NRA Paradox

[Rebar]

Another thread got me thinking.

The usual estimate of gun owners is 80 million, I think this is a conservative estimate, but lets use it for now.

There are 3 million NRA members (anyone have an exact number?). Note: an NRA member may not be an actual gun owner, but lets assume they are for the moment.

Now the paradox - many politically active gun owners feel like the NRA is too soft, that they should push harder to repeal anti-gun laws. But if you ask a non-politically active gun owner about the NRA, they'll likely say that it's too extreme and they don't want to be part of it.

How can this be? How can it be both too extreme and too soft? Is it a problem with the NRA and how it gets it's message across, or has the MSM brainwashed folks that the NRA is evil, or a combo of both, or something I haven't thought of?

This is important, as the liberal/left has targeted the 77 million non-politically active gun owners as a potential audience for their misinformation agenda to hide their anti-gun agenda. Imagine if you would, if the AHSA fools 3 million people to join, what a coup that would be for the gun grabbers.

The primary counter to this is the NRA, and I think it's critical that it doubles or even triples it's membership, but it seems membership has pretty much stagnated. How can they make inroads into that 77 million who won't join? How can the NRA break this paradox and bring the wayward gun owners into the fold, and save them from themselves?

 

[WT]

The NRA-ILA website claims that the NRA has over 4,000,000 members. See link.

http://www.nraila.org/About/NRAILA.aspx

If 80 million Americans own firearms and only 4 million belong to the NRA, I conclude that the 76 million non-members do not feel that it is worthwhile to belong to NRA.

As a long time member of the NRA (about 40 years) I see little chance of significantly increasing NRA membership. The organization has major problems which it fails to address. I predict that NRA will be extinct in 50 years.

 

[Brett Bellmore]

It's simple enough: Non-political gun owners get their impression of the NRA from the media, who are rabidly anti-gun, and regard anybody who opposes any aspect of gun control as "extremists". Politically active gun owners are more directly aquainted with the NRA's actual behavior, and the kinds of compromises it routinely agrees to.

The problem with moving people from the first camp to the second, is that if you're getting your information from the media, you're not going to be aware of how threatened our liberty really is, so you'll have little motive to join the NRA.

 

[Kjervin]

I think that while the MSM does try to vilify the NRA, the biggest problem the NRA has is that gun owners, rightly or wrongly, tend to have a lot of negative things to say about the NRA. Whether it is at the range, at backyard BBQ's or on forums such as these, non-members get the sense that the NRA is not responsive to the needs of its members (whether deserved or not) and are hesitant to send their money to support an organization that only uses them to further an agenda that might not be the same as theirs. After all, how many threads here have some kind of "the NRA sold us out" feel to it? Hardly a ringing endorsement for someone to send them money or join, huh? Maybe the NRA needs to worry less about the MSM and worry more about it's membership.

Kj

 

[taliv]

i say plenty bad about the NRA and their compromises. (I'm an NRA member, and GOA life member)

but I think the single biggest factor here is people are too lazy to sign up.

the second largest factor is they don't want to spend the $30 for which they get no tangible benefit.

the third factor, is that the VAST majority of gun owners are not shooters. they don't compete in matches. they don't CCW. their guns aren't worth insuring. they don't hang out in gun shops. they don't hunt. guns are just a tool they don't use, and they're not going to vote guns when they're far more concerned about economy and jobs and war. it's simply not that big of a deal until somebody comes to take THEIR gun.

 

[Kjervin]

It's not laziness to refuse to spend money on something for which one does not receive any perceived benefit, it is wastefulness. It is the job of the NRA (and/or its members) to show these people the value of joining (educating them, if you will). If they cannot, the fault is not with the people (even if they will eventually suffer for their choices), the fault is with the NRA for not making its case.
Kj

 

[benEzra]

A lot of non-NRA members don't have a clue what the NRA's positions on the issues are. If you hear the MSM tell it, the NRA supports handing out automatic weapons to 16-year-olds with no background check required.

Most NRA-bashers also don't have a clue what is and is not already restricted according to Federal law.

