Should I join the NRA?

I'm glad you decided to join. You seem to be a think for yourself Democrat who wants to know the truth instead of the lies some tell. If you were here I would offer my hand in friendship and invite you to my gun club. Different political opinions and views are good as long as each are respected. In the NRA there are many Republicans but there are also many Democrats, and Independents, and others as well. This country was founded by men who had different points of view and they respected each other enough to make their dreams come true. Welcome.
 
The NRA is the best choice of organizations for collectively lobbying to protect our 2A rights
Click to expand...
The problem is the "NRA" DOES NOT LOBBY TO PROTECT OUR COLLECTIVE RIGHTS. As such they are a TERRIBLE organization to give money to if that is what you want. A membership to the "NRA" is a TERRIBLE choice if that is what you want.
The NRA provides indirect educational programs and some other general services. If that is what you wnat your money to go to then by all means get an NRA membership and be happy with it. They do a better job of offering those indirect support services than anyone else. I can't even think of anyone else who is really in the game.

If you want your money to go to LOBBYING, JUDICIAL ACTION, etc, you at least have to send it to "NRA-ILA", or "NRA-PVF"

The NRA gets somewhere north of $75 million dollars a year in membership dues. I get that figure from simply multiplying 5 million members by $15, which is the cheapest I have seen memberships. $300 life memberships buy a perpetuity not too far off that $15 number. NONE of that money goes towards what I want my money to go to. Don't pay for an NRA membership thinking it will. Their total revenues tends to be north of $200 million by the way.
I have not found published filings for NRA-ILA or NRA-PVF. If someone can dig them up I am sure posting them would be constructive.

OTOH, look at SAFs 2011 990 form. A total budget under $4million dollars. With all they are accomplishing that seems to be a leaner organization to me.

There are Democrats in the NRA and the NRA and its various affiliates have made clear attempts to include more Democrats recently. In the last few election they supported some Democrats that really ticked off a lot of Republican supporters. I have never experienced working with a political organization that was able to keep 100% of its people "on message" 100% of the time. There are a lot of Republicans in the NRA and when they get "off message" they naturally say Republican things.
 
The NRA was not always a pro-2nd Amendment organization and in fact helped write some decidedly anti-2nd-Amendment legislation over the years
Click to expand...
Times change, and let's recall that the NRA mission is driven by members. Why didn't the NRA oppose the NFA? Their members either didn't care or they didn't raise their voices. That wouldn't be the last time. We saw similar apathy from members (and therefore, a lack of serious opposition) in 1968 and 1994.

Nowadays, the NRA membership is pretty galvanized, and they're taking a harder stance on legislative issues.
 
The NRA was not always a pro-2nd Amendment organization and in fact helped write some decidedly anti-2nd-Amendment legislation over the years.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...-guns/308608/3
Click to expand...

That link is selective in its history at best. It cherry picks certain moments to support the overall theme and ignores conflicting evidence. Contrary to what you might think after reading that link, the NRA fought tooth and nail against the 1968 Gun Control Act and managed to rally enormous public pressure in resistance to the original proposals for that law (before they even had a lobbying section).

The author of that article is also no friend to RKBA, which undoubtedly colors his perceptions somewhat.

On a separate note, all politics is local. If the OP is not a member of his local state organization, he should join them first and then the NRA. Anti-gun politicians don't make it to the majors if they get culled at the farm team level.
 
Last edited:
johnwilliamson062 said:
The problem is the "NRA" DOES NOT LOBBY TO PROTECT OUR COLLECTIVE RIGHTS. As such they are a TERRIBLE organization to give money to if that is what you want. A membership to the "NRA" is a TERRIBLE choice if that is what you want.
The NRA provides indirect educational programs and some other general services. If that is what you wnat your money to go to then by all means get an NRA membership and be happy with it. They do a better job of offering those indirect support services than anyone else. I can't even think of anyone else who is really in the game.

