Life time NRA price?

Status
Not open for further replies.

mcmurry

Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2007
Messages
233
Location
L.A. Lower Arkansas
So I had to call the NRA yesterday and as they always do, they tried to get me to pay for a Life membership. The lady said that there was a sale and the cost was $700 down from $1400! When did a Life membership get above $800?? I've never heard anyone on any forum or in any magazine talk about it being that high. I politely declined.
 
I’m a life member. They just sent me a letter asking for more money so they can fight NY who is going to make them disappear if I don’t send money. It’s desperate. The most desperate it’s ever been. Ever.

Don’t join, they make it seem there’s a very good chance they’re going to be going away permanently and maybe sooner rather than later.

Oh, my brother joined last year. $350. Disabled veterans discount. I joined 10 years ago for slightly less. Even 10 years at $300 and I don’t feel like I’ve gotten my money’s worth - both in their increasing right wing rhetoric and their caving with bump stocks.
 
Last edited:
I’ll start off by saying gun owners should support the NRA as it is a shield for a lot of the other organizations to do their work and it’s the 1,000 lb gorilla. However, with saying that I too do not appreciate their lack of fight on issues.

The Gun Owners of America is a great organization to support. They are mounting a legal challenge to the bumpstock ban. I have no personal use for a bumpstock but feel it’s within the rights for others if they do choose and it is a definite slippery slope towards further legislation (don’t anyone buy in to the idea there is no such thing). The bunpstock ban is also just another one of the cuts imposed by the “death of the 2nd Amendment by a thousand cuts” campaign.

NRA, NRA-ILA, GOA, SAF all need our support.
 
Last edited:
The last I knew a lifetime membership was around $700-$750. For many years the NRA has listed inflated prices and then offered "discounts" through various sources that support and promote them. It is just marketing, people like to think they are getting a deal.
Like many, I have had issues with some things the NRA has done. Keep in mind that without the NRA the RTKBA would have been lost long ago. I believe we need to support pro gun organizations and be diligent in keeping them on track. Jumping ship over any disagreement on issues is a sure path to defeat.
 
I expect the NRA will make a big push to increase membership next year meaning they may offer cheaper memberships. I upgraded my membership to endowment in 2016 to support them.

So far all of the Democratic candidates are embracing Socialism whose one of the key points will be enacting strict gun control laws. The line in the sand will probably be very clear in 2020.
 
I refuse to be a life member for any price, and it was quite cheep when I first joined.

Why?, because I didn't join the NRA to save money, I joined to help preserve my gun rights! And, I think it does more good for me to just pay to sign people up, instead of giving donations.

Do it as gifts, pay for/sign up your relatives, friends and even my wife is signed up, as it still gives the NRA money, PLUS another head to count! And that "head count" = power for them/US!

DM
 
So far all of the Democratic candidates are embracing Socialism whose one of the key points will be enacting strict gun control laws.
Wayne LaPierre's ranting against "socialism" is one of the reasons why I have soured on the NRA (even though I am a life member). Socialism, per se, is an economic system and has nothing to do with gun control, or the lack thereof. Besides that, "socialism" is defined as the public ownership of the means of production. None of the Democratic candidates is advocating that. They are, at most, "social Democrats" by European standards. "Social Democrats" and "democratic socialists" are two entirely distinct things.

All the Democratic candidates for president are in favor of more gun control, because, to win Democratic primaries, they have to appeal to their base. This will be dropped like a hot potato once the nominee is determined. The reason is that to win the general election, the Democrats have to carry the "rust belt" states of Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin, and/or the "sun belt" states of Florida, Arizona, and even Texas. There are lots of gun owners in those states and the Democrats simply can't afford to alienate them.

Also, clear differences are emerging among the Democratic candidates on the subject of gun control. They would all "ban" "assault weapons," but Beto O'Rourke, for example, would grandfather existing ones. This is not a popular position among the Democratic base. We shall see how it plays out.
 
Last edited:
Socialism, per se, is an economic system and has nothing to do with gun control,. . .
Yes, I get it, "per se". Meanwhile, out here in the real world, find us an example of a country reordering itself into increasing socialism that doesn't eventually lead to the sort of disarmament the 2nd Amendment prohibits.

Like it or not Civil and Economic Freedom run together, and fall together.
 
Total gun control (aka banning civilian ownership) goes hand in hand with socialism. Once you cede all the power to the all powerful, you’re standing in the dark.

Ask someone in even a media-softened “European Socialist” model country whether they have the freedom you do to buy, own, shoot what you want like you do. We will stand by for an answer when you do. In an AOC-fantasy approved socialist country? I won’t even wait for a response.

