The Myth Of The NRA Voter...

Did their pro-AWB platform cost the Democrats even a single race? Nope.
http://www.alternet.org/rights/109841/untold_story_of_election_2008:_the_death_of_the_nra/

"The sweeping victory for gun control has been one of the most underreported stories of the election."



okay.

Is it surprising that middle-of-the-fence independents, rural democrats, and sometime single issue voters realized that the nation is in trouble? That major change is needed to fix what ails us? They took BHO at his word that gun control isn't high on the list of priorities.

But to take that movement from center-right to center-left (or local-left to national-left) as a "mandate" on gun control is ludicrous. When I read that article, I heard shades of Shrub in '04, saying that the nation was behind him and all his crazy policies.

If the gun control lobby starts fomenting a change in priority, all I can imagine is a repeat of '96 and a loss of the house and senate majorities. A vote is a binary thing- either this candidate or the other. It doesn't take into account how close the decision was in each voter's mind, or how tenuous that support can be.

If that change in priorities happens before most of the overriding problems are addressed (economy, health care, jobs, environment, foreclosures) the backlash, I think, will be severe. It will be seen as trotting out a hobby horse and riding it while more important things remain to be done.

Voters can be fickle. Many will vote against their own self-interest overall for certain issues that they see as important. (e.g. Rural voters who vote republican because of social issues, gun control, etc. regardless of the fact that the democratic party is most likely to make rural economic issues a higher priority. Call it aspirational politics, if you like. 'Republicans are the party of the rich, and I want to be rich, therefore I'm voting republican.') This election cycle, more of them woke up to the fact that their self-interest is better served by democrats. However, these other issues are still in their minds, and some of them will, no doubt, swing the other way if these pet projects get trotted out.

This story is a yawner.

during this last election and I was so glad to see there is a better organization (AHSSA)for those hunters who are more progressive and do not fall for the fear based propaganda of the NRA (obviously backed by the GOP). I sent this article to everyone I know(who hunt or are connected to hunters). More of us need to protest organizations like the NRA who have political agendas and try to brain wash their members with fear and lies.

are not hunters or target shooters.

Most own firearms primarily for self defense as I do. I really have no interest in killing anything unless it's truly necessary. In the current economic situation, it is possible that I will take up hunting in order to provide food for the family.

Both my mother and my daughter used handguns to prevent an attack. This tactic proved effective and in both cases no one was shot. In both situations calling the police would have proved futile. A gun in the hand is worth more than a cop three miles away when the shit hits the fan.

I now that most are not hunters but I know many hunters who collect lots of guns for ????. I ran into a few during the election while working the Obama booth at local functions. The literature that the NRA put out in their magazine (something like "ten ways Obama will steal your guns") made a couple of young guys (a little crazy looking and high on something) get into our face and argue with us over and over about how Obama will take their guns away. The next day I saw the information in the NRA magazine and it was way off base. I fact checked it and it was so wrong that our local (conservative) paper wouldn't let people put letters to the editor stating that NRA info because it was wrong. But some people with loads of guns are a little crazy and I hate the NRA for getting these people worked up. We had teens working our booth and why have them exposed to these crazy people. Why should the NRA put out this crap? Only to influence people who are easily influenced by fear (many of the GOP base). I saw it on there web site after the elction too (send us money now to help fight the legislation that Obama is already trying to push through). And let me guess when nothing happens they'll say "because of all your money you sent us we were able to prevent all those things that we said Obama will do"). Then it starts all over with the next democratic candidate "their going to steal all our guns so send me more money!".

The neighborhood I lived in before was very peaceful at first but over the 35 years I lived in the community a lot changed.

My mother's incident where she used a firearm for protection occurred in the 1920 time frame in Pennsylvania. She was walking home from work when a man rushed her. She drew a small .22 cal revolver in her purse and fired two quick shots over his head and he ran away. That was in a different time and universe far away.

My daughter's incident occurred in my home. An intruder was trying to make entry to the house by prying a sliding glass door open. A burglar alarm was blaring, and a 60 pound lab was in the house. She pointed a large caliber revolver at him just as he was halfway through the door and he also wisely decided to leave. Had he actually made it into the house she would have shot him. I had told her never to shoot anyone unless they were in the house, never considering that someone would only be halfway in. The police that responded told her that she would have been justified if she had shot the intruder. All's well that ends well.

