I Joined the Race! Now a NRA Member!

JTHunter said:

SNIP...I know a little bit about the SAF, but not much.
If any of you can supply some details, it would be appreciated.

Click to expand...

http://www.saf.org/default.asp?p=safdonation

These membership fees appear responsible, even for a poor (not cheap) guy like me.

"Available Membership Levels

$15 Annual $50 5-Year $150 Life (Defenders Club)


What is the Second Amendment Foundation policy on refunds?
The Second Amendment Foundation has a 30-day “no questions asked” policy. If you are unhappy with your donation or membership for any reason, Second Amendment Foundation will either cancel your membership or refund the full donation amount. Simply use our contact form here and we will refund your donation right away"

Venator said:

From article: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...cret-history-of-guns/8608/3/?single_page=true

In the 1920s and ’30s, the NRA was at the forefront of legislative efforts to enact gun control. The organization’s president at the time was Karl T. Frederick, a Princeton- and Harvard-educated lawyer known as “the best shot in America”—a title he earned by winning three gold medals in pistol-shooting at the 1920 Summer Olympic Games. As a special consultant to the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, Frederick helped draft the Uniform Firearms Act, a model of state-level gun-control legislation. (Since the turn of the century, lawyers and public officials had increasingly sought to standardize the patchwork of state laws. The new measure imposed more order—and, in most cases, far more restrictions.)

Frederick’s model law had three basic elements. The first required that no one carry a concealed handgun in public without a permit from the local police. A permit would be granted only to a “suitable” person with a “proper reason for carrying” a firearm. Second, the law required gun dealers to report to law enforcement every sale of a handgun, in essence creating a registry of small arms. Finally, the law imposed a two-day waiting period on handgun sales.

....In the 1960s, the NRA once again supported the push for new federal gun laws. After the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in 1963 by Lee Harvey Oswald, who had bought his gun through a mail-order ad in the NRA’s American Rifleman magazine, Franklin Orth, then the NRA’s executive vice president, testified in favor of banning mail-order rifle sales. “We do not think that any sane American, who calls himself an American, can object to placing into this bill the instrument which killed the president of the United States.” Orth and the NRA didn’t favor stricter proposals, like national gun registration, but when the final version of the Gun Control Act was adopted in 1968, Orth stood behind the legislation. While certain features of the law, he said, “appear unduly restrictive and unjustified in their application to law-abiding citizens, the measure as a whole appears to be one that the sportsmen of America can live with.”
​

Click to expand...

Interesting reading, that's why in the end you have to pick and choose if you want to join any, and if so which one (s) are you most comfortable with, because in the end they will all make concessions on your behalf. All you can do is grumble and live with it, or move on. Every organization you could possibly think to join will make concessions, and claim you as the reason/justification behind the action, and sell it as a good thing, a necessary thing, or will somehow strengthen the whole. Research and spend the pennies only where you can digest the promise.

I look at the history and I have to wonder if the NRA was created for a different purpose and changed direction, or simply went in the direction of which every way the tides rolled.

I understand most of the time why some or alot of you people are not for the NRA, I am not really taking sides, but the fact they fight for our right to own firearms and such is a good enough reason for me. I am also glad this thread did not blow up after my last response, sometimes people take my opinions or answers a bit too far on other forums or even some people in the real world. I do agree with some of the issues the NRA opposes, but at the same time I do support them as they defend our rights to possess firearms.


I do have some negative terms against the NRA but its not enough for me to full out hate them.

DWCook said:

I do have some negative terms against the NRA but its not enough for me to full out hate them.

Click to expand...

Good distinction. I'm a life member ONLY because they're the name known and feared on Capitol Hill. They are far from the best voice for gun owners, in my opinion, but they are a start upon which we can work.

Exactly! Nothing is perfect and sometimes you just have to deal with it. The comment with being "Capital Hill" I fully agree as they do have a bigger voice in our rights with firearm ownership.

I won't defend the NRA's political bartering, but as mentioned, they are the known, feared name with the most power that advances firearms freedoms. And kudos to all the other organizations that are doing the same work.

But also keep in mind that while the NRA is most well-known for its politics, they are THE leader in firearms safety programs, firearms marksmanship programs, and firearms awareness programs for kids. And just the magazine alone is worth half of the membership fee.

I hear a lot of complaints about being solicited for money. I've been a member on and off for most of my life, including the last several years as a certified instructor. I can't remember the last letter I got asking for money. Big deal.

MAC702 said:

But also keep in mind that while the NRA is most well-known for its politics, they are THE leader in firearms safety programs, firearms marksmanship programs, and firearms awareness programs for kids. And just the magazine alone is worth half of the membership fee.

Click to expand...

Which magazine is worth half the membership fee? We get American Rifleman and America's 1st Freedom. I find them just as slanted as the antis literature, just with a different (and therefore more palatable) focus. I don't find much real journalism in either, only propaganda.