NRA Losing Sportsman Members

NRA Losing Sportsmen Members

Growing numbers of hunters and sportsmen have grown disenchanted with the National Rifle Association's controversial positions.

And so they should.

from the article: Hunters are taking issue with several NRA positions, including its oppostion to an assault-weapons ban, its criticism of state and federal fish and wildlife agencies' allegedly excessive red tape, and its efforts to reopen roads on federal land that were closed by the Clinton Administration.

"I'm all for hunters rights," said Rick Dykstra, a hunter and former police officer in Milford, Kan. "But when you look at the Second Amendment, I don't think our founding fathers had any way of predicting where firearms would be today."

So glad to hear such sensible and non-inflammatory reports from legal gun owners.
If only our government cared to follow suit and not lick the feet of the NRA.


"I'm all for hunters rights," said Rick Dykstra, a hunter and former police officer in Milford, Kan. "But when you look at the Second Amendment, I don't think our founding fathers had any way of predicting where firearms would be today."

"I'm all for free speech rights," said John Q Public, a parent and library supporter in Anytown USA. "But when you look at the First Amendment, I don't think our founding fathers had any way of predicting what free speech with the Internet would be today."

Both you and the NYAGV piece assert that growing numbers of hunters are disenchanted with or are leaving the NRA over its controversial positions.

The only way to support such an assertion is to show that more hunters left the NRA over some recent period of time due to its controversial positions. If the rate at which the subgroup of hunters is leaving or becoming disenchanted with the NRA because of its controversial positions is not growing over some recent period, then the NYAGV's assertion is simply untenable.

It's interesting to note that the Knight-Ridder story on which the NYAGV is based has a much more modest (and truthful) headline: "Some hunters disenchanted with NRA." Furthermore, neither it nor the NYAGV give NRA membership numbers that would support the NYAGV headline. What the articles do give is ancecdotal evidence. With the right 5 or 6 people, anecodotal evidence can be made convincing to the careless thinker. Of course, an N size of 5 or 6 in a population of millions is meaningless.

The NRA doesn't want us to know if they have lost members, I'm quite sure. If you know of some way to encourage/cajole/suggest that the NRA share their membership figures with us, please let me know. They are a privately funded organization and are not required (nor would they want to) share this type of data. So the whole thing is a moot point.

Just so I understand: you concede that the NYAGV has no way of knowing whether or not the central assertion of their article is correct?

And are you agreeing that your posting of this story (or non-story--we can't really know) is also a moot point?

Chuck B, I don't think there's anything I can do to make you understand me. Not that I'd wish to anyway. Believe what you will. Believe the NRA. Believe in Santa. I don't care what you believe or don't believe.

Once again, this is my journal, and my posting was a positive reaction to the news that fewer sports guns enthusiasts (i.e., hunters) were likely to support the NRA than in times past. Cause I don't trust the NRA. I don't like the NRA. I dislike the fact that our politicians feel that they have to pander to the NRA. Period.

I don't think the problem is that I don't understand you. I am not trying to change your mind. I am trying to figure out why you think the central assertion of the NYAGV piece is justified. Perhaps that is not a relevant question.

There are probably a lot articles from various conservative and libertarian advocacy groups that I could post to my journal as a positive reaction. However, they are often as tendentious and potentially distorting as the NYAGV article, and I don't like that even when I agree with their sentiments, so I don't post them.

I agree completely that this is your journal. I have no objection to your posting what you will here. The fact that comments were enabled on this post suggested to me that my comments might be welcome in response. If you like, I will refrain from commenting here again, whether or not you have comments enabled. Just say the word.

Chuck B - bring it on. Just as you say you're not trying to change my mind, I'm not trying to silence you or your opinions. Comment away.

But I do not see the NYAGV article as "tendentious or potentially distorting" in any way. It's good news, positive news for people like myself who do not see guns as the answers to our problems.

In my opinion, guns cause infinitely more problems than they "solve", such as the tragedy of the death of the 14 year old girl, going to the corner store to buy a soda, shot in Harlem by two men embroiled in their own version of vigilante "justice." Undoubtedly, their guns were illegal.

But heaven forbid the NRA should say anything critical of anyone owning or carrying a or illegal. The gun manufacturers get their money even when an innocent life is lost. Newsday

You know, our founding fathers (probably because they didn't let the mothers have a say) didn't have it all correct, at least as it applies to the here and now. The electoral college should go and a few other changes are overdue.

Any thoughts on why those chauvinistic drafters concocted the electoral college? Think outside NYC.

Subscribe to Comments for "NRA Losing Sportsman Members"