Several times in my neighborhood, I witnessed police chasing suspects with drawn weapons. The neighbor across the street had a home break in during the day. My wife noticed several young men climbing in and out of his window carrying his rifles to his neighbor's house. (The daughter of the neighbor had set the robbery up.) I was working graveyard shift so my wife woke me up to tell me what was happening. Half asleep, I told her to call the police and pulled a Geronimo. I ran across the street yelling obscenities at the top of my voice. The four young guys were startled and decided to run. When I hit the carport, I slipped on some oil and landed on my ass. I found my neighbor's .45 automatic laying there with a stove piped round sticking out it's side. One of the guys had tried to load it. Had he succeeded, I might not be here to post the story. But again, all's well that ends well. The owner of the burglarized house treated my family to a really nice steak barbecue with plenty of beer. (He did buy a good gun safe after the incident.)

A drive by shooting occurred two house down from mine with no injuries. Several months later the son of the owner was arrested by the police on the charge of murdering his girlfriend by shooting her in the head with a .38 cal. revolver. He ran a small local gang and got off with a fairly short time in jail by saying the incident was an accidental discharge. None of his gang members who were present when the incident happened would testify otherwise.

Fortunately, I've never had to use a weapon for self defense. But let me assure you, situations can arise where you may wish you had one.

I do agree that the NRA uses unfair tactics to encourage donations and so do the anti-gun organizations. The NRA also does a lot of good for the shooting sports and trains police and civilian shooters and hunters. While I belong to the NRA, I throw all their propaganda about Obama and their constant solicitations for money in the trash.

I would never be so impolite as to harass people working at a campaign booth. As a firearms owner, let me apologize to you for such inconsiderate behavior. I hope you don't believe that the majority of the people who own weapons are like the people you encountered.

Brady lobbying that Conceal Carry will result in gunfights in streets - never happened (thanks to KS now 40 states support "shall issue" CCW laws).

Brady lobbying that "stand your ground" is "right to murder law" or laws allowing people to leave weapon locked in car at work is "kill your coworker law".

Brady confusing the public that the 1994 AWB (and AWB replacements proposed today) affects machineguns. They know perfectly well that machineguns are regulated by NFA signed in 1934 and since 1934 only two legal MG have been used in a crime. 2 in 70+ years.

Brady attempting to link the words "semi-auto" with pictures of soldiers in Iraq to confuse the public. Most people now believe that a semi-auto is an automatic. They do this so they can easily ban "semi-autos" and the public thinks that it is banning machineguns NOT virtually every pistol & rifle sold today.

Brady includes suicides & accidents in their number of GUN MURDERS!

Brady reports on # of children "killed by guns" to include criminals up to age of 25. That is how they get the magic stat of 1 child a day dies from gun violence. The truth is in 2005 only 126 children (1-17) died from accident involving guns (less than half as many who died from drowning in swimming pool).

So you are equally upset with Brady right? Spreading lies, misinformation and scaring voters.

Don't tread on my right to own an AR-15 and I don't give a rat's ass about your Fudd guns.

Sara Brady REPUBLICAN..

Micheal Bloomberg, REPUBLICAN

Paul Helmke REPUBLICAN..

Those are the rethugs we need to worry about....Those have many "not so well informed", or just plain ignorant, Democrats at their beck and call.

Of course, we really have:


Sara Brady - consistent donor to many liberal Democrats, including Ted Kennedy, and no evidence whatsoever of Repubican Party affiliation for many years

Michael Bloomberg - as Republican as, uh, well, a bunch of Democrats one might name.

Paul Helmke? Oh yes, the token Republican the gun militant brigade can love to hate. Conversely, the token Republican the rational decent folks can claim as their own.


Ain't it a drag when one of one's own turns coat? A Republican for firearms control; surely not.

Of course, there was also Spiro Agnew (you know, the guy who beat the racist right-wing gun-lovin DEMOCRAT for the office of Governor of Massachusetts).

And there's Michael Castle - the one firearms control-advocating Republican to whom Sarah Brady does give money.


The Democratic Party's a big tent, I hear.

Interesting how the same seems to be true of the firearms control advocacy tent. Interesting, too, how it doesn't seem to have as much actual scum in it as the Democratic Party's does.

Exit polls:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html
2004
Gun owner in household?
Bush Kerry
Yes (41%) 63% 36%
No (59%) 43% 57%

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#val=USP00p3
2008
Gun owner in household?
McCain Obama
Yes (42%) 62% 37%
No (58%) 33% 65%

Gun households made up about 40% of voting population in both elections
Both Bush & McCain pulled the "gun vote" about 2:1.
It is actually kinda surprising how stable the numbers are despite the differences in elections.
Change in gun ownership of voters of ~1% isn't statistically meaningful and neither is a 63% vs 62% in favor of the GOP candidate.

