NRA Opposes Sotomayer

imported post

wrightme wrote:

1/300th of the population does not have the clout you desire.

Click to expand...

How many members is that, approximately?

What does "1/300" equate to?

imported post

HankT wrote:

wrightme wrote:

1/300th of the population does not have the clout you desire.

Click to expand...

How many members is that, approximately?

What does "1/300" equate to?

Click to expand...

From another thread here:

wrightme wrote:

Many interesting points have been raised in this thread, but there is a critical element missing. For the premise to be valid, the prior action (or words) of the NRA must be known. In other words, what did the NRA do during the passage of the legislation that caused the premise to be valid?

Some of the posts that speak against the NRA present the point of "go along to get along," or "compromise." The arena that the NRA plays in is the political arena, and those are de riguer for success in that arena. Failing at that will disarm the NRA in the political arena, whether we like it or not.

I have seen the NRA blamed for allowing specific laws to be passed, or for allowing a President to be elected! In other words, the NRA continually gets blamed for "allowing" such events.


The NRA represents gun owners, but the reality is that the "clout" is most likely based on the membership number of ~4,000,000. With the US Population currently at ~307,000,000 some people expect a group the size of 1/300th of the population to be able to truly effect change without compromise.



It ain't gonna happen. "No compromise" can be replaced with "no effect." In politics, unless operating with a clear majority, compromise is the only way to effect change.

Without the reported political clout wielded by the NRA, where would we already be with firearms regulations?

Click to expand...

In other words, according to you, the NRA with only 1/300th of the population, should be able to get Sotomayor denied in the hearings? I seriously doubt it.
The real strength of ANY organization like the NRA, or the NAACP, or the GOA, or the AARP is in the numbers, and in the ability of the organization to get the members to place pressure on their Representatives and Senators. Otherwise, they are simply lobbyists with no effect.

imported post

wrightme wrote:

HankT wrote:

wrightme wrote:

1/300th of the population does not have the clout you desire.

Click to expand...

How many members is that, approximately?

What does "1/300" equate to?

Click to expand...

From another thread here:

wrightme wrote:

Many interesting points have been raised in this thread, but there is a critical element missing. For the premise to be valid, the prior action (or words) of the NRA must be known. In other words, what did the NRA do during the passage of the legislation that caused the premise to be valid?

Some of the posts that speak against the NRA present the point of "go along to get along," or "compromise." The arena that the NRA plays in is the political arena, and those are de riguer for success in that arena. Failing at that will disarm the NRA in the political arena, whether we like it or not.

I have seen the NRA blamed for allowing specific laws to be passed, or for allowing a President to be elected! In other words, the NRA continually gets blamed for "allowing" such events.


The NRA represents gun owners, but the reality is that the "clout" is most likely based on the membership number of ~4,000,000. With the US Population currently at ~307,000,000 some people expect a group the size of 1/300th of the population to be able to truly effect change without compromise.



It ain't gonna happen. "No compromise" can be replaced with "no effect." In politics, unless operating with a clear majority, compromise is the only way to effect change.

Without the reported political clout wielded by the NRA, where would we already be with firearms regulations?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Ah, so your "1/300th" is 4 million over 306,943,000 (see census.gov).

This is spinning at its finest.

You have one of the correct numerators (4,000,000)...but the wrong denominator. My gosh, why didn't you figure out a way to use 6,771,869,000 AS the denominator.

Tsk, tsk, the resulting fraction would have been really small!

imported post

Say When.

imported post

WELL, I say that the late arrival of the NRA into this matter is due to three things:

(1) In the wheeling and dealing of DC lobbying, favors get burned or must be returned.

(2) Issue an ultimatum too often and it will have little effect. Draw the line only to have it stepped over and you will look like a fool to draw another.

(3) As I have written before, replacing Souder with Sotomayor is like scooping up a cow flop and relacing it with a road apple (that's a horse poop, for those of you GenXers and younger). In light of that fact, risking items (1) and (2) might just be a bad idea.

But that's just my opinion, and I could be wrong.......

imported post

Alexcabbie wrote:

As I have written before, replacing Souder with Sotomayor is like scooping up a cow flop and relacing it with a road apple (that's a horse poop, for those of you GenXers and younger)...

But that's just my opinion, and I could be wrong.......

Click to expand...

No. You're right.

Obviously so.

Same-O, same-O.



