If you're not a member of the NRA, it's TIME to join. $10.00/year

[AlexanderA]

I don't want to get into politics but I find your opinion interesting because the NRA is a single issue organization.

The NRA used to be a single issue organization. Under the leadership of LaPierre & co., it's become part of the Far Right constellation and it tacitly endorses the entire Far Right agenda. Just read LaPierre's screeds against "socialism" in the American Rifleman. Meanwhile it's gone soft on core gun rights, for example calling for regulation of bump stocks.

Virginia is starting to make a hard turn towards passing restrictive gun laws. What type of gun control does "a proud progressive" support?

This progressive doesn't support gun control. Certainly an AWB -- which is what is being proposed here -- is a complete red line for me. I swallowed hard and voted for the Republican (Gillespie) as against the antigun maniac Northam in last year's governor's election. (I voted against him in the primary too.) Whenever the Democrats call and ask me for money, I make clear that I'm not contributing as long as they maintain their current stance on guns. (And I have given in the past -- that's why they call me.)

 

[Bushpilot]

And that's precisely what he's [Wayne LaPierre] saying -- that the "socialists" are trying to take your guns. Never mind the fact that he's made the NRA into an arm of the Republican party.

I swallowed hard and voted for the Republican (Gillespie) as against the antigun maniac Northam in last year's governor's election.

Well, Kudos to you for voting pro-gun despite your objection to the candidate's party affiliation. As far as the NRA being an arm of the Republicans, Mr LaPierre and the NRA are simply recognizing and responding to the the realities of the current situation and the fact that the threat to our gun rights almost always comes from the Left, regardless of what label you want to apply to the Left. The NRA does endorse the the few pro-gun Democrats that come along but they are getting more and more scarce. As a gun rights organization how can the NRA not side more strongly with the Republicans? How can it be any other way? The NRA supports more Republicans because more Republicans are pro-gun.

Keep in mind that virtually every piece of major gun control law we have came into being while under Democratic leadership: The NFA ,1934 (Dems and FDR, who by the way also wanted registration and taxation of all guns included the bill but didn't get it), The FFA in 1938(est. requirement for dealers FFL) (FDR and Dems), GCA (interstate transfer) and Omnibus crime and "Safe Streets" in 1968 (raised handgun age to 21) Johnson and the Dems, Brady Bill in 1993 and Federal Assault Weapons ban in 1994. Both under Clinton and Dems.

 

[gulogulo1970]

It is hard for the NRA not to look partisan when one party is mostly against guns and the other mostly for guns.
That being said, the NRA should try to stay on point and talk guns, not socialism or anything that doesn't pertain to firearms rights. All races, creeds, and people with all kinds of political ideas own guns. It is time to band them together not drive them apart.

 

[jleonard]

I WAS an NRA member many years ago. I was getting 5 e mails each day and 3 to 4 snail mails each week. I asked them to stop and they would not.
I am no longer a member.
I do support their efforts, and I am a gun owner and have a carry permit but they send too much stuff so I quit.

 

[Bang!]

I’m guilty of having a lapsed membership. Knowing I’ll be moving soon I let it lapse. I’m reaalllyy hoping when I apply for membership with a different address that I will get a membership with my name on it. Instead of the guy who lived here decades ago.

Looking forward to a membership in my name for a change. I’ll start with a year membership and if that goes correctly I may become a life member! Yippee! I tried so many times to correct their mistaking me for someone else that it became comical! I’ve wondered if the guy they were mistaking me for was having any fun with it on his end?

 

[Solomonson]

I WAS an NRA member many years ago. I was getting 5 e mails each day and 3 to 4 snail mails each week. I asked them to stop and they would not.
I am no longer a member.
I do support their efforts, and I am a gun owner and have a carry permit but they send too much stuff so I quit.

Excuses, excuses... That apathy is a KILLER...

 

[Solomonson]

...For the record, I agree that every gun owner that cares about keeping his guns should join the NRA. However, if the NRA leadership keeps gratuitously insulting liberal gun owners, that makes it exceedingly difficult for them to get on board with the organization...

I very much agree. But RIGHT NOW is the time to join -- debate can follow. If one isn't a member, then they should at least step up to an associate membership for $10.00/year. Joining another pro-2A group simply ain't gonna get it and more need to realize that. Simply put, those that aren't NRA members in this day and age have no business whining when their gun rights are curtailed. It's that cut-n-dried.

I don't doubt for a minute that LaPierre and Cox are effective lobbyists. They're also horrid figureheads/spokesmen. Both make my skin crawl. The NRA really does need a new face, a new president that's not simply a figurehead. Let LaPierre and Cox oversee the lobbying, but get a new face at the top of the organization.

