|
I think of the NRA and GOA as the lower and upper bounds of second amendment activism in the U.S. Take, for example, a law that affects the right to keep and bear firearms in some fashion.
If the NRA objects to that law as infringing rights, I will most often agree with them. If they approve of it, I might agree or might think that they're entirely too accommodating to those who do not value my freedom.
If the GOA *approves* of the law as not infringing my rights, I'll usually agree with them. If they object to it, I might agree or might think they're raving loons. (It has happened.)
That difference accounts for such cases as Harry Reid, which the NRA gives an A rating and mostly supports, while the GOA gives an F rating and mostly opposes. Looking at Reid's voting record on second-amendment issues alone, he isn't too bad. I moved to Nevada from California about eighteen months ago: compared to either of our senators in California, Reid is a miracle of pro-second-amendment activism. (wry grin)
The NRA has the habit of looking at second-amendment issues alone. They are not interested in how conservative or how liberal a politician is otherwise. IMHO that's smart; it avoids entangling them in issues that they are not qualified to judge and creates a "big tent" for second amendment supporters who might not all be in agreement on other political issues.
|