it's a universal color... look at computers, TVs, and cel phones. What's the dominant color? BLACK.



As to the magazines, the natural inclination is to have as many cartridges in one, as long as that number does not not affect reliability. Why? Reloading isn't as much fun as shooting, and in a crisis, nobody wants to run out. Nobody is going to complain that they had too many rounds with them when shit started.

You can argue that somebody doesn't need 30 or whatever, but when you argue for a specific number, it would be nice if you could be more convincing than the number fingers you have.

[Cary]

41. I don't accept that

Like any technology advances in weaponry means you can do more in a short period of time. Since the only purpose for military style weapons and high capacity magazines is to kill people, the advances allow one to kill more people in a shorter period of time.

No one needs this, other than preppers. And with preppers their need is dysfuntional and obsessive compulsive.

I don't regard anyone's obsession or compulsion as a need. Not even yours.

No one needs military style weapons or high capacity magazines.

[krispos42]

43. Then I'm sorry to say you're living in a bubble

This is okay to have:






But this isn't:





They are both semi-automatic guns, that shoot .223 Remington from a detachable magazine. In fact, they are the SAME gun:








This capability you are worried about and seek to control and limit to the general public has existed for decades, arguably for over a century.


I wrote an OP you might be interested in regarding this.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117295365

Replies #31 and #40 might be of particular interest to you.



Thank you for the civil conversation.

[Cary]

52. Reality is that there will very likely be some kind assault ban.

I understand your point of view, that it is hopeless and therefore we can't even try to do something about it. I don't find that argument to be persuasive in any way.

In the scheme of things your displeasure with not being able to have exactly the kind of weapon you dream of carries absolutely no weight with me. None. Zero. The Second Amendment does not say that you have an absolute right to any kind of weapon you desire. That was not the intent of the Second Amendment and it is utterly irrational.

You don't need to have military style weapons. No one needs these weapons or high capacity magazines. If you think that's a bubble, that's your problem.

[krispos42]

75. No, that's not my point of view

My point of view is this:

The cartridge that the AR-15 is not anything special. It doesn't explode, or have a heat-seeker, or penetrate buildings, or anything like that. It's a piece of lead wrapped in copper, just like pretty much every other rifle and handgun bullet.


How it shoots isn't anything special either. Pull trigger repeatedly until the gun is empty or there's a mechanical problem. Then swap out the magazine and repeat. There are a dozen types of guns that do the same thing that I could name off the top of my head. Now, the specific AR mechanism has some features that make it more attractive than others, but that does not make it a super-gun of some kind.


The "military style" you seem to be talking about is appearance and layout... how it is held, how the controls work, that sort of thing.

My point of view is that waging a war on pistol grips and and folding stocks and flash suppressors does not address the problem you wish to solve.


I know what the 2nd Amendment says. I'm not arguing on Constitutional grounds, in case you haven't noticed. The previous AWB was not at any point ruled unconstitutional.

I'm arguing that you can take away "military styling" without affecting the core parts of what makes such a rifle capable of a high volume of fire.

There are two things you need to have the highest possible volume of fire. Assuming we don't bring machine-guns into this conversation, then what we are looking at are:

• Semi-automatic operation
• Fed from detachable magazines

A subset of the magazine issue is "make the magazine as large as possible without affecting reliability".


Attacking ergonomic design ("military design&quot does not affect those two items I listed.


If you want to fix the problem you're trying to address, then you should be working towards banning semi-automatic rifles and/or those fed from a detachable magazine.

If you can do that, then who gives a crap about styling? Who cares if a lever-action gun is all-black with an adjustable stock and tactical rails and a bayonet?

[Cary]

56. If you believe there is no real difference between these weapons then it must follow that...

you're okay with banning the military style weapons. After all, there's no difference and we have firmly established the fact that no one actually needs military style weapons.

[gejohnston]

58. we don't ban things based on "needs"

and there is no Dept of Needs, nor should there be in a liberal democracy. If there were, I doubt most cars would be able to go over the speed limit.

[Cary]

59. We enact laws based on balancing rights and common sense.

The fact that no one needs these weapons is relevant.

[gejohnston]

60. no one needs a 500 hp engine

that can go faster than the highest speed limit that kills 115 people a day. It's only common sense.

That is not always why we enact laws. Many laws are enacted for theater, line the pockets of some special interest, or push inane ideological agendas. DOMA is the perfect example of the latter.

[Cary]

61. So push to have 500 horsepower engines banned.

Go for it.

That has nothing whatsoever to do with banning military style weapons or high capacity magazines.

[gejohnston]

62. nobody needs it

if you don't need it according to me, you shouldn't have it. Same thing. I can legally have an AR in Canada and most of Europe, why not here?

[Cary]

64. Sorry bud but an engine isn't the same thing as a military style weapon.

It just isn't. If you can't understand the difference then I'm afraid I'm not going to be able to explain it to you. One makes things move; the other kills people.

Not the same thing.

[gejohnston]

65. I thought we were talking about saving lives

and needs, not the function.

