NRA membership for $20

my family survival NRA membership for $20

Markdown.com is offering NRA membership for $20 – if you’re not a member and want to be here is your chance to join at a discount. Thanks to Al B for the heads up…

Comments

  1. idahobob says:

    Dunno why ANYONE would want to give a dime to support this traitorous organization. They have been compromising our God given right to keep and bear arms since 1934.

    Bob
    III

    • idahobob,

      On some levals I agree with you – but I also think if it were not for the NRA our right to keep and bear arms would have been a thing of the past years ago.

      A few examples:
      1. In 2005, the NRA, the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), and others successfully sued the Mayor of New Orleans Ray Nagin and others to stop unconstitutional gun seizures in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.
      2. In 2004 the NRA opposed renewal of the Federal “Assault Weapons” Ban of 1994, which banned many features of certain semiautomatic rifles and certain types of removable magazines – gun control advocates wanted to make the ban permanent and expand it. The NRA succeeded, and the ban expired at midnight on September 13, 2004.

      Where would we be if the NRA had not existed. Think about it.

      • Annie Nonymous says:

        I have to agree… I withheld my suppotrt of the NRA only when it started becoming an arm of a political party with a political agenda. Being from “Mixed Roots” (one parent onservative Republican, the other liberal Democrat) I know full well that there are just as many patriotic and willing to die for their country Dems as Reps.

        Until that time I was PROUD to carry their card. While some feel they sold us up the river, I know without them fighting those who would take our constitutional rights (if not our constitution!!) we would be in a MUCH sorrier state than we are now. Once I know the NRA has returned to their rightful place as a defender of the rights of ALL Americans, and shied away as a tool of a political agenda, I will be MORE than proud to once again carry their card.

        Until then… I will do what I can to support BOTH our 2nd Amendment (and other, BTW) Rights and that of our American way of life, REGARDLESS of one’s political party, creed, religion, or bloodline.

        All I can hope is those in the NRA in positions of power gain some (to quote my ex) “Testicular Fortitude”, shun those special interests, and do what they excelled in for so very long… protecting ALL our rights, but most especially, the 2nd amendment, that both my Republican AND Democrat parents practiced freely and with pride, and passed on to their daughter and her siblings.

        I pray (to quote someone, “mightily”) that this happens sooner rather than when they become a puppet for those who use it’s power and influence to suborn our rights… Not the “rightist agenda”, but ALL the people.

        Annie

    • idahobob,
      As an NRA life member, Certified Instructor and Training Counselor I’ve been involved with the NRA for decades. On occasion I disagree with some of their decisions, but your assertion of “traitorous” is a bit beyond the pale. Can you give any examples?

      On the other side there are numerous examples of supporting our rights. Adding to the ones MD listed are their support in the two benchmark SCOTUS decisions of Heller v. DC and MacDonald v. Chicago, where the SCOTUS opinion defined “the right to keep and bear arms” as an individual right. This is pretty strong stuff.

      Can you by chance tell us which organization we should support instead of NRA? Perhaps ACLU who fights for only rights they agree with, not including the 2nd Amendment, or maybe the Brady Campaign, or the Violence Policy Center?

      I await your answers.

      • idahobob says:

        Your sarcasm causes me to laugh outrageously!

        Why don’t you try, JFPO or GOA?

        You see, the problem is, the Bill of Rights states…”shall not be infringed”.

        Dunno about you, but that tells me that each and EVERY “gun law” violates our God given right to keep and bear arms.

        IMHO, ANYONE, that so desires, should be able to go to his or her favorite emporium, and plunk down the cash to purchase whatever they want, from a .22 Chipmunk, to an M1 Abrams tank.

        The Second Amendment was put in there so that citizens, both individual and collectively could protect themselves from an increasingly tyrannical government. The founders knew all about that. That is why they fought a war with Great Britain.

        Now, if you think that “gun control laws” are brought about to protect us from the criminal elements in our country, I feel sorry for you.

        Is that answer enough for you?

        Bob
        III

        • idahobob says:

          JPFO not JFPO, my mistake.

