NRA vs GOA

[DavidB2]

Which organization (NRA or Gun Owners of America) would be the best organization to join in order to best fight the gun control maniacs? I know NRA is the biggest; but GOA seems to be great lobbyist for gun owners rights.

[Mike Irwin]

My impression of GOA is that about the only thing they can do is bash NRA. That seems to be their sole focus.

[MLeake]

A bit of skepticism and cynicism tells me that in the vast majority of cases, the organization with the deepest pockets and largest list of registered voters will have more influence on any politician.

Aside from the NRA, the organization I would recommend would be SAF. They are smaller, but Alan Gura has a proven track record in court.

So, I would go with the NRA for influencing legislative bodies, and SAF for litigation.

GOA has not impressed me as doing anything other than making minor noise.

[Alabama Shooter]

A cursory view of their website does not mention any safety programs, uses of firearms in a positive way and no original content.

I am not sure what they are doing.

[thallub]

In 2012 GOA spent <$300,000 on lobbying for gun rights. The NRA spent>$2.2 million.

Safari Club International is number two behind the NRA in contributions to political candidates. Few are aware that Safari Club International is involved in gun rights.

https://www.opensecrets.org/industri...us.php?ind=Q13

[BarryLee]

At this point the best option is the NRA.

[Coltman 77]

Barry is spot on IMO. Go with the NRA, join immediately.

There's a big fight coming about our 2nd Amendment Rights.

Link to join: http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=503337

[Webleymkv]

The two gun rights organizations that I've seen accomplish the most are the NRA and SAF, so I belong to both of them. What I've seen thus far of GOA has left me unimpressed. That being said, if you feel that GOA is an organization worthy of your money and name on their roster, why not join them in addition to, rather than instead of the NRA and/or SAF?

[g.willikers]

Yeah, join them all.
Larry Pratt, of the GOA, spends a lot of time, money and effort on talk shows and giving interviews defending gun rights.
They also have a well organized write your Congress person action.
GOA may be a fairly minor player, but it's worth supporting.
And don't forget the bull terrier of gun rights, JPFO.org.

[jmortimer]

"My impression of GOA is that about the only thing they can do is bash NRA. That seems to be their sole focus."

What is that "impression" based on? Their candidate ratings are real unlike NRA ratings which bear little relation to reality. To your "point" -

The founder of GOA, H.L. Richardson states the following:

A Message from H.L. Richardson for NRA Members
Posted on 01-24-2006 by Senator H.L. Richardson [Ret.]

Me? Join Gun Owners of California?" Oh, but you see, I'm already a member of the NRA." What's the difference???

That's OK . . . so am I. In fact I'm an NRA life member and for over a decade I served on their national board of directors. But . . . take it from me, being a member of the NRA is not enough to save your gun rights, especially here in California.

That is why, thirty three years ago, I founded Gun Owners of California, to combat the anti-gunners within our state. As a member of the State Senate and a director of the NRA, I saw the need for a strong state political action committee, dedicated to getting the anti-gunners out of office and electing solid pro-gun leaders here in California...

The problem in California is not that we have too many pro-gun groups! We welcome any group that wants to help in the fight to preserve the 2nd Amendment. Common sense tells us there is strength in numbers. There is plenty of room - and frankly plenty of as yet untapped pro-gun resources - to sustain the NRA, GOC, and the other solid pro-gun organizations in California.

Membership in both the NRA and GOC is a small price to pay for freedom . . . don't you agree?

Here are links to Senate ratings for NRA and GOA
http://www.margieroswell.com/map_of_...s_for_senators
http://gunowners.org/113srat.htm

One example, Harry Reid, former NRA grade "A" NRA endorsee now a grade "B" and rightly given "F-" by GOA. Aside from the POTUS, no one has done more to destroy the Second Amendment than Reid by pushing through Kagan and Sotomayor.

I don't support Ron Paul but I do agree with much of what he believes and as he put it, GOA, "The Only No-Compromise Gun Lobby In Washington."

This Op-Ed dated 6-17-2010 by NRA Board of Director Member Cleta Mitchell tells me all I need to know about the duplicitous NRA, sell-outs.

"...For its part, the NRA -- on whose board of directors I serve -- rather than holding steadfastly to its historic principles of defending the Constitution and continuing its noble fight against government regulation of political speech instead opted for a political deal borne of self-interest in exchange for "neutrality" from the legislation's requirements. In doing so, the NRA has, sadly, affirmed the notion held by congressional Democrats (and some Republicans), liberal activists, the media establishment and, at least for now, a minority on the Supreme Court that First Amendment protections are subject to negotiation. The Second Amendment surely cannot be far behind."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...061604221.html

[vytoland]

Join, Support and Contribute to the NRA!!

