search
top

100,000 Is Not Enough

The NRA reports to Politco that they have gained 100,000 new members in the last 18 days. This is not enough. They really need to hit 5 million members, and fast.

NRA has been at 4 million members since Heston was NRA’s front man. If we want to send a message that the culture really has changed, 5 million NRA members would send that. 10 million NRA members would send that even more.

57 Responses to “100,000 Is Not Enough”

  1. Right Wing Wacko says:

    Sign up your wives, mothers, fathers, kids….

    • aerodawg says:

      Part of me wants to sign up kids I don’t have yet, simply because they’re getting Jr life memberships ASAP after taking their first breath.

  2. Dave says:

    There is a deal going right now to get a $25 bass pro gift card if you join the NRA for $25 ($10 off the normal annual rate).

  3. Turk Turon says:

    “They really need to hit 5 million members, and fast.”

    You got *that* right!

    TurkTuron
    NRA Life Member
    SAF Life Member

  4. Andrew says:

    NRA has a deal going with sponsored memberships for active military, cops, and first responders. It’s called “life of duty.” I’m military and a life member and I didn’t know this existed until this week. Spread the word and consider sponsoring!

  5. Joshua N says:

    I just signed up yesterday. Never have before, and I will be encouraging all family members to join.

  6. Asdf says:

    They should offer free, limted memberships, which would exclude printed materials and other things that cost money. This would very quickly bring the official number to 10 million or more.

    • Dave says:

      This is the tactic that the anti groups use. Claim membership if someone took your pamphlet. Not really member and not a group for people who would really care. The goal is paying and engaged members.

  7. I’ve added a Join the NRA link like you Sebastian. I’m also working on an internet kiosk for my local gun shop for both joining the NRA and Contacting your reps.

    I did however like Robb’s idea of a phone booth at a gun show. If there was a way to do that around here it would be perfect since we’re on a state line. I’ll have to call around and see what can be worked out.

    • Dave says:

      You may want to look at the straight talk home phone service. For $15/mo you get a box that allows you to plug in a home phone and it will use the cell network to route the call – 100% portal system. You could use a business phone with pre-programmed numbers to the state/fed representatives.

  8. Other Steve says:

    They wasted their only golden opportunity. They had the eyes of the world on them, and they send out LaPierre who is a terrible speaker, called people with mental health issues “lunatics”, then fucking blamed video games like “mortal kombat”. Not to mention stood there like a tool while the protester interrupted, he could have explained THAT as why we aren’t having a discussion and framed that behavior as the problem making them look more reasonable.

    Honestly I don’t think they could have done worse. If they had an engaging speaker, pushed for and “honest discussion that was based with on numbers and not emotion”, talked about our decline in violence, and real mental health reforms they would have 5 million right now. They fucked it up thoroughly.

    • MikeJ says:

      Yeap, they need to get someone that would be a cross over and break stereotypes. Ken Blackwell, Tom Selleck, Kenn Blanchard, Karl Malone, SE Kupp, and there are probably plenty of others…

      • Sebastian says:

        You need someone who is pretty well known, to be honest. Selleck would be my tops on that list, but I don’t know if he has Heston’s speaking ability. He’s also not that involved with NRA. Malone isn’t that involved either.

        • Other Steve says:

          It doesn’t need to be someone well-known. Someone younger, someone with a little more passion, a young woman, anyone. They could have found a disabled Vet in a wheelchair that could have made an illistrated point on why guns are needed for equalizing people and government. LaPierre very well could have ruined our chance at avoiding a mag limit or AWB, that’s not really meant to be exaggeration, it’s shame.

          They had ONE shot. And went with their go-to who has seen much better days. They could have found an intern there with more passion and drive that could have free-balled it better than that garbage they took all week to come up with.

          It’s fucking embarrassing. They don’t have 5 million or 6 million members right now because of their own actions. The old guard won’t be there much longer I’m fairly sure, at least I’d hope. It makes it really hard to consider them aligned with my goals when the stood up for one thing I believed in, but bashed at least two or three others.

          • Harold says:

            Errr, please.

            If the “intern with more passion” or anyone else had done a better delivery of the message, the MSM would have ignored it as much as they ignored any good parts of LaPierre’s presentation. And then they would have accused LaPierre of hiding behind her skirts—remember them playing both the “why is the NRA hiding” and “how dare they say anything” memes in the run-up?

            Nothing good was going to come out of that presser except the NRA saying “no compromise, no way”, and “here’s our alternative proposal”, which is exactly what happened. There were a few own goals, but those were decided ahead of time. Note that LaPierre did change “the national conversation” by adding the concept of armed guards, which put our enemies in opposition to Clinton in the ’90s and good sense by saying they would be worthless.

          • Harold says:

            It makes it really hard to consider them aligned with my goals when the stood up for one thing I believed in, but bashed at least two or three others.

            Well, since we’re quite sure those “two or three others” are ferociously guarded and safe from the NRA’s attacks, that pretty much tells us your priorities. Or perhaps this is another example of the common phenomena I’ve seen of people looking for any reason not to join the NRA.