          Bob
          III

        • idahobob,
          I absolutely agree with your thoughts and analysis here. Gun control laws are created by people who want to control us (like Charles Schumer) because they are wiser then we are, and realize that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was exactly as you stated. The political reality however, is that without the NRA (established in 1871 long before all of the other organizations) we would have lost most if not all of our rights by the mid-1970’s. Gaining back rights once they’re lost is a hard thing to do, and when politicians ignore them and continue to be re-elected, only national organizations like NRA stand in the breach. Our firearms rights have been expanded significantly in the past 2 decades. Heller v. DC and MacDonald v. Chicago (both heavily supported by NRA) got the SCOTUS to specifically and legally define “the right to keep and bear arms” as an individual right, removing one contentious area from the quiver of the anti-gun side. Concealed carry that was only available in a handful of states is now legal to some degree in all but Illinois. Granted that in all but 4 jurisdictions it requires a license or permit, that IMO makes it more a privilege than a right, but in general we are headed in the correct direction, toward the restoration of rights those in congress would deny us. If you want to remain one of those who would give up the good in exchange for the elusive perfect, then I wish you luck; because the rest of us must live in the real world, with real people, and real compromise; like it or not.

          • In all fairness, the NRA tried to kill the Heller case when it was still young. Maybe they didn’t recognize its true potential or maybe they did and wanted to slow things down? Regardless, only after it advanced far enough to offer a promising victory that the NRA wanted to be a part of it. Basically the same thing happened with the McDonald case which resulted in incorporation of the 2A. They are doing the same thing now in IL as the SAF filed a lawsuit to force the issue of firearm carry while the NRA isn’t doing a whole lot to support it…yet. As soon as it looks promising they’ll jump on the bandwagon, just wait and see.

            Further examples would include the carrying of handguns in National Parks, an amendment to a bill which Obama felt compelled to sign. Originally, that amendment included rifles as well, but the NRA took that out for reasons I still don’t understand.

            The NRA has interfered with Constitution Carry efforts in NH as recently as last May. In IL they effectively (and secretly) worked to kill a carry bill which was strongly supported by grassroots gun rights groups. The NRA later wrote another RTC bill this past legislative and failed to pass it yet again, predictably, as they have failed for nearly 20 consecutive years now.

            My own opinion is that the NRA wants credit without real hard work. The Gunwalker scandal is another example as the NRA knew about it for months before it began to speak out against it. They let bloggers invest considerable efforts for months to make it a Congressional issue, but now that its national news the NRA wants to be seen at the forefront of it. Of course, it is now using that scandal as a way to solicit donations.

            Personally, I believe the NRA doesn’t want gun-rights gained too quickly or else they will lose justification to exist in the realm of politics. In order to justify their continued existence as a lobbying arm they must continue to be needed by people who give them millions of dollars every year. That money pays the CEO a million dollar salary, something he is not eager to give up anytime soon, not to mention how much is paid to other staff members and lawyers. I believe they occasionally endorse politicians who don’t have a very good record concerning firearm rights in order to help slow the progress in gaining or restoring gun rights, thus ensuring the NRA will be needed for years to come. That will keep the gravy train flowing for a very long time.

            Personally, I feel the NRA is doing just enough to maintain the status quo with small victories which are just enough to inspire donors while keeping this country from boiling over. For sure if the NRA did not exist gun rights would now be virtually non-existent, but then citizens who strongly believe in the right to keep and bear arms would be involved in a national uprising to gain their rights. While no one really wants to see that happen, neither do they appreciate being spoon-fed their Constitutional rights over a long-term basis.

            As an organization focused on training and safety I believe the NRA has done a much needed service for the citizens of this country. However, I think they would do better to stop being lukewarm. Either REALLY fight for gun rights as the 2A intended them to be respected or step out of the way so the citizens can become motivated to do it for themselves. Just my opinion.

            • I should have mentioned above, the NRA was pressed to file a RTC lawsuit in IL for three years following the Heller decision, but refused time and time again saying it would not work. They continued to refuse even after the McDonald ruling incorporated the 2A.
              The NRA only did so after the SAF filed their lawsuit to force the issue of RTC in the only state which totally forbids it. That doesn’t sound like leadership inasmuch as they were worried someone else might get credit for taking the lead.