Vilifying "liberals" and turning the NRA's annual meeting into a GOP love fest also needs to cease. The problem is that a lot of the current membership thrives on that crap.

Like it or not though, in the end, NOW is the time to join!

 

[sota]

This is a real problem that the NRA has. There are plenty of Democrat/liberal gun owners and 2nd Amendment supporters out there, but the NRA has no interest in reaching out to them because they'd rather bash the left as a whole.

I'm still an NRA member for now, but also joined GOA and the 2nd Amendment Foundation as they seem to leave the partisan politics out of their discussions. If the NRA doesn't start changing, they'll eventually lose my support, and I say this as a Conservative.

Edit: I considered joining my wife to the NRA because she actually just asked about it last week, but even for $10 I think I'll pass and recommend she join either the GOA or SAF.

Why not all 3?

 

[BSA1]

I WAS an NRA member many years ago. I was getting 5 e mails each day and 3 to 4 snail mails each week. I asked them to stop and they would not.
I am no longer a member.
I do support their efforts, and I am a gun owner and have a carry permit but they send too much stuff so I quit.

You must really get stressed out about the other junk snail mail and emails you get. I get about 3 snail mail credit card offers a week. I don't bother to open them. I just tear them up and throw them in the trash can. Takes me about as long to do this as it did for me to type this sentence.

Emails. That is what the delete button is for. I deleted 17 emails this morning that I got last night after I went to bed. It is just part of our new way of communication. I just checked all of them and deleted all of them as a group.

The only snail mail I really hate is the membership requests I keep getting from the AARP!

 

[Solomonson]

You really think that gun-owning liberals would be falling all over themselves to join the NRA when Wayne LaPierre is on a crusade against liberalism? (Read his last two editorials in the American Rifleman. They have almost nothing to do with guns. They're just rants against "socialism.") This plays well to the "base," but does nothing for outreach.

I think there are plenty of people who aren't apathetic. They'll join the NRA even if they have to hold their noses because they realize it's the best way for them to ensure their RKBA is maintained.

 

[AlexanderA]

The NRA really does need a new face, a new president that's not simply a figurehead. Let LaPierre and Cox oversee the lobbying, but get a new face at the top of the organization.

The NRA president (Brownell) really is a figurehead. All power is in the hands of the executive vice president (LaPierre). Cox (head of the NRA-ILA) is just LaPierre's underling. They all really need to be replaced, but the way the NRA is structured, what we have is a self-perpetuating oligarchy. It would take an internal revolution to get rid of them. Lotsa luck with that.

Vilifying "liberals" and turning the NRA's annual meeting into a GOP love fest also needs to cease. The problem is that a lot of the current membership thrives on that crap.

Absolutely correct, on all counts. I don't believe that LaPierre himself is a Right Winger. He is, however, a cynical manipulator whose goal is to maximize fundraising for the organization and, indirectly, for himself. He knows that the Right Wing has the deep pockets, and is willing to open those pockets for the right (pun) kinds of appeals. Gratuitously vilifying the Left is part of this strategy.

That leaves pro-gun liberals with a dilemma. Giving money to the NRA doesn't guarantee that it will be more effective in lobbying for gun rights. It does guarantee that LaPierre & co. will further enrich themselves. Yes, every gun owner should join, just to boost the numbers. How much money to give, beyond membership, is another issue.

And there's something else to consider. The NRA thrives on open controversy. In other words, it's to its advantage for there to be threats to gun ownership that are not resolved. If all gun owners' legislative goals were achieved tomorrow, it would be out of business. Therefore, it's to the NRA leadership's advantage to be as alarmist as possible, and to drag things out as long as possible, without actually achieving any legislative goals. Neither to win nor to lose. (This could explain what it's doing in regard to bump stocks, for example.) Those that thought we could get national concealed-carry reciprocity, or silencer deregulation, were kidding themselves, and didn't understand the NRA.

 

[bassjam]

Why not all 3?

I've joined all 3 plus a couple of my state organizations, but I'm going to take baby steps with her. I'm amazed she even asked about joining, she's cool with me having firearms but she's certainly not a gun person.

 

[Bushpilot]

Giving money to the NRA doesn't guarantee that it will be more effective in lobbying for gun rights.

This simply isn't true. An NRA with a full war chest is far more effective then it is with an empty war chest.

The NRA thrives on open controversy. In other words, it's to its advantage for there to be threats to gun ownership that are not resolved. If all gun owners' legislative goals were achieved tomorrow, it would be out of business. Therefore, it's to the NRA leadership's advantage to be as alarmist as possible, and to drag things out as long as possible, without actually achieving any legislative goals.