[Cary]

66. I have expressed my opinion that we should ban military style weapons and high capacity magazines.

I have clearly stated my rationale. Whatever these weapons are or are not, they are a technology designed to kill more people in a shorter period of time.

I have asked why anyone needs these weapons and I have not yet seen what I would consider to be a viable answer. One answer that I did see was someone claiming that there is no difference between military style weapons and other weapons, which of course begs the question. If they're the same as other weapons then for sure no one needs military style weapons.

You asked me why anyone needs a 500 horsepower engine and claim that a 500 horsepower engine is the same thing as a military style weapon. Well, okay then. That's another reason why you don't need a military style weapon. Not only can you get the same thing with any other weapon, but you can get the same thing with a 500 horsepower engine.

What do want from me?

[gejohnston]

67. help dealing with the root causes

of violent crime, like wealth inequality, education, mental health, a living wage instead of simply a minimum wage that doesn't adjust for inflation, dismantling the empire to pay for it instead of bickering on theater that shows no real evidence of working. Personally, I don't give a shit about drum mags that mostly teach mall ninjas how to clear jams at the range. I just don't want the blow back that would prevent any of the above being carried out. ARs actually don't do that much more damage than Ed Schultz's Fudd guns.

There is a stronger correlation between wealth inequality and violence than gun laws and violence.

[Cary]

68. And there's also a higher profit margin on military style weapons.

The alleged blow back is part of their propaganda. The debunking of the myth of NRA power would be worth any blow back from people who aren't going vote Democratic anyway.

But that's a separate issue. There is evidence that banning these weapons reduces the incidence of mass gun murders. We are talking here about human behavior so we will never have perfect evidence. What we need to do is to change the culture.

[gejohnston]

69. the profit is increased demand with what I think is a little price gouging on the side

more like a lot of price gouging.
All economies are demand based. Supply side economics never works for that reason. Before NFA was passed, anyone could legally buy a Thompson sub machine gun, yet Auto Ordnance skirted bankruptcy most that time. They had the supply, but kept afloat by police contracts, security companies, military and a few that went to Ireland. The demand wasn't there.

The alleged blow back is part of their propaganda. The debunking of the myth of NRA power would be worth any blow back from people who aren't going vote Democratic anyway.

Nixon predicted if he tried to ban handguns, but it wasn't the NRA he feared. It was gun owners in general going to the polls. Clinton said, in not so many words, said that is what basically happened in 1994. It isn't the NRA that has the power, it is mobilizing the huge grass roots effort that is far larger than the NRA.

But that's a separate issue. There is evidence that banning these weapons reduces the incidence of mass gun murders. We are talking here about human behavior so we will never have perfect evidence. What we need to do is to change the culture.

what evidence is that? All of the claims of evidence is sketchy at best, especially when you are talking about rare events.

[Cary]

70. This has nothing to do with "supply-side economics."

There are higher profit margins on military style weapons. Naturally the gun industry wants to sell more of them. It's about marketing, not economics.

[gejohnston]

71. other than price gouging, how are they more profitable?

Are they equally more profitable when they market to Germans and Canadians?
Some companies specialize in those, others don't touch them at all.

In other words, if Henry and Marlin had a better marketing campaigns, they could AR sales would drop and be replaced with lever actions?

[Cary]

72. You tell me.

How Walmart Helped Make the Newtown Shooter's AR-15 the Most Popular Assault Weapon in America

http://www.thenation.com/article/171808/how-walmart-helped-make-newtown-shooters-ar-15-most-popular-assault-weapon-america#

[gejohnston]

73. Walmart sold them

but the rifle became best selling 20 years ago after enduring 30 years as "plastic mall ninja shit". Walmart responded to demand,

[krispos42]

74. Or, you're okay with leaving things as they are. After all...

...there's no difference and we've firmly established that military style is an ergonomic style.

[sylvi]

48. Do you accept

Do you accept the idea of firearms for home defense as being legitimate at all?

[Cary]

57. I have reached a point where I believe we should ban military style weapons and high capacity mags.

I was not there before. I was kind of buying into the NRA propaganda.

But Newtown changed my perspective. The NRA, guns unlimited approach clearly isn't working. It is time to change and banning military style weapons and high capacity magazines and getting much more strict about registering guns is reasonable and prudent.

I could be convinced of more measures both by people who advocate more and by people who take the opposite extreme. But I'm not there. At least not yet.

[pansypoo53219]

3. if that is a human's response to mass shooing of 6 + 7 yr olds,

i suggest they are not mature enough for a gun license, much less DRIVE.

[HockeyMom]

5. +1000

[Tuesday Afternoon]

6. obviously they are not human. must be zombies.

[sylvi]

49. It wasn't a response to mass shooting of 6 + 7 yr olds

It was a response to the sequelae of that shooting in the form of reflexive and lusty calls for all manner of further restrictions on the 2A.

Prohibitionists do more to drive people into the arms of the NRA than LaPierre and Nugent with their screechings could ever hope to.

