"But there are 90 million gun owners in the United States. Only 3.5 million want the insurance and magazines and the various things you get for joining the NRA"
About this Quote
Barnes is doing arithmetic with an edge: take the intimidating headline number of gun owners, then shrink the NRA down to a niche consumer club. The intent is political jujitsu. If the NRA’s power comes from sounding like “gun owners,” Barnes wants to puncture that brand claim and reframe it as something closer to a membership organization selling perks than a mass public constituency.
The subtext is about legitimacy. By emphasizing “insurance and magazines and the various things you get,” he implies NRA membership is transactional, not ideological: people join for benefits, not because they’re eager to be foot soldiers in a culture war. That’s a subtle way of saying the NRA’s loudest positions may not represent the median gun owner’s preferences. It also invites a second inference: if only a small fraction are members, then policymakers shouldn’t treat NRA talking points as the default “pro-gun” stance.
Contextually, this fits an era when the NRA was consolidating its modern identity as a hardline political force, and opponents were searching for a language to separate gun ownership from the NRA brand. Barnes’s numbers are rhetorical weapons: they don’t need to prove that 3.5 million is politically small (in U.S. politics, it isn’t); they need to suggest it’s socially unrepresentative. The line’s quiet gambit is to make lawmakers feel freer to vote for regulation without imagining they’re voting against tens of millions of constituents.
The subtext is about legitimacy. By emphasizing “insurance and magazines and the various things you get,” he implies NRA membership is transactional, not ideological: people join for benefits, not because they’re eager to be foot soldiers in a culture war. That’s a subtle way of saying the NRA’s loudest positions may not represent the median gun owner’s preferences. It also invites a second inference: if only a small fraction are members, then policymakers shouldn’t treat NRA talking points as the default “pro-gun” stance.
Contextually, this fits an era when the NRA was consolidating its modern identity as a hardline political force, and opponents were searching for a language to separate gun ownership from the NRA brand. Barnes’s numbers are rhetorical weapons: they don’t need to prove that 3.5 million is politically small (in U.S. politics, it isn’t); they need to suggest it’s socially unrepresentative. The line’s quiet gambit is to make lawmakers feel freer to vote for regulation without imagining they’re voting against tens of millions of constituents.
Quote Details
| Topic | Freedom |
|---|---|
| Source | Help us find the source |
More Quotes by Michael
Add to List