If you want your money to go to LOBBYING, JUDICIAL ACTION, etc, you at least have to send it to "NRA-ILA", or "NRA-PVF"

The NRA gets somewhere north of $75 million dollars a year in membership dues. I get that figure from simply multiplying 5 million members by $15, which is the cheapest I have seen memberships. $300 life memberships buy a perpetuity not too far off that $15 number. NONE of that money goes towards what I want my money to go to. Don't pay for an NRA membership thinking it will. Their total revenues tends to be north of $200 million by the way.
I have not found published filings for NRA-ILA or NRA-PVF. If someone can dig them up I am sure posting them would be constructive.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what the NRA has done to offend you, but it's obvious from your signature as well as from your posts that you are actively anti-NRA ... to the point of having lost objectivity. Both the NRA-ILA and NRA-PVF are (by definition) outgrowths of the NRA. If the NRA did not exist, those affiliated organizations would not exist. It's just that simple.

Beyond that, the NRA-ILA and NRA-PVF are not membership organizations. we can (and should) contribute to them to assist in their function, but when politicians in Washington or in state capitols look at numbers to see who sits on which side of an issue ... the 800-pound gorilla in every room is the NRA. That's because of the number of members, and those members are members of the NRA, not of the NRA-ILA or the NRA-PVF.

I also like and support the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF). They are doing fantastic work ... but their membership numbers don't compare to the NRA's, and I don't think you will ever hear politicians expressing concern about running afoul of the SAF in an election race.

By all means, support the SAF and the NRA-ILA. But join the NRA, too ... just to add one more number to the membership total the politicians see when they look at the NRA as potential opposition.
 
The OP is a perfect example of why gun owners are so idiotic when they use terms like "liberal" or "Democrat" to mean "anti-gun". It happens constantly and I just don't understand it. Why do so many gun owners want to alienate potential allies? Me, I don't care what your politics are; if you support the RKBA, then we're on the same side!
 
Gun rights and the 2nd Amendment are political issues; they always have been, and that's not going to change until dominant factions of both major political parties embrace the concept freedom over banning and restrictions. If one party favors gun rights legislatively more than the other, I don't see how you can discuss the NRA or legislative support for pro-gun or anti-gun laws without discussing political parties, PACs, and individual politicians. Any such discussion is conspicuously incomplete.
 
From what I hear, the lifetime membership is half-off or $500 for the duration of the annual meetings.


First, I am not a current member, but I've been thinking about it for a while.

As has already been pointed out the NRA and the NRA-ILA, NRA-PVF, etc are all different organizations that (at least somewhat) have to keep their funding separate. Your membership dues (as near as I can tell, a tax lawyer would know better) cannot go towards any of the lobbying the NRA-PVF does. You have to make an additional, and targeted/specific, donation above and beyond membership dues for that.

You join the NRA proper. They're the education classes arm. They also provide some very reasonable benefits. There's a magazine subscription that comes with membership. There may or may not be an option that is your cup of tea - none of the magazines screamed "pick me!" to me. The real benefits, other than access provided by your membership card, is the insurance. Life insurance for LEO's on the job, hunters while hunting, and something called ArmsCare insurance for your firearms, bows, and arrows against theft, accidental loss, and damage. Though I wonder just how much coverage your arrows will have against accidental loss or damage.

The initial coverage is low compared to some firearm prices lately, but you get a discounted rate for increased coverage as well- for me, only my Browning 725 Trap would need that.
 
FYI, the NRA Annual Meeting appears to be over, but the link I found on another page advertising it still works. Your question made me get off my butt and join too. I have a debit processing for the $500 membership fee. Unless the NRA decides to cancel the application process, I appear to have gotten my life membership for the $500. I wouldn't wait too long if you do decide though.
 