Hell, I live in the semi-socialist paradise of “Venezuela del Norte”... aka the State of California, and I still have more freedom to buy, own and shoot than anyone in a real socialist country does..... for now. Once the D mob running SacraCaracas starts with their next tsunami of gun control bills you better believe Gavin “The champion of the murderer, criminal and illegal” Newsom will sign them.... because guns are what’s wrong...not the actions of the people who misuse them.

I don’t agree with everything the NRA does... and I think few really do march in total lockstep. But they do stand up for the 2A as a group far better than we do as individuals.

Cherish what you have and try to keep it, because even your fondest memories of past hunting trips, teaching your grandkids to shoot etc. are tough to hold onto forever. And since the real end game is total disarmament, those memories will be all you have.

Stay safe!
 
Last edited:
Wayne LaPierre's ranting against "socialism" is one of the reasons why I have soured on the NRA (even though I am a life member).

It’s what sells to most members, except you and me apparently.

It’s very and unnecessarily divisive to the 2A cause to eliminate immediately anyone who thinks, maybe, they deserve healthcare AND guns.

I have free government healthcare and several AR15s. It’s not totally incompatible.
 
I can't see myself every becoming a Life member, no matter how cheap it is. I like that at any time I can "take my ball and go home" if they get too political even for my tastes.

All I ask of the NRA is to protect the 2nd Amendment, yet they keep overstepping their bounds and try to become a right-wing organization. Sure, I'm pretty right wing myself but the NRA needs to stick to guns and be more appealing to our gun-owner friends that happen to be Democrats.
 
find us an example of a country reordering itself into increasing socialism that doesn't eventually lead to the sort of disarmament the 2nd Amendment prohibits.
Historically, gun restrictions long predated "socialism." Prohibitions on arms for the common people go all the way back to medieval feudalism. So you have the timeline all wrong. Gun restrictions were in place long before the advent of socialism. You think Tsarist Russia was a haven for gun rights? Don't think so...

The baseline is that arms were only for the ruling classes and the nobility. This started to change with the political egalitarianism exemplified by the American and French revolutions. Socialism is an extension of this egalitarianism into the economic sphere. So, there is no reason that gun rights can't coexist with socialism. (We are talking here about democratic socialism -- authoritarians will be authoritarian regardless of the economic theory that they espouse.)

And American "socialists" -- like Bernie Sanders and AOC -- aren't socialist at all. They want an expanded welfare state, aka "social democracy." Nobody of importance in America is advocating for the public ownership of the means of production. That's really the hallmark of true socialism.
 
Last edited:
The anti-gun crowd has clearly declared war on pro-2A with ultimate intent for confiscation.

Enemy of my enemy is my friend.

If you don't want to support NRA, consider supporting your state pro-2A organizations.

This is a war where we need every ally we can join with.

Growing number of Democrats, female voters and LGBTQ community are considering 2A self protection/defense rights issue and joining our fight. I have been converting anti-gun/female/LGBTQ voters to support 2A all of my life. If you don't want to donate to NRA, find another way to support 2A and spread the word.

Our eventual "survival" will depend on the number of voters to pressure law makers with.

Thank goodness the Supreme Court has growing pro-2A sentiment and why the antis want to increase the number of justices. This should not happen as most of current justices and Ginsburg replacement will be making pro-2A rulings for decades.

Godspeed.
 
This is a war where we need every ally we can join with.
Exactly! This is my beef with the NRA -- that it's turning away allies with all this anti-liberal talk and tight association with the Republican party.

The NRA has turned into a money-making machine for the clique which controls it, and only secondarily is it an advocate for gun rights. Everything it does -- including pandering to the extreme Right -- is designed to maximize the money flow. The priorities of the NRA, in order, are (1) to bring in as much money as possible, (2) to perpetuate the governing clique that controls the flow of the money, and only distantly (3) to advocate for gun rights. The management some time ago came to the conclusion that the Republicans have the deep pockets. This is the perfect symbiotic relationship. Who cares about guns, right? It actually benefits the NRA to keep the gun issue alive, never winning or losing, and exploiting the periodic panics among gun owners, that ensue, to raise even more money. (The Republicans milk the issue in the same way. They could have passed at least a few pro-gun bills in the last two years, when they had complete control of the government, but did nothing. This was not by accident.)
 
Last edited:
I am a Life Member. Have been since 1997

Here is the way I look at it. The NRA is like a General on the Battlefield. You need to push your resources to where you know you have a good chance of winning. You also need fresh supplies (memberships= cash) to maintain and or increase your resources. The other side is doing the same. Trying to squash the NRA and get rid of firearms in this country.

