NRA Winning the Influence Battle Over Gun Control (http://www.forbes.com/sites/brucerogers/2013/02/01/nra-winning-the-influence-battle-over-gun-control/)
The gun control debate is clearly one of the most contentious and controversial issues in America today. And the battle over gun control is now being waged through intensive media campaigns from both sides of the political spectrum to influence public opinion and to assert pressure on policy makers. So who’s winning? To find out, we turned to objective data provided exclusively to Forbes Insights by Appinions, the influence marketing platform. Keep in mind Forbes Insights has no agenda other than to shed research light on the process of measuring influence and what we can learn from it. The facts are objective, whatever your perspective on the issue may be. We certainly don’t aim to promote either side and are just stating the facts of influence and who is leading or gaining ground through the lens of influence.
Snip
Go to the site and checkout the interesting infographic
Badger52
02-02-2013, 12:20
Thanks for that, especially the graphic.
Keep Christie's position, words & actions in mind when he reluctantly agrees to throw his hat in the ring down the road.
:rolleyes:
The fence-sitting currently going on is sickening, if not expected.
Of course, their couch-potato role is enabled by other Special Folks crafting things that are comprehensive, pro-active & defensible positions.
The NRA seems to be effective once it gets into gear. I just wish they would consider playing a stronger offense once in a while.
In the recent debates on gun control, the NRA has been heard, but I think that the people themselves are actually gaining the largest ground. In the past, I have seen the left use the tactic to cull hunters and other field sportsmen from the firearms field of play. And in the past it has been effective. But this time not.
Look at the Eastern Sports and Outdoor Show that was recently forced to cancel in Harrisburg, PA. The organizers of the show, the UK based Reeed Exhibitions, made a decision about 6 weeks before the show to exclude modern sporting arms. Groups like the NRA tried to work with them to get them to change their minds. WHile those discussions were going on, word got out to the other exhibitors, who started to withdraw from participation from the show. It started out small - smaller vendors announcing they were boycotting the show in support of the Second Amendment. Pretty soon, manufacturers like Smith and Wesson and retailers like Cabelas said they were boycotting as well. After over 200 vendors officially withdrew, the NRA announced it was pulling out as well.
It did not stop there. Archery companies, boat retailers, camping equipment companeis, etc all stood up and said they were boycotting as well. These vendors stood to lose in some cases some fairly sizeable deposits for floor space, but they put principle over money.
Reed had to cancel the show when the number climbed upwards of 400 vendors pulling out, including most of their prime sponsors.
Unlike times past, I think that people now realize this is not just an "assault rifle" issue. They realize it will start with modern sporting arms, and move down the chain to ban all firearms.
The results of several recent polls give me hope. In a REason_Rupe poll published on 1/31/13, the results showed that the majority of Americans favored private ownership of firearms. But the real interesting numbers showed that a full 70% of the 18-24 age group supported private ownership of assault weapons.
http://reason.com/blog/2013/01/31/poll-americans-especially-young-ones-sa2
Unlike liberally controlled polls, where the questions are skewed to elicit the desired answers, the questions in this poll were straightforward.
The results of this poll were significantly different from those reported by the mainstream media; Reason/Rupe attributes the divergent results to the wording of the question in each poll.
Reason/Rupe asked a straightforward question, "Do you think people should be prohibited from owning assault weapons, or should people be allowed to own them?"; other outlets, however, muddled the issue with misleading information, such as a CNN poll that used an AK-47 as an example of a "semi-automatic" weapon and an AP poll that asked if "military-style, rapid-fire guns" should be banned. http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/02/01/Poll-Young-Americans-Against-Banning-So-Called-Assault-Rifles
The results of another recent poll are even more interesting. The poll involved the question of what people would do in the event a law was passed requiring them to give up their firearms.
A majority of poll respondents – 52 percent – revealed that someone in their home owns a gun. Those respondents were then asked, “If the government passed a law to take your guns, would you give up your guns or defy the law and keep your guns?”
Approximately 65 percent indicated they would “defy the law,” including 70 percent of Republicans and 52 percent of Democrats who answered the question. Only 22 percent said they would “give up” their guns, while 13 percent were not sure.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/27/poll-two-thirds-of-american-voters-with-household-guns-would-defy-gun-laws/#ixzz2Jlb43YeZ
People are not only taking a stand on the Second Amendment, they have taken the additional step of thinking through whether they would stand idly by and give up their firearms. In times past, that type of "second order of consequence" thinking was not at all prevalent. The general public only gets to that stage when they perceive an actual threat to their rights. And for 2/3 of those surveyed to take a molon labe approach is a real eye opener.
With regard to the overal public perception of a threat, there is also a recent poll that shows a great level of public unease in government.
Anotehr Pew Research poll showed that the majority of adult Americans believe government is a genuine threat to theri personal freedoms.
As Barack Obama begins his second term in office, trust in the federal government remains mired near a historic low, while frustration with government remains high. And for the first time, a majority of the public says that the federal government threatens their personal rights and freedoms.
The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted Jan. 9-13 among 1,502 adults, finds that 53% think that the federal government threatens their own personal rights and freedoms while 43% disagree.
In March 2010, opinions were divided over whether the government represented a threat to personal freedom; 47% said it did while 50% disagreed. In surveys between 1995 and 2003, majorities rejected the idea that the government threatened people’s rights and freedoms.
While the Pew survey tries to paint this as a Republican issue, their numbers reveal it is anything but:
The growing view that the federal government threatens personal rights and freedoms has been led by conservative Republicans. Currently 76% of conservative Republicans say that the federal government threatens their personal rights and freedoms and 54% describe the government as a “major” threat. Three years ago, 62% of conservative Republicans said the government was a threat to their freedom; 47% said it was a major threat.
By comparison, there has been little change in opinions among Democrats; 38% say the government poses a threat to personal rights and freedoms and just 16% view it as a major threat.
http://www.people-press.org/2013/01/31/majority-says-the-federal-government-threatens-their-personal-rights/
When you normailze the numbers and stop the Pew spin, the 38% of Democrats who think of government as a threat needs to be added to the 16% of DEmocrats who see government as a major threat. That comes to 54%, or a majority, of Democrats as well.
The NRA is doing a good job here. But I think the influence we are seeing goes well beyond the NRA at this time. More people are not only paying attention now, more and more people have decided to take a stand and make their voices heard. Hell, even the discussion on the American Bar Association site is showing strong support for the Second amendment and a disdain for their President's position supporting the Feinstein ban. http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/quoting_scalia_aba_president_says_second_amendment _rights_have_limits/
I have been practicing law for over 30 years, and have never seen this level of public support for the Second Amendment. Particularly on the ABA site that is typically hostile to conservative views.
While all of this gives cause for hope, hope will not save the Republic. We all need to be vigilent. I am beginning my search for a front line biographer now to beat the rush.
Jim