Andy, you know that you and I are homies, but we're going to disagree on that one. I'll respect your wish not to debate it, but I will relate for everyone else's benefit my experience from the other side of the coin.
For one thing, nearly every single issue of American Rifleman I get either has ads promoting the sale of EBRs, or articles about EBRs. I am a life member and have been for a pretty long time now, and I have never, ever, not once, seen NRA publish anything negative about EBRs—and I have seen much published that was positive. They promote EBRs for home defense, hunting, competition, collecting, and as part of the necessity of maintaining an armed populace as a defense to tyranny. I will admit that their various articles about EBRs tend to focus on American designs (Stoner, Barrett, M1A/M14, etc.) because the magazine is, after all, American Rifleman. But even so, there was an article about a year ago about the arms used by the British and Argentinians in the Falklands War which had lots of information about the use of your favorite, the FN FAL. The cover story of last months issue was about the new Ruger Gunsite Scout Rifle. Other recent cover stories were about the new British sharpshooter rifle from LMT, the new FN SCAR .308, and the history and ongoing use of the M14 in the military (and civilian use of its civilian counterparts). Of course, this month's issue is nearly entirely devoted to the 100th anniversary of the 1911 pistol.
As the premier RKBA organization in this country, they represent, and publish stories about, a broad array of firearms interests. Those interests reflect the broad array of the interests of their paying membership. Not everybody who pays dues to the NRA owns or even cares about EBRs. There are lots of members whose sole interest in firearms ownership is the collection of historical antiques. There are people who love pistols but don't really care about rifles. There are people who are upland bird hunters, and people who are tactical shotgunners. There are 1,000 yard shooters, and there are CQB experts. With a current membership in the vicinity of 4 million people, those interests are bound to be broad, and they try to publish stuff that will appeal to everybody. Considering that there is such a broad array of interests, it is amazing to me that they publish so much about EBRs.
The NRA's first and foremost accountability is to their paying membership. Those are the people who pay for the publications. Those are the people who pay for the NRA's considerable political clout. A person can't sit outside the organization and say that he or she won't support it because NRA doesn't spend every single nickel it takes in (from the paying members) on that (non-paying, non-member) person's pet concerns. That person isn't paying for it, so they don't get a vote in the matter. If you want a say in how the NRA "does business," then man up and pay for the privilege to influence what the organization does (or doesn't) do. If someone doesn't want to financially support the organization as an entry into that privilege, then they can bloody well butt out. The protection of American gun rights is about the totality of guns in America, not just one segment of the market. One cannot expect someone whose sole interest in firearms is upland bird hunting and its associated concerns to throw themselves enthusiastically into supporting and promoting EBRs and their associated concerns, if EBR owners are not willing to return the favor and recognize that we are ALL in this together as Gun Owners, and not just isolated into our smaller communities according to our areas of special interest. Benjamin Franklin understood this principle when he said, "United we stand. Divided we fall." Virginians were not Pennsylvanians, but they were all, by God, Americans. The NRA is American gun owners' best hope for unity, working to ensure that our individual communities don't get picked off one by one. No, it isn't a perfect organization. There is no such thing. But it is as nearly perfect as we are going to get in earthly terms, and it IS our most effective advocate against the loss of our 2nd Amendment rights and progressivist tyranny.
With guns in 80 million American households, if all 80 million represented an NRA membership, we would have uncontested constitutional carry in all 50 states, and there would never again be another tyrannical attempt to limit our gun rights anywhere in the nation. But, as it is, only 4 million members pay to support the gun rights of the remaining 76 million households. If those remaining 76 million can't cowboy up and spend the $35.00/year for a basic NRA membership, then the least those 76 million could do is refrain from tearing down the one organization that represents their rights against a hostile takeover, because they've been getting a free ride so far and have materially benefited by having their rights defended without having contributed to the effort.
That's my experience and viewpoint, from the inside.