          • Sebastian says:

            I’ll agree with Harold here. I called it a disaster before, but that was a bit of hyperbole. I think it was a mistake. But it’s not this much of a disaster. It just made enemies where we didn’t need to.

  9. George says:

    Only 100,000 new members? #WeAreBetterThanThis

    • Sebastian says:

      Damn! I wish I had thought of that.

    • Harold says:

      Those 18 days, the start of which was probably the Friday or thereabouts the week after the shooting when the NRA decloaked, includes the entire end of the year holiday season. I’m sure that worked both ways in terms of increasing membership (i.e. it was an opportunity to buttonhole relatives and friends), but in terms of focus a lot of us are getting ever more serious now that they’re passed.

  10. Bill says:

    If I’m naieve, please correct me.

    I haven’t joined, because their performance has not impressed me.

    If membership would improve that, I’m game. It just seems like they’re not going toe to toe and they absolutely need to be.

    • Sebastian says:

      What is “toe-to-toe”?

      • Bill says:

        For me it would be not giving an inch. I don’t see compromise in the language of this administration.

        • Sebastian says:

          Compromise doesn’t happen because NRA wants it happen. Compromise happens because it’s forced on us, and it becomes a choice between losing a few yards and having the other team run the ball all the way through your end zone for a touchdown. If they have 5 million members instead of four, that makes the likelihood of needing to compromise far less.

        • Harold says:

          Nor do I … nor do I see it from the NRA. And the last time this happened, breaking their pattern, the NRA fought the Clinton AW ban tooth and nail ^_^, aside from one off-script? radio interview by Heston.

          At the moment we have no reason to believe the NRA is going to betray us.

          • Throw NRA $25 and get a fucking associate membership. Hell, email me your mailing address and name and I’ll sign you up for one. If you are that worried that they’ll cave, attach a note to the membership: “NO COMPROMISE — TELL THEM ‘NUTS’!” and tell them you’ll quit the minute they consider cutting a deal.

            If we lose this and NRA is forced to compromise because the GOP caves, then don’t sit on your ivory pedestal saying “I told you so!” waving your GOA card. I’m a member of GOA and SAF too, but I know that NRA is the only organization that matters on Capital Hill. They’re kind of like Obi Wan Kenobi: Old and way past their expiration date, questionable record, but still our only hope.

            Even if you aren’t sure about the politics, realize that your $25 membership fee doesn’t go to NRA-ILA for lobbying. It goes to support the other programs like safety training for new shooters (of which we have many right now).

            Gun owners are their own worst enemies, I swear.

            • Harold says:

              Errr, by the time you typed this everyone in the thread had become an NRA member if they weren’t already. I rejoined after the presser the week after the shooting where they firmly stated no compromise, like they did for the Clinton AW ban.

              And there’s very little compromise I’ll accept from the NRA in this fight, probably no more than requiring use of the NICS for all firearms sales; it’s their baby, the natural logic of it inevitably says it must be used for all transactions (if not, why bother with using it for any?).

              • Bill says:

                ^^This.

                Forgive me for wanting to make sure what meager money I’m not putting into preparing is spent wisely.

    • Dave says:

      Here’s the thing, if you want the NRA to hear you – join and be vocal. This is the big fight for us. We need everyone in the game and we need to bring the money to the game.

      Like it or not, the NRA is the big player here and the one with the lobbying clout on capitol hill. This is the organization that was credited with tossing out anti gun law makers in 1994.

      Sure, there are other break away gun rights groups. They’re small and have little to no influence in the halls of capitol hill.

      I don’t agree with everything the NRA does, but, they are the best option we have right now.

      • Bitter says:

        “They’re small and have little to no influence in the halls of capitol hill.”

        Yup, and in many cases, they legally can’t lobby for your rights anyway. They certainly can’t let you know about the best candidates for office during the next election. But, amazingly, those groups tend to leave those facts out about how they’ll be happy to be your voice for the cause. I understand why they don’t want to admit it, but you should be informed of what you are and are not paying them to do. Joining NRA (and, if you can, donating to ILA for lobbying or PVF for election work) is supporting that effort to actually fight this stuff on Capitol Hill and in state capitals.

        • Dave says:

          When you look at the campaign spending of the other group, it’s obvious just how little their influence is. Despite a rather good recent interview by their founder and supreme leader, no one knows who they are.

          • Harold says:

            Going after Harry Reid hammer and tongs on non-RKBA grounds, when he might well be our best hope in getting nothing passed, is … well, it’s a good thing they have very very little influence.

  11. Charlie Foxtrot says:

    Ask people that think they are part of the NRA to look at their membership card — for the expiration date.

    Asked the wifey: “Oh, yeah… I think so.” Expired in 2009. D’oh! She’s now a $25 member and got a range bag to boot. It’s much easier when you’re a Lifer.