Skans said:
Gun rights and the 2nd Amendment are political issues; they always have been, and that's not going to change until dominant factions of both major political parties embrace the concept freedom over banning and restrictions. If one party favors gun rights legislatively more than the other, I don't see how you can discuss the NRA or legislative support for pro-gun or anti-gun laws without discussing political parties, PACs, and individual politicians. Any such discussion is conspicuously incomplete.
Click to expand...
Don't get me wrong, Skans, I agree with everything you wrote here; the RKBA is a political issue for sure. But it's not necessarily such a partisan issue as many prominent national politicians would have us believe. There are plenty of politicians -- and plenty of people -- who go against their party's official positions when it comes to 2nd Amendment issues.

And even if the gun rights issue was a purely partisan topic, it still doesn't mean we should try to push away people because of their political beliefs regarding other subjects: Just because gun issues are often political issues, that doesn't mean it makes sense to use political terms in a derogatory way that alienates potential allies.
 
I'd have to check again to be sure, but my recollection is that both Senators Joe Manchin, and Harry Reid have both gotten some NRA money in the past. They care about the survey answers and voting record. I don't think what party are you in is on the survey.
 
Just because gun issues are often political issues, that doesn't mean it makes sense to use political terms in a derogatory way that alienates potential allies.
Click to expand...

+1

The OP is not alone in perceiving the NRA to be an organization that supports one political party over another, and conservatism over liberalism. It is probably true that a majority of one party supports gun rights and a majority of the other party supports gun control, but the fact that we use the term majority implies that there is a minority opinion that differs. It seems to me that encouraging dissent and supporting dissenters within a party that opposes gun rights is the most effective way of preserving those rights; no matter what party controls what organ of government, there will be people within the party to answer to if those rights are compromised.

Earlier posts said that the NRA is a one-issue organization. That is its intent, but it at least allows and at times appears to encourage the view that it is a politically conservative organization. The speaker list at an NRA convention does not differ substantially from that of a CPAC meeting. Clips from the NRA convention that I saw on broadcast news over the weekend had people making forceful statements of conservative opinions regarding medical care, the economy, and foreign policy. Those are not NRA issues.

The NRA does indeed reflect its membership. Gun boards like these offer posts that equate anything other than conservatism, and often anything other than extreme conservatism, with mental deficiency, lack of patriotism, and/or evil intent. We and our most visible organization too often fail to recognize that there are people who have moderate to liberal opinions on other issues but still value the right to own and use firearms for self defense, hunting, target sports, and collecting. I have been castigated for this opinion in the past, but I remain of the opinion that we should seek allies wherever they may be found, and not impose even a perception of a political test on other issues. Other issues can be debated elsewhere; the NRA is not the appropriate forum for them.
 
And even if the gun rights issue was a purely partisan topic, it still doesn't mean we should try to push away people because of their political beliefs regarding other subjects:
Click to expand...

I agree 100%. In fact, in my teens and early 20's I had some more more liberal views and wasn't nearly as distrustful of government as I am today. The gun issue was only one of many for me to consider back then, because I was new to all of that.

Now, being older, I am far more right-leaning, but I have also resigned that the 2nd Amendment will be the absolute driving force behind who I vote for and send political contributions to. Yes, I am a 1-issue voter - gun rights and the 2nd Amendment. That means that if the Democrats became more staunchly pro-gun than the Republicans, they'd have my vote with out me blinking twice about it. Yes, when it comes to politics, God, religion, abortion, schools, spending, finance, budget, healthcare, drugs, illegal immigrants - NONE OF IT WILL TAKE MY FOCUS OFF OF THE 2ND AMENDMENT and GUN OWNER'S RIGHTS!!!

Either we all stand for the right to own firearms, or none of us stand for anything; and our children and children's children will be hopelessly enslaved by the state.
 
Last edited:
For the most part, I've found that candidates that truly believe in the 2nd Amendment are more likely to also agree with me on other issues that I consider important, so it tends to be a very good indication of whether a candidate is even worth considering. So, I guess that kind of makes me a one issue voter also.

Now, if there was one candidate who was anti-2nd-Amendment, but was a staunch fiscal conservative and believed in States Rights vs another who was staunchly pro-2nd-Amendment, but also supported wasteful government spending, increased taxes, and other liberal issues, I would be at a quandary. Luckily, I have not been faced with candidates of that extreme. The worst I've had to choose between are RINOs and blatant liberals.
 
