Should I join the NRA?

My biggest problem with the NRA is that it is a group lobbying for a private industry (gun manufacturers) that has convinced the public to fund it!
Click to expand...

I hear this argument a lot from people who want to discredit the NRA. It’s as if gun manufactures are somehow evil villains because they manufacture a perfectly legal product and have the audacity to make a profit doing it. I believe the NRA represents my rights as an individual and have seen those efforts around the country. Now, do they also represent the rights of manufactures? Sure, but why is that considered a bad thing? I agree supporting the NRA-ILA is best, but why not spend the cost of a meal on NRA membership also?
 
I appreciate what the NRA stands for. But I cannot join them on principle. I believe that lobbyists are ruining this country for reasons too numerous to list here. As much as I think they have the right message, I cannot support any lobbyist group.

With that being said, I am glad to have found out about SAF here on this thread! I will definitely look into that organization and give strong consideration for joining.
 
My biggest problem with the NRA is that it is a group lobbying for a private industry (gun manufacturers) that has convinced the public to fund it!
Click to expand...
The line that the NRA is a paid lobbying group for gun manufacturers is largely a fabrication of the gun-control crowd. Most of that is actually done by the NSSF.

Some have pointed out that the ILA and PVF have different missions than the NRA proper, and that is correct. However, without the NRA, we wouldn't be having this conversation. They, and they alone, built the infrastructure of our shooting culture. They may not be in the courts or the floor of the legislature, but their work is vital.

They defined many of the major training regimens we use. They're responsible for building leagues, ranges, and safety programs. They're responsible for initiatives that have preserved hunting lands. Why have accidental deaths and injuries dropped while firearms ownership has skyrocketed? Hint: it wasn't Joe Bob's 2nd Ammenmunt Mah Dead Hands Local 181 organization.

If folks don't want to support that, fine. Most gun owners don't anyway. All that seems to matter to so many is "what do I personally get for this $25 right now?"
 
I am no supporter of the NRA, but I will agree they do not lobby for the gun manufacturers like the NSSF does. There have been several import related issues where the NRA and all its affiliated corporations have, from my point of view, abstained allowing anti-gun groups to pass import restrictions favorable to NSSF members and detrimental to individual shooters IMO. I am not aware of them actively lobbying for these issues, but it does seem they laid down pretty quickly.

I am not a big fan of NSSF when it comes to their acceptance of import restrictions. I don;t think NSSF has any affiliate or program geared towards individual shooters though, so why would they care what I think?

I am glad to have found out about SAF here on this thread!
Click to expand...
And this is what always surprises me. SAF has been the force behind almost every major legal victory the last 5-10 years. McDonald and Heller made national news for weeks. In many ways that is every pro-gun victory in living memory. How is it most don't know about them?
 
You may like the NRA, 'approve' of the NRA, 'agree with' the NRA, or not; the simple fact is they are the most feared organization by the anti's, and a symbol of gun owner strength.

And without them, there would certainly NOT be private gun ownership in this country, IMHO; so you can agree, support, approve or whatever, but if you own guns, you owe them.


Larry
 
And without them, there would certainly NOT be private gun ownership in this country, IMHO; so you can agree, support, approve or whatever, but if you own guns, you owe them.
Click to expand...

As much as the NRA would like me to believe that, I don't believe that to be true. If they disappear, another group will step up and take their place. Look at how many gun owners live in this country. Do you think the NRA created them or did we create the NRA?

Also, the NRA did not alter the Constitution to give me the right to bear arms. Tom Servo makes a good supporting case for them concerning their support of gun ownership in terms of training and accessibility. But I think that the SAF does more to protect my legal rights than the aforementioned group does.
 
I don't believe that to be true. If they disappear, another group will step up and take their place.
Click to expand...

Uh, guys? Those other groups weren't around a century ago. Most weren't even around twenty years ago. The NRA did the heavy lifting, and largely alone, for over a hundred years.

Don't get me wrong. I lend my support to a wide spectrum of organizations. But their efforts would be for nothing if it wasn't for the ground the NRA laid.

If not for the NRA, hunting would have been banned on public lands decades ago. We'd have bans on lead bullets. We'd have taxes, if not outright bans, on most firearms. We'd have no unified training philosophy.

If they disappear, the gun culture falls. Nobody has their recognition, their infrastructure, or their clout.
 
I look at the NRA as the line in the sand that the government doesn't cross. It is a well funded and supported organization that while may not represent all of gun owners views, it does maintain the constant wall of bombardment that gun owners could not hold off on their own. I truly feel that a lot of the freedoms and firearms we enjoy today are still or once again legal because of the help of the NRA.
 
The OP's original question was "Should I join the NRA".

Simply stated, his concerns are:

1. Price
2. He perceives the NRA as being part of a Republican agenda or being made up of mostly Republicans, and he's a Democrat.

Like others have pointed out, price should not be an issue. If you want to be a life member, I'm sure there is still a way for another life member to sponsor you and you would get a reduced rate - not the $300 that some speak of, but possibly $600. If you aren't ready to be a life member, then the easiest thing to do is join for 5 years at a time - that's what I did until I got the deal I wanted to become a life member. I believe a 5 year membership is around $125. This is very affordable.

As for politics, I am a Republican. Probably the majority of NRA members are Republican, but I'm sure there are Democrat members also. You already indicated that you have Republican friends, so this should be no big deal to you. The NRA is political, but its political purpose is the protection of the 2nd Amendment and gun owner's rights and freedoms. To that end, it's political arm, the NRA-ILA (institute for legislative action) will try to support political candidates who are "gun friendly". Beyond that, it doesn't get into politics. No one in the NRA is going to care if you are a Democrat, as long as you genuinely support the 2nd Amendment and gun owner's rights. Also, the money you spend in joining the NRA doesn't go to the NRA-ILA; they live off of separate donations. So, by joining, you would not be directly or indirectly supporting any particular political candidate.

