As a member, who just renewed for five more years (a I've been a member, with an inadvertent lapse of a year or so, since the early '80s at least, I disagree. It's what it's always been. Primarily an organization designed to promote the shooting sports. Willing to compromise on our rights to keep and bear military and even self defense weapons, in the hope that Congress will eat their sporting arms last. They did after all support both the National Firearms Act (1934), the first significant federal gun control, but also the Federal Firearms Act (1938), which was the predecessor to all the rest of today's restrictions, requirements for a government license to be "in the business" of buying and selling arms, although at first only if the arms were to be bought or sold across state lines. They supported the '68 Gun Control Act. And didn't oppose passage of the FOPA in the Senate, after the machine gun ban was added at the last minute in the House, in keeping with their "compromise" position, there were a lot of good things in the FOPA.
I accept your correction. I intended to suggest that NRA's endorsement was of little (or less) value, as they have compromised to say the least. Gun Owners of America seems to be far more honest in their positions and portrayals. An endorsement by them would carry more weight with me.
Full disclosure: I am a former member of NRA, having stopped my membership for this precise reason.