[Starboard Tack]

15. Why am I not surprised that you refer to Democrats as "THEY"?

Makes one wonder what you are pulling.

[samsingh]

4. no surprise

[spin]

9. The NRA will use any comment by any politician who mentions banning or confiscating ...

firearms to their advantage to get even more members and convince them that they need to donate to the political wing of the NRA which is funded mainly by donations and not NRA membership fees.

I feel that it is quite possible to pass some extremely strong firearm laws in some states but the effort may well hinder any effort to truly improve our national gun laws. Draconian gun laws might pass in New York State or Illinois and it is possible that a mandatory "assault weapons" buy back program followed by eventual confiscation might be implemented. Of course the legality of such laws will have to survive review by the court system.

Unfortunately the effort to implement such laws will cause many gun owners to join and donate not only to the NRA but also the GOA and other pro gun organizations. The NRA does at least show some support for pro gun Democrat politicians while some of the other pro gun groups do not.

I worry that many good Democrats who actually support gun rights might lose elections in the Red states at the local, state and national levels. The Tea Party might be revived and many moderate Republicans might also lose elections.

Any progress on our party makes in the next two years on a number of issues could be ruined if in the next four years Republicans take over both houses of Congress and the Presidency.

Hopefully some improvements to our current laws will pass that the majority of gun owners will agree with. If so there will be little backlash against the Democratic Party.

[Pullo]

10. Well said.

Cuomo and others' rhetoric about ban this and confiscate that isn't going to play well in the 2014 mid-terms.

[jimmy the one]

11. gunnuts anonymous - I was an nra member

{NRA}'s paying member ranks have grown by 100,000 in the wake of the December {2012} school shooting in Conn., the organization told Politico..

.. and the nra is highly respected as a paradigm of honesty & integrity, eh?
.. the nra has a turnaround which means as old members go out, new members come in; It's the net gain which is what's telling, compared with a 'normal' month. The 100,000 new members is not the net gain (or I'd be shocked if it were).

As the NRA increases its overall membership, there have also been isolated reports of former members abandoning the organization following a controversial press conference by its top lobbyist, Wayne LaPierre..

.. duh, the blurb surely means 'higher than usual' numbers abandoning the nra. Most all of these 'abandonments' are just normal turnaround as people do not & will not RENEW their membership over the months as they come due, so the full affect of wayne laconman's ramble won't be known for a full year, to see whether members failed to renew in greater numbers than the influx of new bizarro signups.
I suspect, & hope, that at the end of 2013 nra membership will have declined from dec 2012, as current members increasingly fail to renew subscriptions.
.. it's crap, I was a member for a year, suckered in as I bought a 22 short rifle maybe 25 years ago with the accompanying nra signup claptrap, paid a fee for a year then saw what crap it was & just didn't renew. Fool me once, my fault, twice, nope. (I've been gun free over 10 years now, jes like sharon stone!).

New members must pay a fee of $25, and in return get access to NRA events and a free gift.

I believe current nra membership is $35 per year, tho they have lifetime memberships of a couple hundreds. Any nra members out there? my distaste for nra upper mgmt does not carry over to most of it's members, who are indeed law abiding citz, &, well, just like me was.

[Purveyor]

14. I'm a lifer with the NRA, membership was $500 back when it was 'gifted' to me. Now life mem

bership is $1000.

I have considered revoking my membership but what would that accomplish. I'm costing them money now with their monthly magazine mailout plus I get to monitor their propaganda...so I remain.

They haven't gotten a penny out of my pocket for at least 2 decades.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

12. bunch of dumbasses. what do they know? nothing.

[jimmy the one]

13. NRA approval 42%, disapproval 45% , PPP

PPP was one of the most accurate pollsters last 2012 election, tho it will get bashed by the right since it's somehow linked as a democratic run poll.

PPP's newest national poll finds that the NRA's image has declined over the last three weeks following Wayne LaPierre's controversial press conference the week before Christmas.

The NRA now has a negative favorability rating, with 42% of voters seeing it positively while 45% have an unfavorable view. That represents a 10 point net decline in the NRA's favorability from the week before the press conference when a national poll we did found it at 48/41.
Its image has taken a hit with both Democrats (from 29/59 to 22/67) and Republicans (71/19 to 66/18). {I wouldn't call that last one by the repubs a 'hit', more like a lover's spat

Only 41% of voters support the organization's proposal to put armed police officers in schools across the country, with 50% opposed. Democrats (35/57) and independents (38/51) both oppose the push and even among Republicans only a narrow majority (52/39) supports it.

On the broader issue of giving teachers guns, only 27% of voters are supportive with 64% opposed.. Republicans (35/50), independents (31/59), and Democrats (19/77) all standing against it. Gun owners (37/52) oppose it as well.

BONUS SUPER GREAT POLL RESULTs FOR TODAY!!!: While the Democrats in Congress aren't popular (-12 at 38/50) their approval rating is a net 48 points better than their Republican counterparts [/u](-60 at 15/75). Republicans in Congress have only a 25/61 approval rating even with the GOP base..