            • The NRA is a large and slow moving organization, but it is politically savvy enough to know when and when not to get involved in a situation. Winning the Heller decision pretty much laid to rest the 2nd amendment as a personal individual right; however, losing it, would not only have been a loss and embarrassment to the NRA, but a decision by the SCOTUS declaring that the 2nd amendment was not an individual right, but a collective one, would have been the beginning of the end, and the first nail in the coffin of gun ownership. NRA is located in Fairfax, VA which is a virtual suburb of Washington DC, where they can keep an eye on the pulse of whets going on, which never has to do with common sense or logic, but politics. They sometimes aren’t as aggressive as I’d like to see, but if you look at the last two decades, we have made a steady improvement in removing the restrictions the left would like to pin on us. This is a fight where a single slip up could set us back years.

              As for the Macdonald decision, it was not about the right to carry in Illinois, but simply the right to own a firearm without storing it in pieces in the city of Chicago. I don’t know if and when Illinois will grant permission for that particular right (yes I just said that), but I never thought I’d see Wisconsin grant that ability either, and that just recently happened.

              As I said in another posting on this thread; help the NRA achieve 15-20 million members and you’ll see a much less cautious organization because of the power it would wield.

          • idahobob says:

            Let’s see…..you are the wolf expert, aren’t you?

            Bob
            III

  2. James from Iowa says:

    I’m a member of the NRA. I do disagree with them on some things, I take the approach that their good outweighs the ‘bad’ sufficiently and there is power in their numbers. Saying they are traitorous is hyperbole. They take more compromises than I would if in charge, but I suppose that’s the price to pay for some measure of effectiveness.

    I also donate to Gun Owners of America and Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership. They are far less compromising, but sometimes ‘out there’ in their rhetoric. But, I overlook that in the name of supporting 2nd amendment rights lobbyists.

  3. I have never found an organization that I agree with 100% of their decisions. However, I have belonged to the NRA for many years and plan to belong for many more. I have found no other organizations that have done any better in fighting for our right to bear arms. In fact I have not found one that has done as well. We either stand together or hang separately. MD thanks for sharing this info.

  4. SorryIf IoffendAnyone says:

    HandAxeProMan said it right, what orgcan you agree with 100% of the time. I don’t agree with my wife or brother or buddies 100% of the time, but I still love them or back them. If a gun owner complains about the NRA & isn’t a member of any org at all, then to me they’re either all talk or cheapskates. With a computer it’s easy to find other orgs: Gun Owners of America, Second Amendment Foundation, CCRKBA, your home State’s gun org. And to further get on people’s hate list :-) less than $35 a yr for the NRA, how much would be expected to go to fighting for our 2 Amendment Rights after subtracting the cost of the colorful mags to sit in the bathroom with ? Myself, I’m a Life member of all orgs mentioned & a few more that I didn’t mention. 100 million + gun owners and only 4 million NRA members, no wonder we have so many restrictions. Worse to come after Obama gets re-elected.

    • SorryIf IoffendAnyone,
      Well put; but I would offer one correction. You don’t have to worry about subtracting the cost of the colorful mags sitting in the bathroom. These magazines make the NRA money, like a magazine anyone publishes, via advertising. If we could increase the NRA membership even by twofold (8 million members), not only would we wield more political clout, but the ad revenues from the magazine would increase substantially, and allow the NRA to be even more effective. If those who complain because the NRA has to compromise would join the organization and we had a membership of perhaps 15-20 million, there would be no more need for compromise, because with those kinds of numbers, we could simply dictate. In short, those who fail to join because of the compromise, only guarantee that compromise will be the only solution.

  5. OhioPrepper said, “…your assertion of “traitorous” is a bit beyond the pale. Can you give any examples?”

    I think I can, and here’s a few other reasons to leave the NRA, for your consideration:

    The NRA vs. the Parking Lot

    “Charley Reese’s recent article on the right to keep and bear arms has prompted me to address the main issue that prevents me from being a member of the NRA: they do not have a clear understanding of rights. I find their goals laudable yet their unprincipled approaches are quite problematic, as I shall show…”

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/m.lora4.html

    NRA Reloaded

    Part II of the above article.