The major difference Bush slightly lost the "non gun vote". Enough to pull out a small win. McCain got annihilated among non gun owners (who likely voted #1 on the economy, #2 against war in Iraq, and #3 as an anti-bush vote) losing it be 32%. 32%!!!!! Once more THIRTY TWO FRIGGIN PERCENT! You can't lose over half the country by 32% and expect to win. Ever. In any election.

IF Obama won the non-gunowner vote because they are clamoring for massive new gun control why isn't gun control or crime even in the top 10 most important issues?

The NRA "campaign" wasn't aimed at non gunowners. Gunowners broke in similar numbers in each election. The idea that the NRA "lost" the election sells the amazing job in message, fund raising, organization, and campaigning that the Obama camp did short.

Obama is smart. The country has too many important issues right now. Most of which an economy hanging on by a thread. If Obama pushes some massive anti-gun program the same thing will happen to him that happened to Clinton 2 years later. Without majorities in both houses how will he get anything done?

This is pure gun grabber fantasy nonsense. Obama is too smart to fall for that trap.

Percentages mean nothing if you can't cite actual numbers. It looks to me like the gun-owning voter has about the same relevance as the NAMBLA voter.

We ARE, "the mainstream"....

Get used to it..

See the % mean 1/100 of the whole.

We know the whole, so we already know the numbers

In 2004 121 million voters cast ballots. We know 41% of them were gun owners.
(Watch here this is the technical part-> ) 121 * 0.41 = 49.6 million gun owners voted.

In 2004 they split about 2:1 for George Bush (once again using the % we can get the "actual numbers").
49.6 * 0.63 = 31.2 million voted for Bush
49.6 * 0.36 = 17.8 million voted for Kerry


In 2008 129 million voters cast ballots. We know 42% of them were gun owners.
(Watch here this is the technical part-> ) 129 * 0.42 = 54.2 million gun owners voted.

In 2008 they split about 2:1 for McCain (once again using the % we can get the "actual numbers").
54.2 * 0.62 = 33.6 million voted for McCain
54.2 * 0.37 = 20.0 million voted for Obama

In both campaigns the NRA back the GOP candidate because of concerns over Obama & Kerry voting records.
IF the NRA campaign had been a FAILURE one would expect either
a) a lower % of the voting population to be gun owners (gun owners stay home) - not the case in 2008
b) a lower % of gun owners who voted to back the NRA candidate - not the case in 2008

Since neither condition happened anyone saying NRA campaign failed is just wishing upon a star.

Secondly one COULD make the argument people voted FOR Obama because they wanted stricter gun control. People who otherwise would have voted for McCain voted for Obama because he will ban/regulate/tax/etc guns.

IF that was the case we would expect the would voice that as a reason for their vote. In 2008 pre-election polls AND exit polls neither CRIME or GUN CONTROL was in top 10. Most polls only show top 10 however the GWU Battlefield Poll allows write in answers. Not one person surveyed volenteered either crime or gun control as the primary reason for their vote.

To conclude that Obama won on a "gun control" mandate is pure fantasy. IF Obama is as deluded as some of the gun grabbers (I don't think he is) then it will be a wakeup call in 2010.

In both campaigns the NRA back the GOP candidate because of concerns over Obama & Kerry voting records.

Oh, well, of course, that's true, as long as we're not reading that to mean "voting records on matters relating to firearms".

The ongoing pretense that that is why the NRA backs the right wing is neverendingly amusing.

As is the ongoing pretense:

IF the NRA campaign had been a FAILURE one would expect either
a) a lower % of the voting population to be gun owners (gun owners stay home) - not the case in 2008
b) a lower % of gun owners who voted to back the NRA candidate - not the case in 2008

-- that "gun owner" = supporter of the NRA's politics, not to mention that "non-gun owner" can be equated with non-supporter of the NRA's politics.

Correlation, causation ...

How about the theory that right-wing assholes (Republican voters) are more likely to own guns than other voters are? I.e.: they own guns because they are Republicans, not they vote Republican because they own guns.

There is every bit as much "statistical evidence" for that assertion as there is for yours.


Secondly one COULD make the argument people voted FOR Obama because they wanted stricter gun control. People who otherwise would have voted for McCain voted for Obama because he will ban/regulate/tax/etc guns.

Sure. And one can easily make the argument that people voted AGAINST Obama because they are right-wing assholes and/or racists, etc.


