NRA: 100,000 New Members After Sandy Hook Shooting

[RonPaulFanInGA]

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/nra-100k-new-members-after-sandy-hook-86001.html

[Brett85]

It's too bad Gun Owners of America didn't get 100,000 new members.

[familydog]

That's unfortunate. The GOA earned those 100,000 members much more than the NRA.

[Lucille]

Balko mentioned the NRA yesterday in his Buchanan piece (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/09/james-buchanan-rip_n_2443693.html?utm_hp_ref=the-agitator):


So what does all of that have to do with James Buchanan and public choice? The idea behind public choice is not that public employees are terrible, selfish, horrible people. Or at least uniquely so. It's that they're merely human, like the rest of us. We all like to think we put the public good ahead of our own interests, but when the two come into conflict, we usually do what's best for ourselves, our families, our friends, or businesses, and our immediate community. That's true whether you're the CEO of an oil company, a Chicago cop, a truck driver, the president of a teacher's union, or a journalist. I'm of course speaking in generalities, here. I'm sure there are lots of exceptions. But we should make public policy based on the rule, not the exception.

This problem exists not just with government, but also with the groups that seek to influence it. The NRA claims to stand for the rights of gun owners. But the most important gun rights case to come before the Supreme Court in 80 years was the Heller case in 2008. The NRA fought like hell to try to prevent it from happening--at least until the very end. The organization will claim that it fought Heller because it wasn't the right test case, or because the makeup of the Court wasn't right. But some close to the case have suggested--plausibly I think--that the organization fought the case in the early stages because it wasn't brought by the NRA, and the group would look foolish if such an important case for gun rights had been initiated by someone other than the NRA. Which is to say that the NRA was more interested in protecting the NRA than in protecting the rights of gun owners.

[V4Vendetta]

Good news... and both organizations will gain many new members

[FSP-Rebel]

Join GOA! (http://gunowners.co/new-annual-membership), it's only $20.

[AFPVet]

Gun Owners of America is better.

[Philhelm]

What is important is that 100,000 Americans decided to support what is at least perceived as a flagship for firearm advocacy.

[Acala]

GOA is better, but NRA knows why it has a surge of membership and it will help stiffen their resolve. This is indeed good news. Also, the internet and social media are overflowing with rational pro-gun argument and rightious anger that helps consolidate resistance. This is NOT going to happen without a fight.

[cjm]

What is important is that 100,000 Americans decided to support what is at least perceived as a flagship for firearm advocacy.

Although that's a good sign, there is still a lot of work to be done. Many Americans decided to vote for Romney because they perceived him as opposing Obama's policies.

[seapilot]

Good news... and both organizations will gain many new members

Agree, all the organizations that are trying to protect the 2nd amendment need to stick together at this time. The gun control national socialists could hope for nothing more than the NRA to wilt away.

[cheapseats]

Agree, all the organizations that are trying to protect the 2nd amendment need to stick together at this time. The gun control national socialists could hope for nothing more than the NRA to wilt away.

Lemme know when HANG TOGETHER OR HANG SEPARATELY trumps MARKET SHARE.

100,000 new members parlays into a minimum $2.5 million, possibly considerably more. NRA ain't goin' nowhere so long as the cash flow continues. With virtual Paupers now prattling casually in BILLIONS, I have observed that some people who espouse fiscal conservatism have grown DESENSITIZED to a couple million bucks.

I'm not saying 100,000 new members doesn't make a statement, albeit passive. And we need all the people making all the pro Second Amendment statements that we can get. But what do members get for their money? I presume gun associations have benefits/niceties comparable to those of, say, Ducks Unlimited, which have NOTHING to do with preservation of the right to bear arms. But considering where we are on the SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED front, you have to buy into the unprovable tenet that THINGS WOULD BE MUCH WORSE WITHOUT THEM to make throwing more money at them herald anything but BUSINESS AS USUAL.

WITHHOLDING money, pending results...THAT'S got teeth. IMAGINE if Congressional pay was held in escrow until they forged a meaningful Grand Bargain.

Project Appleseed is ripe for resurgence: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Appleseed

[unknown]

It's too bad Gun Owners of America didn't get 100,000 new members.

Thats what Im saying. The NRA is a Judas goat organization.

[jclay2]

It's too bad Gun Owners of America didn't get 100,000 new members.

Seeing that the NRA is just controlled opposition, I went and joined GOA after the shooting.

Edit: The NRA will support new gun regulation. Why else would the white house be holding meetings with them? They will work to preserve the right to duck hunt and that is it.

[paulbot24]

Seeing that the NRA is just controlled opposition, I went and joined GOA after the shooting.

Edit: The NRA will support new gun regulation. Why else would the white house be holding meetings with them? They will work to preserve the right to duck hunt and that is it.

The GOA is really only working to preserve the right to duck hunt as well....with a cannon and an AR-15. They eat first.