[Tom Servo]

I've yet to see a single piece of significant legislation or litigation won by GOA.

[jmortimer]

I have yet to see the GOA sell-out the Constitution. My NRA right or wrong.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/0...-nra-sell-out/
http://www.redstate.com/erick/2010/0...-to-democrats/
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...831235224.html
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2536199/posts

And I would still like to see the evidence that all the GOA does is bash the NRA. I don't see it.

[MLeake]

jmortimer, the easy points for you would be in pointing out actual accomplishments in legislation or litigation, not interviews and sound bites, achieved solely or in large part by GOA.

Can you do this?

[jmortimer]

I'll take the election of no-compromise candidates as a great step forward.

Here is news release from GOA from recent election from the ammoland.com website
Washington, DC --(Ammoland.com)- Candidates backed by Gun Owners of America scored tremendous wins in Tuesday’s elections.
In many cases, GOA was the ONLY national pro-gun organization to actively oppose Nancy Pelosi’s “Blue Dog” Democrats.
Our aggressive opposition to these Representatives – who are mistakenly considered to be somewhat conservative – was well worth the effort as Pelosi has now been reduced to minority status.
You can go to the GOA website — at http://gunowners.org/goa-victories.htm — to see the dozens of new GOA-backed Senators and Representatives that will be serving you.
Some of the highlights include:
California, Dist. 19 — Jeff Denham
Florida, Senate — Marco Rubio
Florida, Dist. 22 — Allen West
Minnesota, Dist. 8 — Chip Cravaack
Missouri, Dist. 4 — Vicky Hartzler
Ohio, Dist. 6 — Bill Johnson
Virginia, Dist. 9 — Morgan Griffith
Washington, Dist. 2 — John Koster
These are patriots who will be protecting the Constitution and your gun rights for years to come. Please go to the above URL to “meet” them.
Gun Owners of America
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102
Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585
FAX: 703-321-8408
www.gunowners.org
About:
Gun Owners of America (GOA) is a non-profit lobbying organization formed in 1975 to preserve and defend the Second Amendment rights of gun owners. GOA sees firearms ownership as a freedom issue. `The only no comprise gun lobby in Washington’ – Ron Paul


Read more at Ammoland.com: http://www.ammoland.com/2010/11/03/g...#ixzz2GPMsbTBB

[MLeake]

jmortimer, I don't know about the others, but I used to live in Florida and still have family there.

If GOA is trying to claim a strong role in electing Marco Rubio, that is like saying the company that designed the seat belt buckles is responsible for the success of the 737. Rubio enjoys enormous popularity.

Edit: IIRC, Allen West lost, even after the recount.

So, GOA claims credit for electing a guy everybody knew would win, and for backing a candidate that lost?

You can do better, right?

[jmortimer]

No one has addressed two important issues, first, where is the evidence that all the GOA does is bash the NRA? Second, what about selling-out in general, and selling-out the constitution, because we know for sure the NRA has done just that. How about this from the Daily Beast no less:

"For some, the disappointment stems from the failure of the NRA to support the lawsuit that led to the landmark Supreme Court decision on the Second Amendment. The case, District of Columbia v. Heller, was brought by a trio of libertarian lawyers with no formal ties to the gun-rights group. Rather than helping the lawyers, who were challenging Washington, D.C.’s ban on handguns, the NRA did everything it could to stop the case. First it tried to convince the libertarian lawyers to drop their suit, saying it was too risky. When that didn’t work, the NRA tried to take over the litigation and decouple it from the Second Amendment issues. Then, after the lawyers won a big victory in the lower court, the NRA pushed its allies on Capitol Hill to propose a law that would overturn D.C.'s handgun ban and moot the lawsuit.



http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...t-of-ammo.html

[SigMic]

I'm a member of both. NRA is larger and more effective.
However, they have in the past compromised our principles.
During our most recent very negative political pressure they stayed strong.

Perhaps, just perhaps, knowing that the GOA would pounce all over their bottom side was a little bit of motivation to make sure that they stay strong.

Support both in my opinion.