To conclude that Obama won on a "gun control" mandate is pure fantasy.

It was part of the platform, and it wasn't rejected. Eh?

Not every gun owner is republican. SO if the NRA campaign was a failure we should expect at least a smaller % of gun owners to vote or a larger % to vote for Obama.

Since neither happened we can't conclude that NRA campaign was a failure.
Maybe the NRA didn't affect the election one way or the other. We can't know for sure.
Maybe the NRA prevent even MORE gun owners from voting for Obama. Once again we can't know for sure.

There also is nothing in the election results to indicate that Obama was elected on a gun-banning bandwagon. Maybe some people want him to but the conclusion drawn from the article isn't valid.

I am not saying people want less gun control (I personally do) I am just saying we can't look at the results of the election and make the two conclusions made by the article:
1) the NRA "failed"
2) people want more gun control

There is nothing in the results to indicate that is true. I will meet you halfway. There is also nothing in the results to indicate the opposite is true (NRA "succeeded" or people want less gun control).

Likely the election was decided on topics totally unrelated to gun control such as:
* slowing economy even before economic collapse
* financial collapse
* Bush extremely low approval rating
* That in politics it is extremely rare for one party to control white house for 3 terms.
* Obama run an extremely well run campaign and was well financed
* Two unpopular wars
* Obama message than McCain = 4 more years of Bush resonated.

Looking at the exit polls there is data to support those assertions but NOTHING to support the idea that Obama was elected on a pro gun-control platform.

The big assumption being made is gun owner=NRA supporter. It is a false assumption.

What cannot be denied is the fact the NRA sunk over $40M in an effort to defeat Obama. Obama won.

Additionally, a good number of incumbent GOP pro-NRA officeholders will not be returning to DC this January.

All in all, a sound drubbing of NRA candidates.

one of the worst if not the worst President in U. S. history.

In an informal survey of 109 professional historians conducted over a three-week period through the History News Network, 98.2 percent assessed the presidency of Mr. Bush to be a failure while 1.8 percent classified it as a success.

asked to rank the presidency of George W. Bush in comparison to those of the other 41 American presidents, more than 61 percent of the historians concluded that the current presidency is the worst in the nation’s history. Another 35 percent of the historians surveyed rated the Bush presidency in the 31st to 41st category, while only four of the 109 respondents ranked the current presidency as even among the top two-thirds of American administrations.
http://hnn.us/articles/48916.html

Add to that legacy, the Republican's chose to run a man who acted like he really didn't want to win. McCain's only selling point was experience, and he chose a very inexperienced individual for his vice president, effectively shooting himself in the foot. Bush was also unable to avoid the economic collapse which showed how poorly he had ran the country. The economic situation became the most important story effectively eliminating McCain's best selling point which was having advocated a more successful approach to the war in Iraq.

Obama ran an excellent campaign. The most charismatic candidate since Bill Clinton he offered hope for change and the country agreed that after eight years of Bush we needed change. To most American voters the difference between the two candidates was overwhelming. Obama was young and full of new ideas, McCain was old, stumbling and worn out.

Plus you never watched Obama in camouflage clothing acting like he was the great American hunter. Obama carefully avoid the issue and was wise not to pander to firearm owners like John Kerry.



The Supreme Court Heller decision also helped to defuse the gun control issue. Obama's position on gun control seemed fairly reasonable for a Democrat even to gun owners.

Obama initially voiced support of Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban. Following the Supreme Court decision that the ban was unconstitutional, he revised his position in support of the decision overturning the law, saying, "Today's decision reinforces that if we act responsibly, we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe." He also said, in response to the ruling, "I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms... The Supreme Court has now endorsed that view."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Barack_Obama#Gun_control

But the recent increase in the sale of firearms might be partially explained by Obama's statements after he was elected:

After being elected as President, Obama announced that he favors measures that respect Second Amendment rights, while at the same time keeping guns away from children and criminals. He further stated that he wants to close the gun-show loophole and make guns childproof, and that he supports reinstating the expired Assault Weapons Ban and making it permanent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Barack_Obama#Gun_control

Obama had big coattails that help many other Democrats win election as voters hoped to give him the Congressional support he needs to help implement his plans. Believe it or not, but many Democrats run with a pro-gun message which didn't hurt them in the election.