Nancy Pelosi now has a net approval rating (-21 at 34/55) that's 18 points better than John Boehner's (-39 at 21/60). Boehner has lost the faith of his party base, with Republicans giving him a 36/43 rating.
On the Senate side Harry Reid comes in at 30/46 to Mitch McConnell's 24/46.. the Senate (28/56) has a better image with the public than the House (15/69).
Chris Christie is now more popular with Democrats nationally than he is with Republicans. ..his +29 standing with Democrats (52/23) is higher than his +21 with GOP voters (48/27).. with independents at +34 (52/18).
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2013/01/images-of-nra-congressional-republicans-on-the-decline.html

[jody]

19. Amazing how quickly the stables are refilled. Hercules, Hercules, wherefore art thou! nt

[Eleanors38]

39. LOL!

[Trajan]

26. That means about 349.9 million citizens did NOT join the NRA

There are two sides to that coin .... They were busy grieving the dead children ...

[Eleanors38]

40. See #36.

[Trajan]

45. Why do I need to read #36?

Your post is vague and useless ... don't bother responding

[Xithras]

103. It also means that 90%+ of the firearms owners in the USA still aren't NRA members

It's always infuriated me that a right wing organization that can claim fewer than 10% of ALL gun owners as members has the nerve to hold itself out as the "voice" of gun owners.

I've been a gun owner all my life. I've never been an NRA member, and I never will be. I've never met a Democratic gun owner who was in the NRA, and have only met a noisy minority of Republicans who claim membership.

They're out of step with everyone except the fringe.

[rgbecker]

27. I'm sure the NRA will be publishing its membership directory soon....

so we can all see if our names somehow got on the list.

[spin]

36. According to some reports the Brady Campaign sold a list of their members ...

Last edited Sat Jan 12, 2013, 04:33 PM - Edit history (1)

to raise necessary funds.

The NRA does not have that problem at this time. If you support gun control it might be a good idea to join a group who wishes for stronger gun laws and donate.

Talk is cheap.

[thucythucy]

81. According to some reports

The Brady Campaign has raised five million dollars in the month since the Newtown massacre.

The ground is shifting.

[gejohnston]

83. from the one foundation that pays their salaries and rent

one billionaire?
selling lists?
Because that would be five million more than last year.

[thucythucy]

85. Actually, no.

"The group announced its fundraising haul after the National Rifle Association told POLITICO it increased its membership by 100,000 following the Sandy Hook massacre.

The cash influx came from previous supporters upping their contributions, new donors and old supporters coming back, said Deborah DeShong Reed.

The $5 million haul is close to double what the group pulled in 2010, according to the most recent tax documents available. That year, their total revenue was $2.8 million. The group’s expenses exceeded total revenue by about $222,000."

BTW: it may well be "one foundation that pays their salaries and rent." I'm not sure why this is relevant. I've worked with non-profits, both 501c3s and 501c4s. Contributions came from various sources, but all went into "one foundation" that paid my salary and, I presume, the rent for our office space. I guess that means, what? That any work these groups did had no support from the community?

No offense, but that sort of too-clever-by-half twist of wording sounds suspiciously close to something the NRA would throw out as a talking point.

[gejohnston]

87. they get four million a year

from the Joyce Foundation
According to Open Secrets, they get zero from outside sources for years.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00113449

I don't know what the NRA would throw out, but it is something someone who is kind of jaded and been on and around the planet to question and doubt pretty much everything would ask.

[thucythucy]

92. It's late, and I'm getting a little bleary here.

But going to the website to which you link, I could find NO information, that is recent information, on contributors. However, I did get this list of donors from 2004-2005. (It appears 2010, 2012 figures were not available, but like I say, maybe I'm missing something). In any case, the list below seems to show that their funding has come from more than one source:

Contrib Occupation Date Amount
WOLKOWITZ, MICHAEL
HASTINGS-ON-HUDSON, NY 10706 MJM CREATIVE SERVICES INC./PRODUCER 05/30/03 $5,000
ORDWAY, GILMAN
WILSON, WY 83014 SELF EMPLOYED/RANCHER/RESORT OWNER 07/23/03 $5,000
FIORDELLISI, ANGELINA
NEW YORK, NY 10128 CHERRY LANE THEATER/ARTISTIC DIRECT 11/02/04 $5,000
MARSHALL, FRANK
SANTA MONICA, CA 90410 10/22/04 $5,000
PALEVSKY, MAX
LOS ANGELES, CA 90024 SELF/INVESTOR 10/26/04 $5,000
WILLIAMS, MATT
NEW YORK, NY 10128 WIND DANCER PRODUCTION GROUP/PRODUC 11/02/04 $5,000
PARKER, DIANE
THOMASVILLE, GA 31799 SELF/RETAIL 08/19/04 $3,750
HOLINER, HOPE
HASTINGS ON HUDSON, NY 10706 10/26/04 $3,500
BERMAN, CAROL
WASHINGTON, DC 20007 RETIRED 10/01/04 $2,500
SEGAL, PHYLLIS
BOSTON, MA 02116 ADR ASSOCIATES/MEDIATOR AND ARBITRA 10/01/04 $2,500
SCHOENKE, NANCY
GAITHERSBURG, MD 20882 10/01/04 $2,500
DEAN, WILLIAM
GIG HARBOR, WA 98335 08/05/04 $2,250
DEAN, WILLIAM
GIG HARBOR, WA 98335 SELF/PHYSICIAN 08/05/04 $2,250
SUSSMAN, JOHN
PACIFIC PALISADES, CA 90272 CAPITAL GROUP/MANAGING PARTNER 12/31/03 $2,000
HOBBY, JOHN
PISCATAWAY, NJ 08854 LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES/COMPUTER SCIENT 08/11/04 $1,500
HALLOWELL, A
KENNETT SQUARE, PA 19348 RETIRED 08/04/04 $1,500
HOBBY, JOHN
PISCATAWAY, NJ 08854 08/11/04 $1,500
MCPECK, ROBERT
HOMOSASSA, FL 34448 08/27/04 $1,000
MILLAR, WILLIAM
FALLS CHURCH, VA 22046 HOUSEWIFE 08/09/04 $1,000
CHEN, MARGARET
NEW YORK, NY 10033 MOTHER CABRINI HIGH SCHOOL/TEACHER 08/19/04 $1,000
BERMAN, ED
LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 SELF-EMPLOYED/INVESTOR 08/19/04 $1,000
ROSWELL, MARJORIE
BALTIMORE, MD 21218 UNIV OF MARYLAND/SPATIAL ANALYST 10/29/04 $1,000
ALBERT, LOUISE
BALTIMORE, MD 21204 09/20/04 $1,000
DITTMAR, JOHN
WHITE PLAINS, NY 10603 09/10/04 $1,000
ROSE, SAMUEL
WASHINGTON, DC 20015 08/09/04 $1,000
ALBERT, LOUISE
BALTIMORE, MD 21204 NONE/NONE 09/20/04 $1,000
WILSON, JANE
CONNERSVILLE, IN 47331 09/29/04 $1,000
ROSE, SAMUEL
WASHINGTON, DC 20015 GREENEBAUM & ROSE ASSOCIATES/REAL E 08/09/04 $1,000
MCPECK, ROBERT
HOMOSASSA, FL 34448 RETIRED 08/27/04 $1,000
COHEN, ARNOLD
MIAMI, FL 33160 RETIRED 08/09/04 $800
FISHER, JANET
NEW YORK, NY 10006 10/19/04 $700
KELCE, ROBERT
DENVER, CO 80231 RETIRED 09/10/04 $600
WINOGRAD, MARY
NEW YORK, NY 10128 08/19/04 $575
URICCHIO, MARY
HUNTINGTON, NY 11743 SELF-EMPLOYED/PHYSICIAN 08/04/04 $500
STEIN, ROBERT
LENOX, MA 01240 08/19/04 $500
SWEENEY, JEANNE
GLENDALE, OH 45246 08/04/04 $500
RUSCHA, EDWARD
VENICE, CA 90291 08/04/04 $500
NILES, MARY
HINGHAM, MA 02043 HOUSEWIFE 08/19/04 $500
O'CONNOR, ROBERT
VERO BEACH, FL 32963 08/27/04 $500
GUEST, CHRISTOPHER
SANTA MONICA, CA 90402 10/19/04 $500
MITHOFF, VIRGINIA
HOUSTON, TX 77019 N/A/RETIRED TEACHER 10/18/04 $500
FELDMAN, ROBERT
DALLAS, TX 75229 10/29/04 $500
HARWOOD, WILLIAM
YARMOUTH, ME 04096 VERRILL & DANA/ATTORNEY 03/05/04 $500
CONTI, MARGARET
DRYDEN, MI 48428 SELF EMPLOYED/BROKER 08/19/04 $500
BUTLER, ERIC
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55416 08/04/04 $500
KOTZIN, JOSEPH
LOS ANGELES, CA 90048 08/19/04 $500
LICHTENSTEIN, ALY
ALBERTSON, NY 11507 N/A/FULLTIME MOTHER 08/04/04 $500
HELLER, ALAN
LONG GROVE, IL 60047 08/19/04 $500
POST, ROBERT
HAVERFORD, PA 19041 09/21/04 $500
CAGIN, HARRY
CLEVELAND, OH 44124 RETIRED 10/13/04 $500
KOTZIN, JOSEPH
LOS ANGELES, CA 90048 NOT CURRENTLY EMPLOYED 08/19/04 $500
BUTLER, ERIC
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55416 UNITED HEALTH INTERNATIONAL/BUSINES 08/04/04 $500
DOUGLASS, CATHERINE
NEW YORK, NY 10028 INMOTION INC./LAWYER 10/01/04 $500
MANION OXLEY, DEBBY
MIDWAY, KY 40347 HOMEMAKER 10/27/04 $500
MARGOLIS, PAUL
WESTON, MA 02493 11/04/04 $500
RUSCHA, EDWARD
VENICE, CA 90291 SELF/ARTIST 08/04/04 $500
SHORE, DIANE
MILL VALLEY, CA 94941 RETIRED 12/13/04 $500
ZIEGLER, RUTH
BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90211 HOUSEWIFE 11/04/04 $500
STEIN, ROBERT
LENOX, MA 01240 RETIRED 08/19/04 $500
SWEENEY, JEANNE
GLENDALE, OH 45246 HOMEMAKER 08/04/04 $500
PRESTWOOD, J
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55438 08/16/04 $450
PICK, THOMAS
NORTHFIELD, IL 60093 08/16/04 $400
NELSON, ESTA
RESTON, VA 20191 JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY/MRS PROFES 08/09/04 $400
BUNTS, FRANK
NEW YORK, NY 10010 SELF/FOUNDATION DIRECTOR/ARTIST 08/17/04 $400
PICK, THOMAS
NORTHFIELD, IL 60093 RETIRED FINANCIAL ADVISOR 08/16/04 $400
MACARI, ANNE
LAMBERTVILLE, NJ 08530 NEW ENGLAND COLLEGE/WRITER/TEACHER 11/09/04 $400
SLOBODA, ALAN
LOMA LINDA, CA 92354 09/03/04 $400
LOFTUS, JAMES
MALIBU, CA 90265 COMMUNITY URGENT CARE/PHYSICIAN 09/10/04 $400
HOROWITZ, COLIN
MALIBU, CA 90265 RETIRED 08/23/04 $375
KELLOGG, RALPH
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94109 RETIRED 08/05/04 $350