We just better hope that Scalia or Roberts don't have a bad ticker.

imported post

wrightme wrote:

Tomahawk wrote:

Your honcho doesn't say why they waited until the last minute. So, no, the statements your honchos provided do not answer the question. Nor do they plan to.

But you keep sending them money and trolling the internet on their behalf, if you think that's best.

Click to expand...

No, I merely am willing to understand that they will not be likely to make the statements that you need to see to believe them. If you simply accept that they have stated their reasons and their position, they DID answer your question; just not to the level you desire. I understand their answer, and you seem to not.

Click to expand...

Wow, you are so upset at me you answered my post twice. I guess that makes you twice as right?

BTW, I love your line, I'm going to use that next time I want to dodge a question, "I DID answer your question, just not to the level you desire."

Classic double talk.

BTW, keep up the good work shouting down HankT. He's definitely an anti-NRA troll!

imported post

HankT wrote:

wrightme wrote:

Ah, so your "1/300th" is 4 million over 306,943,000 (see census.gov).

This is spinning at its finest.

You have one of the correct numerators (4,000,000)...but the wrong denominator. My gosh, why didn't you figure out a way to use 6,771,869,000 AS the denominator.

Tsk, tsk, the resulting fraction would have been really small!

Click to expand...

So, what would you suggest as a denominator, and why? Also, why is the population not the correct denominator?

imported post

Tomahawk wrote:

Wow, you are so upset at me you answered my post twice. I guess that makes you twice as right?

Click to expand...

No, I am not upset at you in the least. No, I am not "twice as right."

The fact remains that the NRA provided direct answer to your question. Your refusal to accept it does not negate it.

imported post

Huck wrote:

Why did the NRA wait until the last minute to oppose this lamer?

Click to expand...

Here is my feelings/opinion on why the NRA waited to announce their stance;

Since many politicians absolutelyHATE the NRA and what they represent. I feel that the NRA waited because they suspected those politicianswould vote opposite their stance just to spite the organization!

Lets look at how many people had voted for the person who is currently named as president o the USAjust because he is a non-Caucasian. (I know quite a few that voted on color alone) While they had no information on his past performance,I also think thatsomeweren't actuallyvoting for Obama, but instead they thought they were voting against Bush.

imported post

wrightme wrote:

HankT wrote:

wrightme wrote:

Ah, so your "1/300th" is 4 million over 306,943,000 (see census.gov).

This is spinning at its finest.

You have one of the correct numerators (4,000,000)...but the wrong denominator. My gosh, why didn't you figure out a way to use 6,771,869,000 AS the denominator.

Tsk, tsk, the resulting fraction would have been really small!

Click to expand...

So, what would you suggest as a denominator, and why? Also, why is the population not the correct denominator?

Click to expand...

Population always handy but not the best for this situation. But if you feel compelled to use population, use the relevant one--you're using the LARGEST possible population number. Even though about a third of those in your 300 million number aren't involved. Children under 18, for example. (There are other segments not involved.) So your total population, if it's higher than, say, 210-215 million is way overstated. That still produces a nice small fraction. Why not use that one? 4 million over 215,000,000? Why overstate it by 90 MILLION PEOPLE? At least.

Basically, you seem to be wanting to recalibrate expectations of NRA power. Probably to answer the knuckleheads who criticize the NRA for not being able to do everything for us (e.g., free automatic weapons). That's a good motive.

And you're wanting to do this by making a point: the proportion of people in the NRA compared tosome totalother number of persons is small. Ergo,we should not have an expectation that the NRAcan control all things regarding guns in the U.S.

But that path is not so good. The ratio of number of people to some other number of people gets you another number.But it doesn't really describe the relevant resources that get political action done in this country. Dollars and political pressure get political action done in this country.

Of course, paying and active memberships can be a proxy variable for how much political clout an organization has...

If you must use people as a count,definitely try not using theLARGEST number you can find. If you do use the LARGEST number you can find, it won't be persuasive.

I haven't looked at any hard data, but I'd guess that the NRA is probably the most effective special interest advocate organization in the history of the U.S. What it has accomplished is astounding. It is certainly not perfect, and it certainly has limitations in power.

How to measure that performance, however, is probably morein thequalitative realm than the quantitative.



P.S. How do you get "1/300th" again?

imported post

Good points, and I see my math was incorrect to begin with. It should work out to 4/300, or 1/75th?

Now if we take your view about ages, we CAN have NRA members who are less than 18. If we take the view of only those who legally can own firearms, we still have those less than 18. Lets split the difference, and round it to an even 250,000,000.

4/250, or 1/62.5.