Of course, the NRA was opposed to Obama's election, but also realize that in years past they had not been strong supporters of John McCain. For example this 2001 NRA quote:

“Like to think your opinion counts? Under the guise of reforming election funding, Sen. John McCain and others are attempting to muzzle your voice concerning critical national issues—including the Second Amendment.”…. “McCain was led down a path by a Senate Democratic leadership that is doing all it can to keep the super-senator beholden….hey want a Senate Majority of radical Democrats, who would prove an unprecedented threat to the Second Amendment. John McCain is their Judas goat—leading the sheep to slaughter.”…. “The gun control debate in Washington has hit center stage because Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., has now become one of the premier flag carriers for the enemies of the Second Amendment.”
http://www.unitedliberty.org/articles/nra-endorses-mccain-despite-his-anti-2nd-amendment-record-0

Pro-gun voters have a long memory. Many viewed the NRA's opposition to McCain as hypocritical. The NRA made a mistake by supporting John McCain rather than realistically reporting that he was a marginal friend of gun owners at the best. Neither candidate was a prime choice for gun owners as these voters realize that a Republican will sell them out just as fast as a Democrat.

Both sides of the gun control issue will attempt to gain support and contributions to further their agenda at this time. Anti-gun groups will push for what gun owners will consider draconian gun laws as they sense an opportunity. Hopefully, the new administration and Congress will focus on the truly important issues that face this country and only tweak our existing firearm laws to make them more effective in eliminating gun violence.

If Democrats push too hard for new "feel good" gun laws such as another assault weapons ban or even more restrictive laws and fail to address the root causes of crime and violence, the Republicans may run a more gun friendly candidate in the next election and wipe out many Democrat seats in Congress. We don't need to return to another Republican controlled era where the rich get richer and the middle and lower classes get screwed.

Never underestimate the power of gun owners to influence a close election. At the same time, realize that gun owners want a decrease in violence and crime just as those who are opposed to gun ownership. Truly reasonable and effective gun control laws will not irritate the majority of gun owners. Ineffective and useless "feel good" laws will draw them to the polls like steel to a magnet.

That people who like to wax on, about the grave of the NRA, have failed to dig the hole first...

They enjoy little grassroots support.

Keep telling yourself that..... As I said, lots of people have recently "declared them dead" but NO ONE has even started to dig the hole..

has nothing to do with whether it is or will soon be dead. Money makes that world go round.

We should also, of course, as always, be clear.

The NRA that people join to get a magazine or firearms training or whatever the hell they get for their money is NOT the NRA that issues political statements and endorses/condemns political candidates. That is the NRA Institute for Legislative Action, the NRA-ILA.

You know. The one with the blacklist.

http://www.nrablacklist.com/

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=15


Didya know we have our very own ILA up here?

http://www.cila-ical.com/

... not very impressive ... and one of those pdf things tried to crash my shiny new Firefox ...


typo fixed

realized that except for the last few years of pandering, that McCain was just as bad as nearly any of the Democratic contenders.

I know for a fact that even some pretty heavily pro RKBA people are/were quite aware of how fucked up things are with the economy and Iraq, how badly we need Obama and what a goofball McCain is.

McCain would have signed another AWB and was no advocate of the individual RKBA and concomitant right, his words to the contrary convinced not even the most dyed in the wool Republican.

are that there are enough gun control voters to even be relevant, that a vote for Obama was a vote for gun control, and that a big push for more meaningless laws which have no effect on "gun violence" let alone violence in general will have no effect on Dems in future elections.

Let some new legislation be proposed and watch NRA membership increase exponentially. Let new legislation be proposed and see the Senate and Congress members mailbox be 20-1 against the legislation, gun control voters simply don't exist in numbers great enough to matter.

Most of the people (myself included) who voted for Obama were voting for change, not Clinton II, others were young voters with stars in their eyes like my 18 year old son who was 10 when W was elected, he thinks there is going to be sweeping change immediately. If he sees no real change anytime soon, his illusion will be quashed and he likely won't even vote next time around.

Obama needs to tread lightly on divisive, splinter issues and use all of his momentum to effect those things people were really voting for like reduced presence in Iraq, health care reform, jobs growth, environmental issues, alternative energy and meaningful diplomacy...all things viable segments of the population support. Real change would be relegating divisive regional issues to states instead of bogging down the federal system and his Administration with more shit huge segments of the population disagree on.

Zaitchik got the full name of the AHSA wrong. And if he had just placed a phone call to either myself or to Ray Schoenke, he would have learned that the AHSA is opposed to resurrecting the semi-auto ban. Not as "pro-gun-control" as that article would suggest.

Basically, Zaitchik screwed up big time.