It might be interesting to browse some of the NRA ratings of political candidates. If you do you’ll see many from both parties receiving an A rating. If you look a little closer you might also note some races such as the Georgia District 40 race where the Democrat Candidate received a better rating than the Republican.

https://www.nrapvf.org/grades-endorsements.aspx
 
it's obvious from your signature as well as from your posts that you are actively anti-NRA
Click to expand...
Re-read my last post. I'm against people buying memberships thinking they are giving money to an organization like "NRA-ILA" or "NRA-PVF." I am quite certain I am on that wonderful long list of members as I signed up for free a few years ago and continue to receive mail referring to me as a member. They can keep me on the list as long as they want as long as they don't request money to do so.
I'm not anti-ATA, anti-IDPA, anti-Ducks/Elk/ Moose/Squirrel/Rabbit/Hog Unlimited,or anti-SASS. I don't have any problem with anyone joining them. If someone tells me they pull their weight protecting 2A by joining one of those organizations I'm going to give them a funny look. The "NRA" membership is no more closely related to protecting 2A than any of the others. I could easily argue less so than IDPA. It offers the same category of services and benefits as the others, even if broader than any of those other groups individually.
There are probably a dozen reasons you could give me to join the NRA that make tons of sense to me. Judicial/legislative action isn't included though. If you want that just send a check to ILA/PVF and get over not having a trendy hat next time you go ti the range. Actually, I think I've seen ILA hats.
Yep, I'll let you shoot my guns if you've got this on. But, as much as you want with my ammo if this.
 
I'm against people buying memberships thinking they are giving money to an organization like "NRA-ILA" or "NRA-PVF.
Click to expand...

All he's saying is that no money from your NRA dues goes for lobbying, supporting candidates, or anything having to do with influencing legislation. He's right. However, joining the NRA does, indirectly, help the legislative cause. 1) it increases the NRA's advertising base; 2) it helps pay a portion of the administrative expenses; 3) it provides a medium by which the NRA can very directly help influence political votes. 4) Member numbers are very valuable to the NRA as an organization.

So, it's not like you are just paying for a magazine subscription and a hat when you join the NRA - the NRA gets a good bit of benefit also. That reminds me, I really do need to make a contribution to the NRA-ILA.
 
One of the things many people do not understand about politics is "The Party Leaders" will sometimes force party members to vote a certain way. A "Party Line Vote" is maybe what I am thinking of. A forget what a vote is called when they do this, but there is a term for it. The party members aren't legally required to vote along party lines of course, but the leadership threatens their committee seats and chairmanships and offers pork incentives. Without seat or chairmanships they can't bring pork home. I live in a very conservative/Republican dominated area where Democrats NEVER win. Even so, if a Republican can't deliver pork they will have well funded competition in the primaries.

When the Democratic party calls down such a vote the NRA democrats tend to cave just as anti-gun Republicans do. Then everyone moans about how so and so betrayed them and there is a lot of soreness all around. The best they can do is temper the bill/amendments before the vote. I believe the sunset clause for a couple anti-gun bills was so inserted. I think it has been a while since one was called on a gun bill where it mattered though.

The NRA affiliates made some big mistakes in the past for sure. They learned from them and so did the other groups. As mentioned before, most of the other groups either didn't exist or were even smaller than they are now at that time. Hopefully 1986-2004 taught everyone that the most important thing that can be done is to make sure if something anti-gun is going to pass it at least has a reasonable sunset clause.
 
Last edited:
The biggest reason to join the NRA is because, right or wrong, that's the barometer the anti's use to gauge our strength. For $35 or whatever it is, it's worth just bumping up the membership number, IMHO.

Lots of folks on the left (and right) don't know about any other gun rights organizations, and that's OK; as long as they understand 'the NRA' and fear it.


Larry
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top