This is also untrue. The NRA does far more then just lobby for gun rights. Besides, the idea that the NRA has to create controversy and deliberately fails to achieve it's legislative goals in order to remain relevant is ridiculous. The Left supplies all the controversy that is needed and will never let up on the issue of gun control until guns are removed from civilian hands.

That leaves pro-gun liberals with a dilemma.

It certainly does but that's not the NRA's fault. Liberals love the Left and the Left hates your guns.

 

[SwampWolf]

It certainly does but that's not the NRA's fault. Liberals love the Left and the Left hates your guns.

A left-wing "progressive" who is pro-gun is an extreme exception to the rule. That's just how it is. The NRA knows it and I know it and I think most every other clear-thinking, Second Amendment proponent knows it. I, for one, don't plan on begging and pleading some socialist to see the handwriting that's been on the wall for many, many decades and hope that I might "win him over" in some ridiculous "outreach" program. One of their own, retired Supreme Court Justice Stevens, was recently "outed" for his disdain for the Second Amendment-not that it was ever a secret to anyone who knows what the political Left is all about: they want to control people in the guise of gun control.

I agree with Wayne LaPierre and the National Rifle Association: If you oppose the Second Amendment and want more control over what type of firearm an American citizen can have and which American citizen can have it, like just about every so-called progressive is, you are opposed to liberty. And if you are opposed to liberty; I won't mince words here, you are my enemy.

 

[DoubleMag]

IMHO again I say, IMHO...

from post#33...
AlexanderA said: ↑

...For the record, I agree that every gun owner that cares about keeping his guns should join the NRA. However, if the NRA leadership keeps gratuitously insulting liberal gun owners, that makes it exceedingly difficult for them to get on board with the organization...
I very much agree. But RIGHT NOW is the time to join -- debate can follow.''

This is correct IMHO

hey A_A, join, call them at NRA and complain 2, 3...4 times. Or email. THAT'S YOUR TEN DOLLARS WORTH right there!!
Then I move we call you (honorary) AAA (ref: triple A artillery) hehe In any event, your complaints valid or not, some do make sense, are more valid to an organization that you are a member of

THINK then ACT; please do the right thing $10 we all need each other, NOW

 

[SwampWolf]

If you guys want to keep dividing within the firearm community, by all means you seem well versed. I get called enough foul things by control activits to come to a gun site and be called more of the same. Want me to join? A please and thank you would have sufficed.

I must be dense: what are you talking about?

 

[DoubleMag]

It might be ^^ a deleted post? Or someone snarked at the fella on another post?

 

[SwampWolf]

I WAS an NRA member many years ago. I was getting 5 e mails each day and 3 to 4 snail mails each week. I asked them to stop and they would not.
I am no longer a member.
I do support their efforts, and I am a gun owner and have a carry permit but they send too much stuff so I quit.

So, jleonard, I assume you know that every organization, no matter the cause, needs money to be at the table and much more of it to prevail. As BSA1 advised, if getting e-mail and mail from the post office is causing you angst, use the delete button for spam and the trash can for snail-just like you do with every other unsolicited pitch you and the rest of us get daily. There is a very real battle for the essence of liberty being played out here in America and it's not going away any time soon, if ever.

If you are not contributing to the winning of the fight with your voice, your pen and, yes, your pocketbook, you are decidedly not "supporting their efforts". Personally, I'm getting a little weary of carrying the water for those gun owners and supposed advocates of the Second Amendment who are too unconcerned and/or cheap to step up, don the armor, wield the sword and engage in the war for freedom. This is no time for disunity or apathy; this is a time for action and commitment. Ten dollars to join the NRA would make for a good start.

 

[AlexanderA]

That being said, the NRA should try to stay on point and talk guns, not socialism or anything that doesn't pertain to firearms rights. All races, creeds, and people with all kinds of political ideas own guns. It is time to band them together not drive them apart.

I couldn't agree more. When I joined the NRA, in the early 1970's, it was a nonpartisan, single-issue organization that welcomed gun owners of all political persuasions. I don't know when this began to change, but certainly the final tipping point came with the 2016 election. (The NRA backed a candidate who now turns out not to be so pro-gun after all.) OK, that's over and done with. It's time to stop the anti-left vitriol.

 

[aisiguy]

And time to stop the anti-NRA vitriol.

 

[BSA1]

Those that thought we could get national concealed-carry reciprocity, or silencer deregulation, were kidding themselves, and didn't understand the NRA.

I suggest that you do not understand politics in Washington, D.C. and the anti-gun culture.