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/m.lora5.html

    • Clark,
      Please excuse my ignorance, but I have no idea who Charley Reese is or why I should care what he thinks. Also, a long list of Lew Rockwell articles doesn’t show me that you understand the issues; just that you can read someone else’s thoughts on the subject. The fact is, that for every piece of legislation the NRA fights in congress there are another half dozen in the wings. One of the most effective lobbying and public relations efforts the NRA performs has nothing to do with Congress, but with its more than 35,000 certified instructors and the well developed curriculum we all teach. By teaching youth, exposing the truth of firearms use and ownership to civic organizations, and training both the Law Enforcement and Civilian population on safe and proper firearms use, we have affected the entire outlook of firearms use and ownership in this country. I personally have seen wives and girlfriends nearly dragged to concealed carry handgun courses who by the end were handling different guns and asking pertinent questions about what they should be carrying. The NRA is much more that politics, and in my opinion, the educational aspects of the organization which are often overlooked by people like you, is one of the true strengths of the organization, and one of the reasons we are changing opinions in the general populace, by eliminating the ignorance too often exploited by the anti-gun side.

      • I didn’t overlook the “true strengths” of the organization. It’s all out there for those who want to know. I understand they do some good,… on the surface, but it’s what they do behind closed doors that matters.

        Dang, did you even read the links I posted before you made your comment? It does Not seem like it.

        Charley Reese is “any man” i.e. those who are likely Clovers and don’t like guns and are in fact afraid of them and those who carry them.

        Conversations With a Clover….
        http://lewrockwell.com/peters-e/peters-e65.1.html

        Go back and read all the links I posted and then tell me what you think, I just posted the basics.
        I wish more People knew, … and I didn’t even cover the half of it.

        • clark,
          Yes, I did read the links before responding, and for the most part I read opinion pieces by people I’ve never heard of, who used words like “I believe” when “I think” or “I know” would have been more appropriate. One can believe anything, regardless of the facts. As for Charlie Reese, there was a mention of a reply to his article, but I still don’t know who he is or why he or his thoughts have any bearing on the subject.
          Charging that the NRA does not have a clear understanding of rights, based on the article “The NRA vs. the Parking Lot” is a straw man at best. The “rights” of a landowner to forbid possession (not brandishing or use) of a legally obtained and lawfully carried tool while on their property vs. you’re right to keep and bear arms and for self defense is a logical fallacy. Whichever side the NRA supports, someone will be upset. It’s the basic petitio principii or “begging the question”, as in “Do you still beat your wife”. Putting one right against another, and then beating on the NRA for supporting the gun rights vs. the property rights are on its face absurd. No doubt, if they had supported the property owners, there would have been screams about not supporting gun rights. Sometimes you just can’t win.
          I have freely admitted that the NRA is imperfect and must sometimes work within the confines of a bad political system, but until you can show me a more effective national organization, they are the only bulwark attempting to keep their thumb in the dike.
          If you or others would like to change the NRA into a better organization, more to your liking, then organize, join the organization en mass, and elect your own board members, although I understand that it is always easier to stand outside, point fingers, and ridicule. And with that being said, we will simply have to agree to disagree.

  6. The Gathering Storm

    “…What should frighten everyone about the NRA is their enthusiastic support for a federal agency (BATFE),…”

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/gaddy/gaddy43.html

    Gun Owners: “Not Without a Fight”

    “…Gun people who continue to claim the NRA is supporting their ability to defend themselves are delusional fools. As one friend of mine said, the NRA is the world’s biggest gun control lobby.”

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/43813.html

  7. Most Gun Owners Are Ignorant

    “…The National Rifle Association, (NRA) has for the past 50+ years done very little to defend our God-given rights as listed in the Constitution, but instead sought to compromise with those who would rather see us disarmed. Teaming up with the Democrats to pass legislation that would deprive hundreds of thousands of veterans of the right to own a firearm is a great example…”

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/gaddy/gaddy33.html

    Gun Control, Fiat Money — National Security?

    “…Foolishly, the NRA supported GCA68 [The US Gun Control Act of 1968] at the time (something it doesn’t like to discuss these days,) and was editorializing on and off for such a law for some six years, two justifications being the desire to preserve the domestic firearms industry in the interests of “national security” (how convenient those two words are!) and to presumably protect it from cheaper foreign imports (see the American Rifleman, Aug. 1962 edition)…”

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/kreca/kreca3.1.1.html

  8. Am I the NRA?

    [Among twelve other listed reasons,] “…I’d want assurances this time that the NRA is willing and able to perform the task that brought me to it…

    I’d want the NRA to give up the self-defeating notion that you can keep guns OUT of the hands of the “wrong” folks, while simultaneously and miraculously keeping them IN the hands of the “right” folks…”

    http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2007/tle401-20070114-03.html

    How Unalienable Rights Become Privileges

    “The NRA, the Brady folks and others all in fact argue over nonsense. They argue over “reasonable restrictions.” But there are no reasonable restrictions when it comes to peaceable exercise of a right.