They have to pick and choose their battles. They pretty much have a feel what politicians they can influence (campaign contributions) and get to vote their way. Some politicians are always on their side and some others will always be against the NRA

IMHO the NRA knew the Bumpstock issue was a losing battle. Not only do they have to fight but they have to try and keep the middle of the road pro-gunners with them.

Yes, there are people, gun owners, who think certain guns shouldn't be allowed. Funny how the guns they have are fine but your "Assault Rifle" is out of line.
They don't realize that many sporting rifles use the same operating systems as some "Assault Rifles"
Their Winchester model 70, while they think it is fine, can be categorized by the anti-gun people as a "Sniper Rife"
 
Whoever you support, support somebody who will support your interests. Few people I know are single-issue voters, so we have to find folks who most closely align with the most important ones in our lives.

I’ve seen this State go from majority center-right to super-majority extreme left in less than thirty years. Don’t think for a minute it can’t happen where you live in your lifetime, too. And when it does, look back at the variety of freedoms that are now “banned” by those who feel they know what’s best for you and see what the driving force issues were that pushed it.

I, too don’t find healthcare and firearms ownership mutually exclusive. In fact I find the current system is a joke and insurance company and pharma company profiteering are 90 percent of the problem. Sadly, those who push the hardest for healthcare reforms are almost always those that are the most vehemently anti gun... in their minds these issues are mutually exclusive, and once one is attained the other will be banned. This is why I rarely support those candidates.

If there was only a “personal responsibility” middle that was still relevant in the US to vote for...

Stay safe!
 
You need to push your resources to where you know you have a good chance of winning.
Exactly! But where is the NRA money going? Into the pockets of Wayne LaPierre and his cronies. Why does Marion Hammer draw a salary of $300,000 a year for doing virtually nothing for gun rights in Florida -- instead, helping to kill open carry and campus carry? And that's a Republican-controlled legislature! These things are well documented.

I for one will give no more money to the NRA until LaPierre & co. are GONE.

BTW, I have been a Life Member since the 1970's.
 
Exactly! But where is the NRA money going?

I for one will give no more money to the NRA until LaPierre & co. are GONE.

You may be getting your wish sooner than you might think. After this year you may not have the NRA to worry about as there will not be any need for them. So far in 2019 the following bills have been introduced;

H.R. 8 - Bipartsian Background Checks Act of 2019
To require a background check for every firearm purchase
Status - Passed by House on 2/27/19

H.R. 1112 - Enhanced Background Checks Act of 2019
Status - Passed by House on 2/28/19

H.R. 1705 -To prevent the purchase of ammunition by prohibited purchasers
Status - In committee

S. 66 - Assault Weapons Ban of 2019
This is a anti-gun dream bill
Status - Introduced on 1/9/19

The GOA is putting all of it’s efforts into fighting the Bumpfire Stock Ban in the Courts. I received a email from them asking for donations as the Court fight is proving to be very expensive for them.

So since the GOA is totally committed to the Bumpfire Court fight who is left to fight the above bills in Congress?

The Democrats hold 47 seats in the Senate. Last week we witnessed 12 Republicans vote with the Democrats to restrict the President’s authority to declare national emergencies. It will only take four Republican votes to pass these bills. (I am rapidly losing faith in Jerry Moran - R KS).

So there is a good chance that one or all of these bills being passed by Congress. Our only hope will be with the President veto. Large numbers of gun-owners in a powerful lobby are important to remind the President where his base is.
 
Last edited:
I have been a life member since Clinton was elected. I totally disagree with those of you who try to disconnect liberalism from gun control. The NRA is far from perfect but what is? They do a lot more by standing in the gap then any of their critics ever do. Those of you who do not like the NRA being critical of liberals, should get the liberals who you like so much to stop going after our gun rights. Then your arguments that it isnt politically motivated would have some merit.
 
. . . This started to change with the political egalitarianism exemplified by the American and French revolutions. Socialism is an extension of this egalitarianism into the economic sphere.
Every despot or regime has a lie they tell about why they should be in power. The Socialist lie is that the regime needs the power to eliminate private property, so that 'society' owns the means of production. In fact, in every case, the despot or regime holds the property. This applies to Socialists, Communists, the Tsarist autocracy, Divine Right of Kings, etc; they are all different cover stories for the State.

State Power can't grow too far out of control if the people to be subjugated are armed, which is exactly why we are. A State, empowered to eliminate private property, is fundamentally incompatible with a free, and armed, people. You can't separate economics and politics, no matter how badly you might covet your neighbor's property and wish for the State to take it from him.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top