Will you mourn the passing of the NRA ?

@Budwick [quote]Membership is strong and growing.[/quote]

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

@Northwest The National Rifle Association has recovered from a membership drop after President Trump’s 2016 election and is now at the highest levels ever in its history.

New figures put the membership at approximately 5.5 million.

What’s more, there are expectations that membership in the NRA will continue to grow going into the 2020 elections that will pit NRA fan Trump against gun control Democrats. The group is just at the beginning of its series of annual events around the country where new members typically join, such as the upcoming April 26-28 national convention in Indianapolis.

@Budwick 'The nation’s leading gun-rights organization saw its income drop by $55 million last year, after a record-breaking 2016 in which the group and its political affiliates spent unprecedented sums to elect President Donald Trump.

The National Rifle Association of America reported $98 million in contributions in 2017, down from nearly $125 million in 2016, according to new tax records obtained by The Daily Beast. Nearly one-fifth of its contributions last year came from a single anonymous donor, who chipped in nearly $19 million to the group.

More noteworthy than its drop in contributions, though, was its [b]decline in membership[/b] dues. The NRA took in more than $128 million in dues last year—a significant sum, but down considerably from the $163 million it took in the year prior. That decline, more than the drop in direct contributions, appears to indicate a dwindling, if still formidable, base of public support.'

https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-nra-just-reported-losing-dollar55-million-in-income

@Budwick Blah, blah, blah


[quote]New figures put the membership at approximately 5.5 million.[/quote]

Prove it

@RodionRomanovitch Let's also not forget that membership fees were higher, which means that relatively speaking, membership loss was higher than the monetary loss.

@Northwest [quote]Prove it
[/quote]

Well, lket's see - there's Bill, Budwick, Samuel,

Oh wait, would you take the word of a national publication from which I cut and pasted that information?

No, of course not.

@Northwest You dipshits are thrown into high gear defense when confronted by fact.

@Budwick I replied with facts and figures. You provided an unsourced assertion.

@RodionRomanovitch Your info is two years old.

Earlier this month - https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/nra-is-back-highest-ever-membership

@RodionRomanovitch He provided a link to the Washington Examiner, which has NO actual facts in it, just the following statement: [quote]New figures put the membership at approximately 5.5 million.[/quote]

@Budwick The article was from six months ago and showed their latest accounts.

Your article is fact free. Quelle surpris !

The funny thing is though that , once again , you totally misunderstood the thrust of the question. It actually had [b]nothing[/b]to do with it's membership decline but rather an altogether more pressing question. Ring any bells ? Wanna try again ?

@RodionRomanovitch Look again -

[b]NRA is back, ‘highest ever’ membership
by Paul Bedard
| April 01, 2019 09:32 AM [/b]

No, you are not ringing bells.

Although, I do think I hear a dog whistle!

@Budwick Cool, you provided the name of the guy who wrote the fact free Washington Examiner article. Hint: it's right below the headline. Facts? None.

@Northwest lmfao .....what an absolute muppet this guy is.

@RodionRomanovitch OMG :-)

@RodionRomanovitch So you won't accept national news papers articles.

You're simply an idiot.

@Budwick You forgot some key terms: "credible", "well sourced", and "supported by facts and figures".

None of it applies here, and calling it "national" is another spin.

@Budwick It's [b]opinion[/b] dickhead [b]not[/b] fact. You do appreciate the difference , don't you ?

@RodionRomanovitch What you are calling opinion are statements from an NRA representative.

Also, if you bothered, you would find other sources some even claiming 6 million members.

You got skunked.

@Budwick No mate , it is an assertion only , from an NRA rep (there's a surprise !) , just like you say. There has been no independent verification of such a figure and if you want to know more about the shenanigans the NRA indulge when arriving at membership numbers then you should read this ;

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/03/nra-membership-magazine-numbers-1/

@Budwick [quote]from an NRA representative[/quote]

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

Funny thing, is that the NRA has been claiming big numbers all along, until its tax returns were obtained.

Here's an article worth reading:

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/secrecy-self-dealing-and-greed-at-the-nra

@RodionRomanovitch Mother Jones?!
Now there's an independent source.

@Budwick They're far more independent than a fucking NRA guy asserting shit. (And they supply facts and figures.)

You just carry on making a fool out of yourself Bud.

@RodionRomanovitch And you keep plying NYT and make shit up as you go.