METHODOLOGY: The numbers on this page are based on contributions from individuals giving $200 or more, as reported to the Federal Election Commission.

And while the Brady Foundation may have hit on hard times in recent years, it appears they're experiencing a resurgence, as noted, from a variety of sources.

The NRA, by the way, has openly admitted receiving funds from the major gun manufacturers, which would seem to buttress the claim made that they are a lobbying group for the gun industry, and for individual gun owners perhaps not so much. Which might explain why even much of the NRA membership disagrees with its leadership on various issues.

If you truly have been around the planet and question and doubt everything, perhaps you should question why the NRA leadership would be so out of step, not only with gun owners in general--who evidently want to see SOME tightening of the regulations, but even much of their own leadership.

But it's been a long day, and perhaps we can resume this discussion tomorrow.

[gejohnston]

94. that is because they told the FEC

And while the Brady Foundation may have hit on hard times in recent years, it appears they're experiencing a resurgence, as noted, from a variety of sources.

perhaps but I still detest their dishonesty and membership tends to be urban and wealthy who detest the average rural blue collar type.

The NRA, by the way, has openly admitted receiving funds from the major gun manufacturers, which would seem to buttress the claim made that they are a lobbying group for the gun industry, and for individual gun owners perhaps not so much. Which might explain why even much of the NRA membership disagrees with its leadership on various issues.

They have opposed things the gun manufactures supported, ATT being one of them. Yes, the manufactures in the US and Europe generally support the UN treaty. NSSF is actually the lobbying organization for US manufactures. Individual gun owners are a large and diverse group of people. Many of the folks who buy ARs, in my experience, are younger. Many of the gun owners, in my experience, who don't like the ARs etc, are old white people, and some old people of color, who don't like my son's taste in music or his friend's tattoos. Part of it is generational. Part of it is "if we throw them under the bus, the Prohibitionists will leave us alone" ARs are standard rifles in some target competitions.

If you truly have been around the planet and question and doubt everything, perhaps you should question why the NRA leadership would be so out of step, not only with gun owners in general--who evidently want to see SOME tightening of the regulations, but even much of their own leadership.

I have, and I have different theories on why. A lot of it traces back to the 1977 convention in Cincinnati when some hardliners opposed "the old guard" who didn't to lobby. The view was the camel's nose was far enough under the tent. I think part of it pushed by corporatists as an attack on the environmental movements rural flank.
The NRA agrees on regulations that I don't agree with. There are parts of NFA they supported in the 1930s that should be changed that they supported. For example, I don't think a single shot rifle with a 15 inch barrel should be as strictly regulated as a machine gun, which is the current law under the National Firearms Act. That does not mean I support repealing the National Firearms Act. In much of Europe I can buy a short barreled AR the same way I would buy the same rifle with a normal length barrel.

[thucythucy]

100. "Urban and wealthy..."

"Perhaps but I still detest their dishonesty and membership tends to be urban and wealthy who detest the average rural blue collar type. "

Don't know much about the Brady people, so I can't say how much of this is real and how much isn't. I DO know that urbanites such as myself are routinely demeaned, insulted, stereotyped by many (white) "average rural blue collar types." At least, that's what I encounter during my trips through rural America, and in comments on and off line, and in politics and in the media. And gun ownership, and second amendment absolutism, seem inextricably tied in with all this.