 

[Intox]

No, I was just recognizing the fact that moderators on the High Road are quick to close down threads that stray into politics.

For the record, I agree that every gun owner that cares about keeping his guns should join the NRA. However, if the NRA leadership keeps gratuitously insulting liberal gun owners, that makes it exceedingly difficult for them to get on board with the organization.

Just because I am for Single Payer health care and publicly-funded college education, for example, shouldn't mean that I am treated as the enemy by the likes of Wayne LaPierre. (And that's precisely what he's saying -- that the "socialists" are trying to take your guns. Never mind the fact that he's made the NRA into an arm of the Republican party.)

Sorry, but this is an extremely sensitive issue for me. It's all the worse because I'm trying to straddle the two "tribes" that have developed in this country due to polarization.

I have a few friends who, like you, are split between parties on different views but are vehement gun right supporters (two of which are FULL on socialism proponents) so I understand your position. And while I disagree with many of their (and full disclosure the two stances you listed) positions, I applaud their defense of gun ownership as that indicates a belief in the right of self defense of life and property as well as a healthy distrust of government.

I am on the opposite side of the spectrum as I am ultra conservative. And by that I mean real conservative (not this new social conservatism crap) in that I want small fiscally responsible government and maximum civil liberties. This puts me, as your position does with you, at odds with both parties as well so I can somewhat relate. To me the NRA has done FAR more to contribute to gun regulations than any perceived "liberal gun grabber".

That said, I'll do the $10 membership for my wife and I simply to beef their rolls to show a stronger voter demographic. However, my real money goes to GOA.

But with THAT said......

IF the NRA CAVES into MORE gun restrictions to maintain public perception or influence.....then the REAL apathy is the people who keep pouring money at them thinking, "well, maybe this time..."

 

[AlexanderA]

And time to stop the anti-NRA vitriol.

What I'm saying about the NRA is nothing compared to what LaPierre & co. are saying about me (and others like me).

 

[BSA1]

I couldn't agree more. When I joined the NRA, in the early 1970's, it was a nonpartisan, single-issue organization that welcomed gun owners of all political persuasions.

Thank you for the history lesson.

I don't know when this began to change, but certainly the final tipping point came with the 2016 election.

If you don’t know when it began to change than you must have been sleeping.

2106 was a stunning defeat to the elites, the Republican and Democrat party establishment and the liberal print and television media. The silent majority remained mostly silent during the campaign and spoke loudly at the ballot box.

(The NRA backed a candidate who now turns out not to be so pro-gun after all.)

You must be referring to President Reagan who signed into law Firearms Owners Protection Act in 1986.

The Firearms Owners Protection Act gave the BATF wide authority on the enforcement of regulations of FFL businesses (which was especially abused under President Clinton) and banned the sale of new full-automatic weapons to civilians among other things.

OK, that's over and done with. It's time to stop the anti-left vitriol.

You mean the way they have stopped in California, Oregon (H.B. 4145), New Mexico (H.B.17), New Jersey ( 6 gun restriction bills), Florida (enacted raising age limit to buy firearm to 21, 3 day waiting period, bump stock ban) and most recently Vermont.

How about just a few of the bills introduced in Washington, D.C.;

SB 5992 could potentially criminalize firearm modifications such as competition triggers, muzzle brakes, and ergonomic changes that are commonly done by law-abiding gun owners to make their firearms more suitable for self-defense, competition, hunting, or even overcoming disability

SB 5444/HB 1387 would impose a registration-licensing system for commonly owned semi-automatic rifles and ammunition magazines holding ten or more rounds.

SB 5463/HB 1122 would require individuals to lock up firearms or potentially face Class C Felony charges.

Don't pee on my leg and tell me it is raining.

 

[benEzra]

Thank you for this thread. I let my membership lapse sometime around 2004 when they started getting mixed up in non-2ndA-related issues (I’m an independent who gets hate from both parties), but I stayed active on the gun issue. But now with some in the Democratic Party openly calling for mass imprisonment of gun owners (and I have seen multiple “progressive” tweets calling for mass *killings* of gun owners), I think I’m going to hold my nose and rejoin.

And I would definitely counsel the NRA et al to stick strictly to the gun issue; a third of Independents and a quarter of Dems own guns, and alienating non-republicans over issues of immigration law, GLBTQ+ issues, healthcare funding, or whatever doesn’t advance gun rights one iota. The NRA should studiously avoid taking sides on those issues and stick strictly to advocating for Second Amendment issues.

For a cautionary tale of how a pro-gun organization can lose focus if it gets heavily involved in non-gun-related issues, look at the sad story of NAGR and the failed attempt to de-fang the Colorado magazine ban...