Poll: NRA is largely a

Poll about how people view the NRA

I believe they believe in what they are doing is right and important and while they are being just and standing up for the little guns rights, they are being funded by gun manufacturers.

I think the rank and file members believe they're supporting an organization with the interest of freedom/constitution/patriotism but that higher ups are more closely tied with gun manufacturers than the average members knows or wants to believe.

what compels people to create binary polls like this? it can only de-illuminate. i am not a fan of the NRA at all, but there is obviously more than one motive fueling it. certainly the interests of gun manufacturers are served. but it's absurd to think a huge contingent are not also people who simply like guns and don't want them taken away. many have even convinced themselves that guns sit right alongside food water and shelter as essential fundamental human necessities.

A religion

Neither option is accurate.

Both are part of what they do, but not all that they do. If I had to pick I would say mostly option B. If gun manufacturers were non-profit, the NRA would still be doing its thing.

I view it as I view the ACLU.

Too black and white.

The more rights we give up...the less we have a say on.

The options are too limited and I agree with KB and a few others responses thus far. If forced to say, I would go with the second option.

Bad poll. Not enough choices. If you want a specific answer than just come out and state it.

Bad poll. Not enough choices. If you want a specific answer than just come out and state it.

What do you expect from an agenda post?

Bad poll. Not enough choices. If you want a specific answer than just come out and state it.

I think the poll is fine.

Are they profit driven primarily or rights driven? Seems simple enough.

I get the impression the second option is more of a sardonic jab than anything else so I'd have to say neither option is suitable. The NRA's membership seems to be mostly pleased by the actions of the association and, depending on who you believe, number in the millions. It's hard to see membership like that and still see the organization as little more than a puppet for gun manufacturers. A satisfied membership however does not indicate that the group advances patriotism and freedom.

Truth is most of the gun manufactures hate the NRA.

The NRA is just like any other special interest group. Their money buys way too much.

I used to live in the country and go to a gun club for the skeet and trap shooting. I went there on Sundays because that was the only day the club was open to non-members. Like many shooting clubs, this one would only grant membership if I also joined the National Rifle Association. That wasn’t going to happen. While I like some of the NRA’s youth gun-safety programs, I cannot support its policy aims.

According to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, 13.7 million people went hunting in the U.S. last year, a nearly 5% increase from 2001. By contrast, the NRA has 4 million members. There are likely plenty of reasons why two-thirds of hunters (as well as millions of gun owners) don’t belong to the group, apathy and financial hardship among them, but politics undoubtedly play a role. And reaching out to pro-hunting moderates is perhaps our best hope for ending the national stalemate over gun control.

Read more: http://ideas.time.com/2012/12/19/viewpointwe-need-a-moderate-pro-gun-alternative-to-the-nra/#ixzz2FWEh5fr6

Truth is most of the gun manufactures hate the NRA.

I get the impression the second option is more of a sardonic jab than anything else so I'd have to say neither option is suitable. The NRA's membership seems to be mostly pleased by the actions of the association and, depending on who you believe, number in the millions. It's hard to see membership like that and still see the organization as little more than a puppet for gun manufacturers. A satisfied membership however does not indicate that the group advances patriotism and freedom.

That is sort of a chicken and egg argument. The NRA has done an excellent job stoking their membership into being uncompromising on the issues that gives the NRA a purpose.

I get the impression the second option is more of a sardonic jab than anything else so I'd have to say neither option is suitable. The NRA's membership seems to be mostly pleased by the actions of the association and, depending on who you believe, number in the millions. It's hard to see membership like that and still see the organization as little more than a puppet for gun manufacturers. A satisfied membership however does not indicate that the group advances patriotism and freedom.

I believe I became a memeber of the NRA back in boy scouts when i got my marksman and skeet shooting meritbadges (i am not SURE if i did or not, i didn't pay any dues, or anything like that, but my certification of achievement was from the NRA, not from the BSA), There are many reasons to belong to the NRA.. not all of which amount to agreeing with their advocacy efforts.

on a similar note, I am a subscriber to the Wall Street Journal (through work), but THEIR advacacy efforts (the content of the WSJ editorial page) are, in my opinion, a complete affront to my basic views. Yet the newspaper portion of the Journal still holds value to me...

a final example, I am a Catholic, and i am CONSIDERING joining the Knights of Colombus because they are the ones in our parish that do S.O.M.E. (so others may eat) and SHARE (another outreach to the poor group). If i join them, I will in no be affirming the apparent conservative bent of the US leadership of the Knights... nor will I be affirming their butt-ridiculous costumes.

I have a close friend who is a lunatic gun nut. NRA speaks gospel to him. He use to be normal, but then he got lazy and weak. Started listening to too much Rush and the gang and won't even fly anywhere, because NSA hates his Merican rights.

That is sort of a chicken and egg argument. The NRA has done an excellent job stoking their membership into being uncompromising on the issues that gives the NRA a purpose.

Members are more likely to be offended and leave or lose interest than be to be molded in my experience. Even average retention rates make keeping a membership in the millions a monumental effort. The fact that they've sustained a paid membership in the millions (if tht is accurate) is a significant statement towards the agreement of their members with the associations. Many might join for benefits but considering how extreme and public the NRA is they'd have left in a hurry had they felt the need to do so.

"Collection of Accomplices."

" ... underrated group."

Exhibit A:

Members are more likely to be offended and leave or lose interest than be to be molded in my experience. Even average retention rates make keeping a membership in the millions a monumental effort. The fact that they've sustained a paid membership in the millions (if tht is accurate) is a significant statement towards the agreement of their members with the associations. Many might join for benefits but considering how extreme and public the NRA is they'd have left in a hurry had they felt the need to do so.

Yea, not really buying that. Im sure some people get offended and leave, but most people end up seeing the views expressed by the NRA over and over and over again. Most people can't really resist that kind of persistent messaging. Its why companies pay so much for TV advertisements, its effective and it sells product. Eventually, if you hear something enough, unless you started of as a skeptic, which is not the case with membership in a trade group, then eventually whatever you hear over and over again is going to ring true (or at least MORE true).

I used to live in the country and go to a gun club for the skeet and trap shooting. I went there on Sundays because that was the only day the club was open to non-members. Like many shooting clubs, this one would only grant membership if I also joined the National Rifle Association. That wasn’t going to happen. While I like some of the NRA’s youth gun-safety programs, I cannot support its policy aims.

According to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, 13.7 million people went hunting in the U.S. last year, a nearly 5% increase from 2001. By contrast, the NRA has 4 million members. There are likely plenty of reasons why two-thirds of hunters (as well as millions of gun owners) don’t belong to the group, apathy and financial hardship among them, but politics undoubtedly play a role. And reaching out to pro-hunting moderates is perhaps our best hope for ending the national stalemate over gun control.

Read more: http://ideas.time.com/2012/12/19/viewpointwe-need-a-moderate-pro-gun-alternative-to-the-nra/#ixzz2FWEh5fr6

You know when my step son turned 16 he was given a handgun by a relative. I had some hard choices to make. Do I allow it in my house, If not I effectively loose any say in where it's stored or maintained or used? Anyway I ended up getting him a locker at the local gun range where he could shoot the gun when he wanted.... But what was key to this arrangement was the NRA gun safety classes which I had him take. They were first rate. I don't think the NRA gets nearly enough credit for the excellent classes they put on, nor all the work they do to ensure folks are sensible with their weapons.