[jmortimer]

Here is 1-26-2010 article from the CATO institute regarding duplicity of NRA in McDonald. In 2002, Robert A. Levy, a Senior Fellow at the Cato InstituteThe Cato Institute started Heller which was won by attorney Alan Gura.
NRA pushed its way into the McDonald case against the wishes of Alan Gura

http://www.cato.org/blog/nra-cares-m...ional-courtesy

Here more- how the NRA pushed its way into McDonald against wishes of Alan Gura

http://www.armedfemalesofamerica.com...ZHAzcqZwK.html

And this from the book "Gunfight" by Adam Winkler excerpted by book.google.com show just how low the NRA will go.
http://books.google.com/books?id=oq3...ed=0CEMQ6AEwAw

The NRA is a duplicitous sell-out organization.

[jmortimer]

"Support both in my opinion."

I'm fine with that, but don't gratuitously bash the GOA which is not a duplicitous sell-out group, and respects the constitution and does the right thing.

[Frank Ettin]

[1] The NRA is the most effective RKBA organization (although the SAF has in recent years been most effective in court). They have the largest membership of any of them, and they do the best that they can with that membership base. Politics is strictly a numbers game. If the NRA had more members, it could be that much more effective. And those folks who complain about the NRA's so called failures need to tell us who did, or could have, actually accomplished more.

[2] Facts of political life -- politicians don't listen to individual voters and they don't listen to or care much about reason. They care about numbers. One hundred phone calls or letters in support of or against something are better than 10. Ten thousand would be a lot better yet. It doesn't matter what the caller or writer says is the reason to support or oppose the thing. All that matters is the number on each side of the question.

[3] An NRA with 4 million members gets attention. An NRA with 5 million will get more, and an NRA with 10 million members could get some real serious attention. As annoying as the NRA can be, it's in our interests to see it grow and prosper.

[4] Politicians aren't swayed by fine arguments, logical demonstrations or even facts. They are swayed by how many voters (and potential voters and contributors) line up on each side of the question. They are influenced by political and economic power.

[5] Given all that, the NRA does what it reasonably can do in the political climate in which it operates. It can not perform magic. Under the right circumstances, it can, and has, effectively moved affirmative pro-RKBA legislation (like the law protecting gun makers from frivolous law suits and the National Park carry legislation). And sometimes it can block legislation we don't like. But sometimes the political deck is so stacked against our interests, the best we can reasonably expect the NRA to be able to do is help make the best of a bad situation.

[6] It's fine to talk about "no compromise." But remember that he who insists on all or nothing gets nothing. If the votes aren't there they aren't there.

[7] The NRA is at the forefront of shooter education and safety training. Their program for certifying instructors in a variety of disciplines helps make competent training more readily available to the public. And their "Refuse to be a Victim" program is excellent.

[Tom Servo]

In many cases, GOA was the ONLY national pro-gun organization to actively oppose Nancy Pelosi’s “Blue Dog” Democrats.
Our aggressive opposition to these Representatives – who are mistakenly considered to be somewhat conservative – was well worth the effort as Pelosi has now been reduced to minority status.

Well, many of those Blue Dogs are supporters of the 2nd Amendment. Take a look at the signatures on the congressional briefs in our favor in the Heller and McDonald cases. You'll see a blurring of political lines there.

As far as the NRA's distrust of the Heller case in the early stages, that's understandable. When the case was gathering steam, Rehnquist was still Chief Justice and Sandra Day O'Connor was still on the bench. It was simply too early.

Imagine the damage if the case had gone before the Supreme Court, and they'd found no individual right in the 2nd Amendment. I'd rather not.

Is the NRA perfect? Oh, heck no. I've had my disagreements, often vehement, with them. But they get things done, and that's what we need right now.

When we're in a better spot, perhaps I'll pick a more ideological and virtuous hill on which to die. In the meantime, I'm backing the winning horse.

[jmortimer]

We can agree to disagree on Heller and McDonald, I think the facts speak for themselves and ultimately the NRA was proven wrong on all counts relating to those two most important cases which they opposed.

But I still want to know, what evidence is there that the sole function of the GOA is to bash the NRA? Still waiting on that.

And, I guess it is a fact beyond dispute that the NRA has sold-out on the Constitution in a way that would make Dr. Smith from Lost in Space proud.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by jmortimer

...But I still want to know, what evidence is there that the sole function of the GOA is to bash the NRA? Still waiting on that...

I'll put it this way: I haven't seen the GAO actually do anything but (1) bash the NRA; (2) ask for money; and (3) publish self-serving press releases. It appears that the only so called documentation that the GAO has done anything comes from the GAO.

[tulsamal]

IMO.... most of this is irrelevant in the face of the threat. I fail to see how belonging to more groups than the NRA hurts us. "The house divided" could though.

I belong to the NRA, GOA, and SAF. I'll join more if I think it can help!!!

Gregg