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.
I have an old, dog-eared photo of me, taken in 1964 when I was stationed at a U.S. Air Force SAC base in northern Michigan; showing me cradling a Browning Double Auto shotgun while proudly holding a ruffed grouse (called "pats" in Michigan-speak) for view. I was standing next to my aging '56 Ford coupe and, if you look closely, you can see a decal on the rear bumper that reads: "Support Your Right to Keep and Bear Arms". While still a young man, I naively believed then that all we had to do to preserve our Second Amendment right was to vote the anti-gun Democrats out and replace them with pro-gun Republicans and all would be well ever after. Over a half century later, the only thing that has changed is the anti-gun Howard Metzenbaum, Thomas Dodd and Ted Kennedy Democrat politicians of the day have been replaced with the likes of anti-gun Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer and Chuck Schumer Democrat politicians. We ignore the donkey in the room at our peril.
The op started this thread with the thought that some people might want to take advantage of becoming a member of the National Rifle Association for ten bucks; a simple proposition that was met with a storm of anti-NRA invectives, arguing that the organization isn't "inclusive" enough; that the leader is just a "cynical manipulator" and that those who do decide to join should "hold their nose" in the process. The reality is that you will never persuade committed leftists to be sympathetic to the cause of a free people owning guns. The very idea threatens their ultimate goal of eventually controlling a society that so foolishly invites people who embrace the notion of disarming the populace into the big tent of democracy in the guise of "inclusion".
Socialist politicians riding the tide of emotion are always eager to use tragedy to drown out the voice of reason and to demonize the National Rifle Association. More gun legislation is just a cheap political ruse; a make-believe bandage to stick on a culture riddled with an amoral cancer. Hundreds of thousands of so-called progressives boarded chartered busses, chanting "99 bottles of beer on the wall" on their way to the rally in Washington DC to shake their little fists at the Second Amendment and rail mindlessly against the NRA. Right wing "exclusionists" were strangely excluded from the event. None of us could be found on any of those Greyhounds.
The NRA is composed of "millions of Americans representing a diverse contrast of age, sex, race and religion,...from every economic background, from every political affiliation. What you share with every other member is an appreciation of the shooting sports, a belief in our constitutional right to keep and bear arms and, most of all, a love of country." On the other hand, the NRA is
not an organization that accomodates political mindsets that are for more gun control, the very agenda that most progressives are in locked-step with.
From these cold, dead hands...