When a super-rich guy like Michael Bloomberg can throw $50,000,000 to try and "outmuscle the National Rifle Association", there just isn't another group in this day and age that can take on the elite super-rich that want to take our guns away.
 
Last edited:
If not for the NRA, hunting would have been banned on public lands decades ago. We'd have bans on lead bullets. We'd have taxes, if not outright bans, on most firearms. We'd have no unified training philosophy.
Click to expand...


I'm fairly certain there are a lot of groups that would strongly disagree with this statement, Ducks Unlimited, Rocky Mtn Elk Foundation, and the CMP, just to name the first few that came to mind.
 
The NRA is far from perfect, but it is one organization that consistently fights to keep 2nd Ammendment rights. For that reason, if for no other, all gun owners should be members IMO.
 
I'm a big fan of the SAF, and they get more of my money than any other gun rights organization. As has already been mentioned though, the NRA is feared by antis, and is a major symbol of gun rights. I'm a member of both organizations, and have no regrets about it.
 
He perceives the NRA as being part of a Republican agenda or being made up of mostly Republicans, and he's a Democrat.
Click to expand...
That's always rankled me as well. There's a decidedly right-leaning political aspect to the speakers they choose for their events, as well as for some of the rhetoric those speakers employ. The perception that the NRA is a tool of one political party is something we need to work to change. It does keep potential supporters from joining.

I'm fairly certain there are a lot of groups that would strongly disagree with this statement, Ducks Unlimited, Rocky Mtn Elk Foundation, and the CMP, just to name the first few that came to mind.
Click to expand...
None of those guys have the entrenched influence the NRA has, and whether or not they'd have been effective without the NRA in place is debatable.
 
I will join the grpoup saying that Gun owners created the NRA and not the other way around.
Someone would have filled the gap. IMO, very likely someone who would be funneling the money to direct effect programs instead of indirect programs that are not really utilized by people outside the choir.

Eddy Eagle is great on paper during choir practice and probably has the greatest potential of all the NRA educational programs, but in the real world it has accomplished very little. Those who take it are almost exclusively the children of relatively responsible gun owners. Almost no school districts have adopted it, and I have never seen an advertisement offering it to the general public. Such programs are outside the mission of SAF and they are not pushing money into the CCRKBA coffers to support such things as CCRKBA does not have them.

IMO the question is not which organization is more effective, but which organization does what more effectively and is the general shooting pulic making an informed decision about where their money goes.
 
The idea that the NRA is a tool of the gun manufacturers is nonsense. NRA has frequently and repeatedly taken positions that were in conflict with the best interests of gun manufacturers. In 2004, they killed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Firearms Act that would have benefitted manufacturers rather than see anti-gun legislation that didn't hurt manufacturers be attached. As recently as 2013, the NRA opposed legislation that would have provided a new revenue source for FFLs and ended most private sales.

As far as being a Democrat, the NRA welcomes all groups. Former Dem Senator David Boren is a current member of the NRA Board of Directors. Now retired Rep. John Dingell was a former NRA Board of Director member. Former Dem. Senator Zell Miller was a keynote speaker at the NRA convetion (as was Boren). Sen. Heidi Heitkampf is NRA endorsed, and the NRA has supported numerous Dem Senators in the past. In fact, one common complaint among Republicans is that past NRA endorsed Dem politicians like Joe Manchin, Kristen Gillibrand, Al Gore, Bill Clinton, etc. have a nasty habit of turning on the NRA when the chips are down or when they reach national office.

On the other hand, you have gentleman like former Dem Senator Max Baucus, who stood solid on the Second Amendment under immense pressure last year even though he was retiring and could have easily sold us out.

The NRA teaches gun safety, education, and provides the infrastructure so that people have places to shoot safely and learn the safe use of firearms. They don't actually lobby Congress with your membership dues (and their charter prohibits it). If you want to promote gun rights, the organization you want to support is NRA-ILA (lobbies Congress), NRA-PVF (elects pro-2A politicians), or NRA Civil Defense Fund (helps pro-2A litigation). However, without the NRA, we wouldn't have any of the other organizations.

So yes, I think it is a worthwhile investment. You should understand that Dems are underrepresented in the NRA; but considering the Dem national platform on the Second Amendment, they still remain well-represented in the NRA (as recently as 2010, the NRA ran a piece in its magazines highlighting Sen. Harry Reid's help in building a range).
 
Good for you joining the NRA.

Regardless of your political party, the NRA defends the Second Amendment.

I've heard a lot of folks say they won't join because they are Democrats, and I ask them, 'Maybe you need to tell your fellow Democrats that gun ownership is not a crime and they need to find another hot button to keep the party going."

The NRA was not much involved in lobbying or politics until gun control came along.

Five million NRA members are carrying the water for about 75 million gun owners and we all need to step up to the plate or one day our rights will be gone. The left still refuses to admit the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, they are waiting to pack the Supreme Court and reverse Heller.

With ten or fifteen million members, including a lot of Democrats, no administration would dare try it.
 
IMO The NRA is the best choice of organizations for collectively lobbying to protect our 2A rights.

I know some gun owners who won't join, I don't care what reason they give, I generally admonish them for it, as they were also among the first to gripe about "gun control" laws.

In the past, the NRA has made some compromises that I feel they should not have, I believe they learned their lesson, as there clearly is no stopping point for gun control supporters.

For me, the biggest reason I support the NRA is because in virtually every single instance of "gun control", the government willfully exempts itself from any such restrictions. An obvious and blatant attempt to arm itself in a superior fashion than the citizenry that it derives its power from.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top