Rural America, I'm told again and again and again, is "the real America"--as opposed to New York or LA or Chicago or DC or Boston or San Francisco or Atlanta or the other urban and suburban parts of the country where the vast majority of Americans just happen to live. I'm deluged, especially during elections, with talk about "small town values"--as if people who live in cities are somehow morally inferior, and have no values at all. I hear it every time I tune into a country music station, tunes about "small town girls" who are of course more pure, more generous, more honest and genuine than us city slickers, who evidently don't care about "family" and such.

And over the past few weeks I've seen all sorts of paens to "hunting culture" and the joys of father/son bonding over gun ownership. And I've detected also a subcurrent of comments about why guns are needed--to protect good country folks from us big city gang bangers, home invaders, drug dealers, rapists, and assorted urban scum. And often there is a definite racial undertone to all this--which I also detect on my trips through "the real" America.

So the contempt flows in both directions. The only thing is, us urbanites and suburbanites vastly outnumber rural Americans, and yet have to continually kowtow to their interests. This includes rural Americans being vastly overrepresented in the Senate, meaning urban concerns--such as funding for mass transit, urban infrastructure, even policing, get short shrift. Just this past month we've seen representatives of rural America (who just happen to be some of the most avid "defenders of gun rights&quot try to deny hurricane relief funding to the urban northeast--something that urban representatives have NEVER, to my knowledge, tried to deny to any rural disaster area. Isn't that, in your mind, evidence of a certain contempt?

As for the rest of it, I'm sure this will all be thrashed out in the ongoing debate. The debate will continue, proposals will be made, and eventually legislation will be enacted, if not in this Congress, then in the next one. If the NRA and other gun-people want to participate, it might be wise to acknowledge that the tide is turning, and that after the Newtown Massacre it SHOULD turn, and that the usual attacks on big city "gun grabbers" and the usual defense of "the hunting lifestyle" will no longer suffice to stymy the will of the majority.

Best wishes.

[gejohnston]

104. I can relate in some ways

Don't know much about the Brady people, so I can't say how much of this is real and how much isn't. I DO know that urbanites such as myself are routinely demeaned, insulted, stereotyped by many (white) "average rural blue collar types." At least, that's what I encounter during my trips through rural America, and in comments on and off line, and in politics and in the media. And gun ownership, and second amendment absolutism, seem inextricably tied in with all this.

Both are equally guilty of it, I don't think I have ever said otherwise.

Rural America, I'm told again and again and again, is "the real America"--as opposed to New York or LA or Chicago or DC or Boston or San Francisco or Atlanta or the other urban and suburban parts of the country where the vast majority of Americans just happen to live. I'm deluged, especially during elections, with talk about "small town values"--as if people who live in cities are somehow morally inferior, and have no values at all. I hear it every time I tune into a country music station, tunes about "small town girls" who are of course more pure, more generous, more honest and genuine than us city slickers, who evidently don't care about "family" and such.

It is a propaganda technique that is older than the US used by authoritarians left and right. Hitler and Stalin are extreme examples. Of course as someone who grew up and live in a small town (drive a pick up truck even) I'm assumed to be racist, narrow minded, unread, anti intellectual, etc. as portrayed in movies and TV. The worst is TV depicting people in Idaho and Wyoming with southern accents because "they are country" So, we have both had same experience.

And over the past few weeks I've seen all sorts of paens to "hunting culture" and the joys of father/son bonding over gun ownership. And I've detected also a subcurrent of comments about why guns are needed--to protect good country folks from us big city gang bangers, home invaders, drug dealers, rapists, and assorted urban scum. And often there is a definite racial undertone to all this--which I also detect on my trips through "the real" America.

I grew up in rural America, and still live there, the "scum" are usually white. Most likely they picture the bad guys as white as well. Someone in a mostly African American community would have the opposite picture.

So the contempt flows in both directions. The only thing is, us urbanites and suburbanites vastly outnumber rural Americans, and yet have to continually kowtow to their interests. This includes rural Americans being vastly overrepresented in the Senate, meaning urban concerns--such as funding for mass transit, urban infrastructure, even policing, get short shrift. Just this past month we've seen representatives of rural America (who just happen to be some of the most avid "defenders of gun rights&quot try to deny hurricane relief funding to the urban northeast--something that urban representatives have NEVER, to my knowledge, tried to deny to any rural disaster area. Isn't that, in your mind, evidence of a certain contempt?

The GOP leadership represents urban areas as well IIRC. In fact, Boenhner's district (OH-8) is 77 urban including Dayton. AFAIK him and McConnell are the major culprits. Denying hurricane relief doesn't have anything to do with urban rural divide , it is about a couple of assholes putting party and ideology above country. So, why should some hunter in Wyoming be held responsible for some city's gang problem?

As for the rest of it, I'm sure this will all be thrashed out in the ongoing debate. The debate will continue, proposals will be made, and eventually legislation will be enacted, if not in this Congress, then in the next one. If the NRA and other gun-people want to participate, it might be wise to acknowledge that the tide is turning, and that after the Newtown Massacre it SHOULD turn, and that the usual attacks on big city "gun grabbers" and the usual defense of "the hunting lifestyle" will no longer suffice to stymy the will of the majority.