  12. Joey says:

    -Life member-
    Want the numbers to increase for the NRA? Get “Uncle Ted” to shut his yapper. The NRA needs to do a better job of reminding Democrats that they get support if they are pro-RKBA. I know it’s scoffed at amongst much of the blogosphere, but /r/guns generally abhors the NRA because they’re viewed as the National Republican Association not the National Rifle Association.

    The NRA culture (just look at the annual meetings) is not very welcoming to those that don’t vote a straight Republican ticket. I understand that’d be a battle better fought at a different time, but that’s one of the biggest issues. People don’t want to hold their nose to give the NRA money.

    • Sebastian says:

      Please vote in NRA elections, and vote for people who aren’t Uncle Ted. He’s on the board because members put him there.

      • Joey says:

        I do, and will continue to do so. As you’re well aware, we are some of our worst enemies. We (as NRA members) elect some real knuckleheads and as such end up looking like knuckle draggers.

        • Harold says:

          As long as The Winning Team controls the nominating and communications processes I don’t see it doing any good.

          And even if “Uncle Ted” were off the board, I don’t see it making much difference, the MSM will conflate him, Alex Jones, everyone who they think makes us look bad, with us.

    • Harold says:

      The Democrats are currently the self-identified party of gun control, an AW ban was in their party platform in 2008 and as I recall 2012 and something Obama explicitly ran on both times. Despite the few remaining Blue Dogs and various (semi-)reformed gun grabbers like Harry Reid, and, say, my home state’s governor, it’s inevitable this battle and the NRA are going to have strong partisan overtones.

      • Joey says:

        As a party, yes. That said there are quite a few registered Democrats that (surprisingly enough) don’t toe every bit of the party line. Same as with Republicans.

        I understand the partisan overtones at the moment. My point is that the NRA (to my youthful eyes) hasn’t done enough to engage these folks when we’re not in the middle of a battle.

        • Sebastian says:

          I don’t disagree with you, really. I saw a survey once that 14% of Democrats are gun owners, and something like 58% of Republicans were. That’s a stunning difference. The problem NRA has for annual meeting is this:

          1. They have to turn people out every year in pretty substantial numbers. Should they fail one year to do so, that’s going to get spun by the media as another example of NRA weakness.
          2. The majority of their membership is on the right side of the spectrum. There are probably more libertarians than other parts of the right, but libertarians can run a lot of different shades. NRA is officially non-partisan, but it’s members often aren’t.
          3. To bring a lot of folks to annual meeting, it had to turn into acres of guns and political theater. In order for that theater to be a draw, they have to appeal to the broadest base of members they can

          I don’t always think they do the best they could with the last point, but it’s going to tend to mean the politics of it runs right-of-center, and you’re not going to have luck getting speakers if they only talk about guns. But there has to be a balance between being non-partisan, and understanding that you can’t greatly offend the coalition from which you draw most of your membership.

          • Harold says:

            I suspect such surveys, although I’m sure the disparity is large. If you’re a Democrat, a member of the party of gun control, how much less likely are you to say you own guns? If you’re a Rethuglican, source of all that’s eeeevil in Amerika today, if you’re willing to self-identify how much more likely are you also willing to say you own guns?

            These biases would push the numbers in opposite directions, increasing the official disparity.

            Of course, if you’re a gun owning Democrat that has to stay in the closet you’re not likely to be of much help, except maybe on election day. So you might as well not be in the counts.

      • Alaska’s Democratic Senator is not saying ANYTHING about gun control. He’s pushing mental health. And this is despite his record as a former member of MAIG!

        Alaska’s Republican Senator is talking openly about compromise.

        Thank goodness we have some D’s to slow the roll in the Senate and give Harry Reid cover. Can you imagine if Chuck Schumer were running the show there?

        • Harold says:

          Indeed, that’s why I’ve been pinning my greatest hopes on Reid, who saw the light after Gore’s 2000 defeat and presumably doesn’t want to become Minority Leader after 2014 when his party has to defend 20 seats won in 2008 when Obama was on the ticket.

          Based on what I know of your two Senators and their last elections there’s absolutely no surprise in their postures; the big danger is probably the Dem deciding there’s absolutely no chance he’ll win reelection….

    • Mark says:

      I’m a Democrat and an NRA Life member. I don’t find the “culture” annoying or offensive to me as a liberal. Their annual convention has a ton of different stuff to see or do. Yeah, I don’t waste my time attending the “American Values” thing because I am not interested in conservative conversations. There’s LOTS of other stuff for a pro-gun liberal to enjoy.

  13. Andrew says:

    I’ve signed up four and become a lifer myself. Got two of my best friends to start signing people up, and they each got three.

    By my math, that means that the three of us have recruited 1/10,000th of a 4,100,000-member organization’s growth since the crisis started. I’m both proud and terrified. If everyone did the same, we’d already be at 12 million and growing.

    Make some sales here, folks (I know: choir…but let me have my moment)! It takes about 3 minutes to sign someone up on an iPhone, and you can do it literally anywhere.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. SayUncle » Speaking of NRA - [...] 100,000 new members in 18 days. Is that enough? [...]
top