 

[Poodleshooter]

A lot of those 80 million gun owners might have an elitist mentality:
Guns are ok for me,since I'm intelligent and stable, but other people are too irresponsible and might misuse them. These gun owners are actively anti-gun,so long as they can keep theirs.
Another group of those gun owners might not have any conscious thought about guns,but simply have an old .32 auto in the drawer in case of attack. They don't really care about politics or the larger issues of gun control. If handguns were banned,they simply wouldn't do anything. The .32 would just stay in their drawer till needed. They may or may not support the right to own guns, but they're not politically active and just don't care what the law says.
A lot of the 80 million are union voting hunters who don't care about what the NRA fights for right now. Us black rifle folks and handgun/urban gun owners have taken over a great deal of the NRA's lobbying time. Most of the old time hunters don't see their guns under attack,so why bother with the NRA? To an extent, they're very similar to the folks in the 2nd group above-apathetic about gun control.

There sure seem to be a large number of apathetic folks out there. Otherwise we'd be seeing more NRA members, or more folks joining the gun control side. As it stands,we're seeing neither. Until some drastic change occurs,that makes these folks afraid of having their guns confiscated,we probably won't see much change. Never underestimate the power of apathy.....

 

[boofus]

I'm an ez-pay life member of NRA but most of my friends who also are avid gunnies are not. They pretty much vote the same as a NRA gun owner, I know none of them that were rooting for Kerry. I think it is just plain laziness or cheapness that prevents them from joining.

 

[Gordon Fink]

[H]as the MSM brainwashed folks that the NRA is evil…?

Yes. I know, because I escaped that brainwashing.

~G. Fink, NRA member

 

[Andrew Rothman]

Ten years ago I could lecture most learnedly on how the NRA wanted to legalize machine guns and x-ray-invisible handguns.

Today, well... I am the NRA. (And I think they're too soft!)

I too escaped Mainstream Media brainwashing.

 

[biere]

Ballad of carl Drega, a book by vin suprinowitz and that last name is most likely mispelled.

There is a section in this book where he backs up with facts how the nra has compromised rights away. Makes the nra look like an anti-gun group, but maybe just the light beer version.

Now I need to say that I am totally and completely fed up and burned out with politics. From the supreme court decisions where they mention that part of their concept and thinking came from what the rest of the world is doing to politicians saying one thing in order to get elected and then not keeping their word, I am fed up.

I have come to the conclusion that you are either for people having a god given right, or you are trying to limit the natural rights of people and by doing so you are stealing and depriving them of their freedoms that they were born with.

I no longer accept compromise as being a half step forward. I see it as a legal way of saying, "yeah I admit you can make laws that limit my rights and freedoms, but I only will admit this if you give me that lollipop in your hand."

And that folks is a bad thing to do.

Another thing vin talks about in his book is how once you apply for a permit you are agreeing that you legally have to ask permission to do something. And then you can't go to court over it and fight against it.

I admit my thinking in black and white comes from being burned out with today's politics. I no longer accept that I have to try and live in the grey area. I no longer wish to gain a little ground by trading away something else.

So for me to give the nra money, they would have to get serious and talk about one right which everyone should have. And that is a right to own firearms. They would have to be gung ho and get so extreme that all the anti-gun folks who think they are shotgunners or hunters would disown the nra because the nra thinks everyone should be able to own any gun they want.

Sorry for the rant. I am so fed up with today's government and politics and the workings of politics that I can't stand any of it.

 

[MrTuffPaws]

Well, for the people that think them too extreme, you have to think just how the media and the NRA portrays its self. Media usually portrays them as reactionary and only showing up after the likes of Columbine. The NRA portrays themselves by sending out photos of Chuck so dripping with self righteous smugness, that on look and you know there is something wrong with him.

For those that think the NRA is too soft, they actually know what the NRA does and what they stand for. They feel ripped off when the NRA caves on registration or gun shows, and don't even get me started with what they have done with CA.

 

[No_Brakes23]

The money I might have spent on NRA membership is now going to my Handgun Safety Certificate which I shouldn't need at all, but even with the old "safety" requirements wouldn't have needed (As a veteren) except for the NRA caving on that issue.

Thanks NRA.

 

[Boats]

I love how it was the NRA which "lost" California. There must be some sort of mirror shortage going on down there I haven't read about.