Everyone assumes they are the majority. Since the "gun grabbers" don't seem to be interested in listening to anything gun people have to say. what can I say?

Best wishes to you too.

[thucythucy]

106. Just wanted to say

gejohnston that though I generally disagree with your stand on gun issues, I always pay attention to your posts, which I almost always find informative and thought provoking.

Belated happy new year to you and yours,

Thucy

[gejohnston]

107. same here,

right on. Perhaps there should be summer camps where city kids go to the farm and country kids go to urban areas to do community projects?

[bowens43]

51. never underestimate the stupidity of the American Gun Nut......

this is why we need to enact strict laws right now.

[Still Sensible]

76. In a country of over $300 milion, that 100k

is not a surge, it is a meh.

[still_one]

102. Exactly. Huffington's loves to tabloid stories

[thucythucy]

79. Am I supposed to believe this?

"In the week after the shooting, Fox News reported that the NRA was claiming an average of 8,000 new members a day."

"Fox News was reporting..."

"the NRA was claiming..."

[Purveyor]

86. Believe or not but the gun sale reports would seem to confirm... eom

[thucythucy]

89. Yeah, it confirms that a certain segment of our population

is so dysfunctional that they feel the need to stockpile weapons which will now forever be associated with the massacre of small children.

Really, a very sad reflection on our society.

[Purveyor]

91. No argument from on that from me... eom

[still_one]

101. Surge? That amounts to .03% of the us population. What is the other

99.97% doing?

[HockeyMom]

105. Obama supporters?

Doubt that. They are sick, sad people just looking for excuses for the Armageddon and fighting a government, and us, they didn't support.

It would not surprise me if Nancy Lanza, if she had lived, would be one of them.

[jimmy the one]

108. Eleanors wrote about 'Arms' circa 1791

eleanors, from a post above: "Arms," in the context of the times, was far less specific than "press." It was meant to describe firearms designed to be held in one or both arms and operated there, and like the press not to constrained by the tech of the day.

Oh, is that how 'arms' was described circa 1800?
.. here's websters 1828, pls point out exactly which definition supports your cause, that arms described firearms designed to be held in one or both arms.

websters 1828 dictionary: arms 'ARMS, n. plu. [L. arma.]
1. Weapons of offense, or armor for defense and protection of the body.
2. War; hostility. Arms and the man I sing. To be in arms, to be in a state of hostility, or in a military life. To arms is a phrase which denotes a taking arms for war or hostility; particularly, a summoning to war.
To take arms, is to arm for attack or defense.
Bred to arms denotes that a person has been educated to the profession of a soldier.
3. The ensigns armorial of a family; consisting of figures and colors borne in shields, banners, &c., as marks of dignity and distinction, and descending from father to son.
4. In law, arms are any thing which a man takes in his hand in anger, to strike or assault another.
5. In botany, one of the seven species of fulcra or props of plants, enumerated by Linne and others. The different species of arms or armor, are prickles, thorns, forks and stings, which seem intended to protect the plants from injury by animals.
Sire arms, are such as may be charged with powder, as cannon, muskets, mortars, &c.
A stand of arms consists of a musket, bayonet, cartridge-box and belt, with a sword. But for common soldiers a sword is not necessary.
In falconry, arms are the legs of a hawk from the thigh to the foot.
http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,arms

a previous dictionary of english, written 1755 by samuel johnson, defines 'Arms' this way:

Arms. n.s. without the singular number. Weapons of offence, or armour of defence. Those arms which Mars before Had giv'n the vanquish'd, now the victor bore. Iliad.
A state of hostility. Sir Edward Courtney, and the haughty prelate, With many more confed'rates, are in arms.Shakes.RIII.
War in general. Arms and the man I sing. Dryd. VIrgil.
Him Paris follow'd to the dire alarms, Both breathing slaughter, both resolv'd in arms.Iliad.
Action; the act of taking arms. Up rose the victor angels, and to arms The matin trumpet sung. Milton's Paradise Lost,
The ensigns amorial of a family.
http://johnsonsdictionaryonline.com/?p=12700

Have any other 'revisionistic history' from the 2nd Amendment Mythology, you'd care to have shot down, eleanors?

1828: arm 'ARM, n. 1. To furnish or equip with weapons of offense, or defense; as, to arm the militia.
2. To cover with a plate, or with whatever will add strength, force, or security; as, to arm the hilt of a sword.
3. To furnish with means of defense; to prepare for resistance; to fortify.
Arm yourselves with the same mind. 1Pet. 4.
'ARM, v.i. To provide with arms, weapons, or means of attack or resistance; to take arms; as, the nations arm for war.

[hrmjustin]

115. I have to say that the NRA has shown their evil side recently.

[Purveyor]

116. Since I posted this...now they are 'claiming' over a quarter of a million new sign-ups? eom

[hrmjustin]

117. They won't say how much they have lost. It makes me sick that people would join this group.

just horrible!