    None.”…

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig11/denninger4.1.1.html

  9. The ‘Plastic Gun’ Hysteria

    “Who could possibly oppose continuing a ban on “plastic” guns? Referencing threats of terrorist sneaking plastic guns onto airplanes, last week Senator Ted Kennedy called renewing the legislation “clearly necessary in today’s America.” Yet, despite broad support in the past from both the NRA and gun-control groups, it was a bad law, providing placebo cures for imaginary ills…”

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/lott/lott21.html

    Eric Holder – Obama’s Totalitarian Choice for Attorney General

    “Codrea is right about one thing – forget about the wimps in the NRA who are doing nothing to stop this fiasco. Give your money to the Gun Owners of America (GOA)…”

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/24888.html

  10. Republicans and Gun Control

    “…Republicans have given us gun control on the sly, but it is very effective. First, the Republicans and the NRA have pushed the current gun laws, including Project Exile and Project Safe Neighborhoods, that are de facto gun control. Second, they have increased the power of federal prosecutors to charge people with gun violations that are bogus.

    For example, if someone were to find a used joint in my yard, the feds could charge me with a gun violation, since I own guns and the guns are on my property. We read of the feds adding gun violations to drug charges even though no one used, brandished, or even threatened to brandish a gun; all that was necessary was for a gun — any gun — to be lying about in the general vicinity.

    Republicans say they are giving prosecutors the “tools” they need to keep us safe. I say that such gun laws are fraud, fraud, fraud, and a Big Lie.”…

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/11168.html

  11. riverrider says:

    i have been a member off and on. i think the nra has evolved into a self perpetuating fund raising machine rather than the gun rights org it was founded to be. while a member i was inundated with junk mail and “offers” and general begging for bucks. if they used my dues properly instead of all the junk, they might get something done and i might renew my membership. repeated contacts w/ nra to cease the junk mail met with no response. i’ll rejoin gun owners foundation today, and look for my state orgs.

  12. OhioPrepper said, “…without the NRA (established in 1871 long before all of the other organizations) we would have lost most if not all of our rights by the mid-1970’s…”

    Uh, I think we lost them already, they are privileges now, not rights, for most.

    OhioPrepper said, “…Our firearms rights have been expanded significantly in the past 2 decades. Heller v. DC and MacDonald v. Chicago (both heavily supported by NRA) got the SCOTUS to specifically and legally define “the right to keep and bear arms” as an individual right, removing one contentious area from the quiver of the anti-gun side.

    Winning the Heller decision pretty much laid to rest the 2nd amendment as a personal individual right…”

    Yeesh, you really need to read the links I posted, the Heller decision did no such thing. If only.

    It seems like you’re heavily vested in the NRA and you’re letting that sway your thoughts. Just my perception.

    This one is by memory, it might not be exact: “No one seemed to notice, none are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.”

    http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/511928.html

    • I’m not heavily invested, just involved. I read more than just a few opinion blogs and have been involved in this fight for more than 30 years. I’ve read the actual decisions and talked personally to some of the lawyers. If you think we’ve lost our rights and that they are all privileges, then perhaps you should do some more research on the history of the gun laws, and use more than the Rockwell blog to do so. Taking what should be rights, like concealed carry, they can be elevated in the law as a right or a privilege at several levels. If you live in Vermont, Alaska, or Arizona, then they are simply rights, with no license or permit required. In AZ this is a recent change, but one you can not in any way call a privilege. In “shall issue” states like Ohio, unless you’re a felon it is a right, and you must be issued a license, period. Even in states with “may issue” rules, the law is headed in the right direction. Without the NRA (and other organizations) much of this would not be possible.
      You stated in reference to the Heller decision, “Yes, you really need to read the links I posted; the Heller decision did no such thing. If only.” How about instead you read the actual decision, and realize that under “stare decisis” this places a huge burden and stumbling block on the anti-gunners in the future.
      You also stated, “It seems like you’re heavily vested in the NRA and you’re letting that sway your thoughts. Just my perception”. Perhaps you’re correct from the educational side of things, but the bottom line is that if you can point me to a national pro-gun organization that is as effective as the admittedly imperfect NRA, then I will gladly join it, along with all of the other organizations to which I currently belong.

