NRA Membeship

The NRA does not represent me. They say they are pro-gun and I say I am pro-gun. Thats about all that we overlap.

The NRA has about 4 million members compared to the nearly 50 million gun owners in the US. The NRA officially represents about 10% of gun owners.

Why doesn't the NRA represent more than 10%? Lots of folks are put off by their hysterical fear-mongering, like George H Bush.

Perhaps if the NRA returned to their orignal focus of marksmanship and safety they would represent more than 10% of US gun owners. If they want to represent all gun owners they better put on their thinking caps and get to it.

The NRA was forced to get involved in politics when anti-gun politicians started trying to ban or restrict guns, and I, for one, am glad they did.

I would not be an NRA member if their only focus was on safety and marksmanship; I joined, and became a Life Member, because of their vigorous and energetic defense of the Second Amendment.

You accuse the NRA of "hysterical fear-mongering". I must admit that last year, when the NRA was warning that the President would go after guns if he was reelected, I rolled my eyes and thought LaPierre and Company were being just a little melodramatic, if not paranoid. Now I realize they were 100% correct in their warnings.

I am proud to be an NRA Life Member. I don't have to agree with every pronouncement they make in order to support them (or, to be correct, to have them support me). And the fact that they represent "only" 4 million gun owners is of no consequence: Any organization that represents that many people is a force to be reckoned with in our society.
 
I let my membership lapse after they did nothing to stop the last AWB. I dont see them doing anything this time around yet. I am sure there are others who feel the same.

I don't see the point to try to demean those who choose not to join for various reasons.


So you enjoy your gun rights at my and other NRA members' expense. :confused: :mad:
 
The NRA was forced to get involved in politics when anti-gun politicians started trying to ban or restrict guns, and I, for one, am glad they did.

I would not be an NRA member if their only focus was on safety and marksmanship; I joined, and became a Life Member, because of their vigorous and energetic defense of the Second Amendment.

You accuse the NRA of "hysterical fear-mongering". I must admit that last year, when the NRA was warning that the President would go after guns if he was reelected, I rolled my eyes and thought LaPierre and Company were being just a little melodramatic, if not paranoid. Now I realize they were 100% correct in their warnings.

I am proud to be an NRA Life Member. I don't have to agree with every pronouncement they make in order to support them (or, to be correct, to have them support me). And the fact that they represent "only" 4 million gun owners is of no consequence: Any organization that represents that many people is a force to be reckoned with in our society.
You are a proud member of the 10% and I can respect your experiences that brought you to that point.
 
Last edited:
I never felt a strong desire to join in the past. I did not want any more junk mail and did not agree with everything I have read about the organization. Current events have pushed me over the fence though, and I just sent in the dues. I hope the NRA will at least slow down the erosion of our gun rights.
 
You are a proud member of the 10% and I can respect your experiences that brought you to that point.

You can continue to emphasize that 10% all you want, but I guarantee you that nobody in Washington sees the NRA in those terms. What they see is 4,000,000+ American voters who are passionate about their Constitutional rights.

I am hard-pressed to think of any other advocacy organization in this country with that many members, except perhaps AARP. ACLU, AAA, NOW, etc., etc., pale in comparison to the NRA.

You say you are pro-gun, but you take issue with the pro-gun advocacy of the premier gun-rights organization in our country. It is not trolling for someone to ask you to what extent you are "pro-gun"...it is a logical question prompted by the dichotomy inherent in what you wrote.
 
Last edited:
I'll admit to being an on-again, off-again member over the years, mostly over the "jack booted thug" thing. But that is in the past. I'm a member now, and if the man who runs this place wants us to fly the flag that is good enough for me.
 
I will admit I'm a bit unsure about what the NRA will be able to do this time.We are up against more than formidable opposition.What I am sure of is we don't have a snowballs' chance in hell without the NRA.Terry Bradshaw told his Steelers teammates "You can lose with me,but you can't win without me".I joined and I hope ALL the other doubters will also.
 
I will admit I'm a bit unsure about what the NRA will be able to do this time.We are up against more than formidable opposition.What I am sure of is we don't have a snowballs' chance in hell without the NRA.Terry Bradshaw told his Steelers teammates "You can lose with me,but you can't win without me".I joined and I hope ALL the other doubters will also.

I don't think the situation is hopeless by any means. There are a lot of members, of both parties, in both the House and the Senate, who are pro-gun, and I don't think they will be rushed into anything.

Truth to tell, I have no problem with measures intended to keep maniacs away from guns; it's banning guns and magazines that bothers me.
 
The NRA has about 4 million members compared to the nearly 50 million gun owners in the US. The NRA officially represents about 10% of gun owners.

Why doesn't the NRA represent more than 10%? Lots of folks are put off by their hysterical fear-mongering, like George H Bush.

Perhaps if the NRA returned to their orignal focus of marksmanship and safety they would represent more than 10% of US gun owners.

Would they?

I was reading a bit about the history of the NRA by the International Directory of Company Histories, by The Gale Group, Inc. They cited NRA membership at 300,000 around 1960. That was a time when the NRA was a kinder gentler organization, more focused on marksman and safety than the political 'fear-mongers' they have become with a membership of over 4,000,000. America's population has only doubled since 1960. Gun ownership as a percentage of population since 1960 has actually ticked down according to Gallup. Meanwhile... NRA membership is up well over 1,000%. How can this be? Are the numbers incorrect?

It would appear to me that gun owners have sought NRA membership in much greater numbers as a full service organization, including 2A defense, than the NRA more focused on sporting and safety of a half century ago. I think that makes sense since the 2A has been under more vigorous attack the past 50 years, and the NRA has helped in securing more freedoms, especially CCW.

Dropping 2A causes does not sound like a great plan for a NRA membership drive.
 
Last edited:
I just upped mine to Patron status.
The foolish will always find reasons for not joining, stating too much mail, didn't do enough etc.
You can't help those members. They are what they are.
 
I just have no desire to put arbitrary logos on. Having one is meaningless IMO, I don't care what people think.

And does just having a logo mean you're really a member? Or not having a logo mean you're not a member, it's silly to me to draw such conclusions.
 
Yes, NRA is not the only show in town. We should concern ourself less with a little logo and do something meaningful, write your reps and tell them to pull their heads out of their arses in a nice way.
 
45Auto1 Yet you still post under the title nra membership? Why would you post and show your negative views on this topic if you are not a member? I wish this great site would require every one to be a member of the NRA before they could post on here.
 
Last edited:

Latest posts

Back
Top