TexasCHLforum.com

I've been thinking about joining the NRA but need a little reassurance. I'm concerned about the way they endorse political candidates.
It's apparent that the NRA is a single-issue organization, but--as much as I support the 2nd Amendment--I am not a single issue voter.
According to the Washington Post the NRA endorsed 58 Democrats in the 2010 election. The last Democrat I voted for was a Baptist Sunday School teacher, and I've been apologizing ever since.
Honest, I'm just trying to rationalize joining an organization that might endorse an otherwise disasterous candidate for no other reason than he occasionally votes correctly on gun issues.
Help me!!!

If you're opposed to a particular candidate, you are free to vote against them. That's true even for us NRA members.

Good answer. But 31 years of penance for my Jimmy Carter vote is plenty, thank you! I sure don't want to start over by having to apologize for the NRA.
Here's an idea: Why not put all major endorsements up for a vote by the membership? If 97% vote to endorse that's a pretty good sign. If just 51% support the candidate, not so good, but he still officially gets the nod. More importantly, everybody knows exactly where the NRA membership stands, not just the executive committee. It would also get members more involved which would have to be a good thing. In this day of the Internet it's not that difficult to set up something like that.

Having their endorsements staying focused strictly on gun rights accomplishes two goals. First, it keeps things focused on the primary mission. It can be very destructive to an organization to let itself get diverted from the primary mission by getting caught up and distracted by arguments over areas that the NRA has no particular expertise and no reason to waste resources developing it, not to mention it can cause an organization to splinter into various factions instead of remaining a united front. For example, the NRA has no business getting into the middle of the abortion issue, to choose on particularly divisive issue. If I want advice on a politician's position, I'll go look up the Right To Life endorsements.

Second, staying focused on gun rights increases the NRA's effectiveness when lobbying. Face it, the NRA is the most effective lobbying entity when it comes to defending the right of its members and all Americans to keep & bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment. The NRA needs votes from both sides of the aisle to advance that agenda. For example, here is what David Koppel had to say about Harry Reid.

Harry Reid’s victory in Nevada means that pro-gun bills have a chance of being brought to floor, or offered as amendments to other bills. Had Reid been defeated, the Majority Leader would have been Charles Schumer or Richard Durbin, both of whom are highly-motivated and well-informed on the anti-gun side.

It wasn't until the Kagan vote that they unendorsed him because of all the flack they got from the Tea Party and threats of quitting from members.

The NRA, strictly speaking, is a one issue organization: my right to the freedom's expressed in the 2nd amendment (and yours even if your not a member).

They tend, IMHO, to look at candidates from that singular prospective. If you're concerned about a candidate's stand of 2A issues, they'll usually know. If you're concerned about a candidates' stand on logging, not the org to ask.

They also have a voice in related issues, such as hunting rights.

I'm a member and I've only "asked" the NRA's opinion on a few local candidates.

Okay, guys, you won me over. I am now an NRA member and my CHL should be here soon.
Thanks for the good arguments. (Hopefully I won't need to re-read them too often!)

Congrats!