      • SorryIf IoffendAnyone says:

        ”but the bottom line is that if you can point me to a national pro-gun organization that is as effective as the admittedly imperfect NRA, then I will gladly join it, along with all of the other organizations to which I currently belong.” -said Ohio Prepper
        I second what Ohio Prepper said.
        Different thought–Whatever org a person chooses, that org needs to be backed up with members. Make a commitment, NRA & GOA both have payment plans for life membership. Payments of $20 or $25 every 3 months. Second Amendment Foundation is $150 for Life Membership as is it’s brother org CCRKBA (Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep & Bear Arms) A person’s home State 2A org is also good & for the complainers, a person can volunteer their time like most Board members do for these org. Or become an NRA Election Volunteer Coordinator (EVC).
        All in all the NRA is our 800 lb gorilla in DC

  13. OhioPrepper said, “Yes, I did read the links before responding,… As for Charlie Reese, there was a mention of a reply to his article, but I still don’t know who he is or why he or his thoughts have any bearing on the subject.”

    Are you sure you read the links?

    I clicked the article and there was a link in the story that took me right to the Charlie Reese article.

    What gives?

    Also, I guess we do have to simply agree to disagree, I didn’t see any straw men or logical fallacies in the article, “The NRA vs. the Parking Lot”

    It’s not about Putting one right against another, really it’s about property rights period, there’s nothing absurd about that.

    I have researched the history of gun laws, and used more than the Rockwell blog, the lewrockwell articles simply articulated things in the best manner.

    “stare decisis” in regards to the Heller case, or any case for that matter, doesn’t mean jack these days. Prosecutors and judges do whatever they want in spite of precedence and law. However; I think the article I posted a link to spells out quite clearly how Heller opens the door more than it blocks the anti-gunners.

    When you say, “if you can point me to a national pro-gun organization that is as effective as the admittedly imperfect NRA”

    That’s the whole point. The NRA is not effective, in fact, it works counter to its aims, as I have shown.

    • I’ll admit that I didn’t click every link in the articles, so I didn’t follow-up on the Charlie Reese references. I can live with that (yes, in your parlance I’ll remain ignorant I suspect).

      You stated, “That’s the whole point. The NRA is not effective, in fact, it works counter to its aims, as I have shown.”, and yet you still didn’t point me at an effective national organization, which you should easily be able to do. The bottom line still comes down to the fact that there is no such organization, and too many people like yourself would rather complain than join it en mass and reform its behavior. For the moment at least, they are still our best bet and the only game in town, and you and I will simply have to agree to disagree.
      Over & Out

  14. OhioPrepper said, “and yet you still didn’t point me at an effective national organization,”

    I thought others answered your question, both here and in the links I posted. However; here are the answers: The Gun Owners of America, and Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership.

    I wasn’t “complaining” I was showing and trying to educate others, with this one especially, Am I The NRA

    http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2007/tle401-20070114-03.html

    was filled with ideas for those who might want to try to change that organization, but Why try to change it? Just join an organization that is already doing things right.

  15. I cannot believe some of the comments I am reading here. To those of you that are NRA members. Thank you for supporting an organization that spends not only millions passing gun rights and fighting gun control, but also spends millions more on education.

    To those that are not NRA members. All I hear is weak apethetic excuses. No organization is perfect, but the NRA does more than all other gun groups combined. I do not know one single full time GOA lobbyist. If you own a gun, but do not belong to the NRA then you are WRONG. There is no excuse that you can make to excuse the fact that you let others carry the burden of fighting for your gun rights freedoms.

    The NRA supports those that support gun rights. Dems or Republicans. It just so happens that the mainstream ideas of the Dems are to strip Americans of our Bill of Rights. There are many Dems that recieve good grades and support from the NRA.

    If you do not like something the NRA does, then feel free to volunteer your time. There are many ways to volunteer. Political, eduactional, and firearms related activities and events. An organization is only as good as its members.

    On top of joining the NRA a gun owner should be joining every pro gun group. The anti gun liberals, along with the UN are trying every way possible to find ways to implement back door gun control. Speaking of the UN. The NRA is the only pro-gun group in the world to hold NGO status. You want to know what the NRA is doing for you. Check out Wayne Lapierre’s address to the UN at the Arms Trade Treaty Council.