Here are some general statements concerning the past:
There was a time when there weren't any groups set up to defend the Second Amendment and one was suddenly and desperately needed(at least from the viewpoint of NRA members who had really not been targets of gun control previous to the ?sixties?). It wasn't what the NRA had traditionally focused on and it probably wasn't what they were best at, but lets say they stuck their thumb in the dike and saved our bacon.
Starting in the 90s some other groups start to surface that are specialized and totally dedicated to direct involvement in politics for the sake of gun rights. Much smaller memberships, not as well known, lots less money, etc etc.
At present:
These other specialized organizations are coming into their own. SAF gave us a big win and I would guess their money and membership has greatly increased. I am sure more will follow. GOA is growing whether you like their brand or not, especially after NRA's compromise which no matter the intent looked like betrayal to many people heavily involved in the state firearms groups. Wouldn't it be great for the NRA's finances if they were the only ones who got to play in Washington?
I would like the NRA to go back to focusing on high power matches, safety, training, etc. Indirect contributions. They never will even if they realize it is best for gun owners to have a dedicated lobby because so much of their marketing and growth is based on defending 2A. Probably 90% of their membership joins for that reason, at least the members I personally interact with, and that money funds their other programs(none of the membership fee goes directly to political/court battles).
One guy told me he was sick of contributing, and when I asked him what his level of commitment was, he said he'd been a member for a year, and that it was a free membership he'd gotten. Most of the others have been bare-minimum dues payers since, oh, November 2008.
I hate to sound glib, but they're no loss. Fair weather friends aren't what get us through--people who are in for the long haul are.
And there lies a BIG problem. You seem to think that PAYING for an NRA membership is giving money directly to the political fight. That membership just doesn't do that. You have to donate to the side organizations(NRA-ILA) to do that. That FREE membership gets you on their list of members they can show to congresspeople then you can give your money to the NRA-ILA/SAF to fund a court case, or you can get a regular membership and mount the high horse when all you really did was fund a high power match. I have never payed for an NRA membership and I seriously doubt I ever will although my financial contribution to the 2A fight has far exceeded $35 a year since I have owned firearms.
Can you imagine what SAF could do with all the NRA membership dues people think are going to political activism? It would be insane.
Before this thread gets closed. I have always wondered if there are any financial ties between SWAT magazine (the mods employer) and the NRA?