 

[dmftoy1]

I was an NRA member for 8 years when I had my FFL and I let my membership lapse in the early 90's. I've been contemplating signing up again but I want to find out if there's actually a way to keep them from sending me solitations constantly.

I'd even bite the bullet and pay for a life membership if I could be sure that they wouldn't bombard me with what I feel is junk mail asking for more money, etc. What turned me off on them in the early 90's was that it seemed like they were spending the majority of my membership $ (what was it then $25?) trying to get me to give them more money. If I give them a $1 I want them to spend .99 of it on trying to get better gun laws, creating shooting ranges that I can drive to (farmington NM is cool . . . but not close enough ) and creating classes, education, etc. The thing I don't want them to do is to turn into the democratic or republican parties or my old college where they are constantly holding their hands out.

On a semi-unrelated note. How much did the campaign finance reform act of a few years ago impact the NRA? Does it curtail how much they can donate to political campaign's, etc?

I belong to an organization similiar to the NRA for 4wheel drives. (UFWDA.ORG). It sends me a notice once a year asking for my renewal and a quarterly magazine about what's going on. That's perfect for my uses.

Just my .02

Have a good one,
Dave

 

[garyk/nm]

Yet another variable to consider: how many of those 76 million gun owners who are not NRA members, belong to GOA or any of the other, more local groups? Look at membership in all pro-RKBA groups, not just NRA.

 

[Justin]

dmftoy1- The NRA has a reduced volume mailing list that you can get on. I don't know the exact procedure, I think there's a phone number to call or something like that. I've seen it referenced here on more than one ocassion, so a search through the archives might be fruitful.

 

[dmftoy1]

Thanks, I need to check into it. I've been meaning to join again for almost 9 months but keep putting it off. I guess I'd better call them. (It's not obvious from their website that it's an option)

Regards,
Dave

 

[Monkeyleg]

The NRA fights the battles they think can be won. Don't know how hard they're fighting in California on the serial-number ammo bill.

The non-political types are near impossible to motivate unless they see the threat right in front of them. Back in 1994, there was a ballot referendum to ban handguns in Milwaukee. Suddenly there were all sorts of gun owners handing out literature door-to-door and doing everything possible to defeat the ban.

The number of NRA members went from 2 million in the early 90's to 4.5 million when Clinton left office. That's a sign of what it takes to get people involved.

 

[bearmgc]

I belonged to NRA for several years, then felt they had compromised on gun issues. I also became very annoyed at their telephone and letter recruitment strategies. They innundated me with massive offers to join, when I was already a member. JPFO now gets my money.

 

[Standing Wolf]

Imagine if you would, if the AHSA fools 3 million people to join, what a coup that would be for the gun grabbers.

The same people who don't join the N.R.A. won't join that abomination.

 

[MountainPeak]

The fact of the matter is, MANY so-called 2nd Amendment advocates, only post on gun boards. They don't e-mail, they don't meet, send money, send letters, call, or even join orgs., that fight for their rights. If they did, we wouldn't be having this conversation. RECOGNIZE yourself? I thought so, but I've long ago gave up on you! You know who you are! Ya buddy, it's YOU!!! :banghead:

 

[Brett Bellmore]

What turned me off on them in the early 90's was that it seemed like they were spending the majority of my membership $ (what was it then $25?) trying to get me to give them more money.

They were. I don't like all the junk mail either, but think of it this way: You give them $25 in dues. They spend every cent of it sending out mass mailings, and get back $26 in donations. Wasn't it worth it? They just turned $25 into $26, after all. Makes perfect financial sense, even if it does annoy the members.

 

[Monkeyleg]

Brett, I'm surprised at your post. You've been around here and TFL long enough to have read Mike Irwin's replies to these sort of complaints.

Perhaps you didn't believe Mike when he said that the mailings brought in much more than their cost. I believed him, though.

I've also done some admittedly rough number-crunching and arrived at much the same conclusion.

But I live in a state where the NRA has a ton of clout, and few politicians want to cross the organization. Members in CA, NJ, MA and other less gun-friendly states have reason to feel abandonded, but they're living on battlefields already owned by the enemy.