NRA vs GOA - Page 2

Metal god · December 29, 2012, 01:00 AM

The NRA is offering $600 life time memberships right now . Thats $400 off . You do not get the leather jacket at that price but its not about the jacket . I just got my life time membership today . Give them a call and ask about the life time member and see if you can get it for $600 I did .•You can contact the NRA via phone at: NRA Member Programs 1-800-672-3888 . They are going to need it .

5whiskey · December 29, 2012, 01:05 AM

Quote:

"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.

The thing with this is, like Tom I think the NRA was afraid of the timing of Heller. Pushing a case all the way to the SCOTUS is risky. If the court rules against you, then that case law is there for virtually ever. I know it's possible, and has actually happened on rare occasions, but the SCOTUS rarely overturns it's own decisions. Case law established there can pretty much be chiseled in stone. Because of this, you don't take a very important issue like the individual RKBA there unless you are almost certain that the winds are in your favor. Bad case law can do a tremendous amount of damage. Because of this, sometimes it's wise to pick and choose your battles... especially the timing of them.

Furthermore, I wouldn't call any "blue dog" democrat one of Nancy Pelosi's minions. They're the closest thing to a fiscally and constitutionally conservative democrat you can get. There were a number of the "blue dogs" that I would have chosen over many self-proclaimed "conservative" republicans. I've never heard of the GOA before, so I'm not knocking it. I'm also not cheerleading the NRA over any other organization (giving Harry Reid a "B" is questionable). I am merely providing a counter-argument as to why the NRA sat on the sidelines during Heller and why I'm not jumping for joy because there are fewer blue dog democrats.

BTW, we should probably be careful referring to politics here as I look forward to this discussion. I wouldn't want it to be shut down prematurely because of blue v red.

jmortimer · December 29, 2012, 01:22 AM

^ The moderators here follow the legal cases better than anywhere else that I have seen. Most often I have to agree with their analysis. I just don't agree on Heller and McDonald. I think the CATO Institute was right on in their thinking and God Bless Alan Gura. Some people can tolerate more treachery than I can. The Founder of GOA has specifically stated that he recommends being a member of the NRA and he was on the NRA Board of Directors for over 10 years. I think if you read some of the links I posted you will get a better idea where I'm coming from.

5whiskey · December 29, 2012, 01:59 AM

Quote:

^ The moderators here follow the legal cases better than anywhere else that I have seen. Most often I have to agree with their analysis. I just don't agree on Heller and McDonald. I think the CATO Institute was right on in their thinking and God Bless Alan Gura. Some people can tolerate more treachery than I can.

I don't always let on or post about it, but I follow most major case law closely as I'm forced to. At any rate, the Heller decision came out how we wanted to see it in the end. While it may have looked up in the air, everything worked out and Alan was dead on. It was a nail-biter though. I don't like 5-4 splits. Interestingly enough, the Brady campaign lobbied for DC to change the law prior to the SCOTUS ruling. Apparently they had a reverse case of the heartburn that the NRA was having. It was a big case and it took testicular fortitude to be the man to bring it there. I'm glad he did, because this decision will likely be mentioned in the coming months should gun control be brought up because of Sandy Hook.

What kills me is the fact that McDonald should have really been a foregone conclusion (which it really was) because of the 14th amendment. I'm surprised Chicago even bothered backing it to certiori. Either way... I can't say that I've read all of your links. I understand the premise of what you're trying to say, though. The NRA compromises it's principles at times because of politics, and we shouldn't accept that compromise. I can answer that with a quick anecdote. I happen to be EXTREMELY Libertarian, other than I don't think Meth, Crack, and Smack should be legal. These are the only Libertarian principles I don't cling to. Even though, I did not vote for Gary Johnson. Why? I know Gary Johnson isn't going to win. My vote for Gary Johnson would have been a vote against the only candidate, that I could stomach, that actually had a chance of winning the election. I thought my vote could be better spent, even though I compromised a little. I'm not calling one party right or one party wrong. I'm just using this as a reason to explain why I will continue to support the NRA. If they cross me enough, then I will bail. Overall, they have done a lot of good for the RKBA.

jmortimer · December 29, 2012, 02:19 AM

"I don't like 5-4 splits"

Well that is they way most every case goes down with the exception of Roberts recently going his own way. I pray that Justice Kennedy stays healthy, otherwise, we may be toast.

MLeake · December 29, 2012, 09:31 AM

jmortimer, you are upset - even indignant - that people have said the GOA does little aside from bashing the NRA. To support your position, you have primarily and almost exclusively bashed the NRA.

When I asked you to post some actual GOA achievements, you provided one of their PR bits which tried to give the GOA credit for the election of one of the most popular politicians in Florida history, and for backing a well respected candidate who lost his reelection - although the PR blurb you posted would seem to imply they thought Allen West had won.

I pointed this out, but you have not responded.

This makes me think you might not have anything substantial to say in support of GOA. You sure do bash the NRA, though...

jmortimer · December 29, 2012, 10:59 AM

I do "bash" the NRA because they sold-out on the Disclose Act and the Constitution. As NRA Board of Directors member Cleta Mitchel, rightly pointed out, if the NRA will sell-out the First Amendment they will sell-out the Second Amendment. Their opposition to Heller was wrongheaded and their intermeddling in McDonald was an affront to the real actors. If the NRA had its way there would be no Heller. How stupid is that? Thank God for the CATO institute and Alan Gura and shame on the NRA.

As for the GOA they are an advocacy group, just like the NRA and they operate on a smaller scale, but they keep it real. They support real deal candidates, file amicus briefs, lobby and are respected for doing the right thing without compromise. I would rather have the support of Ron Paul than reid, manchin, and warner who would all vote for gloria allred for a SCOTUS vacancy. harry reid rightly gets an "F-" for his treachery from the GOA while the NRA lowers his "A" to a "B" which is just a single example of a pattern and practice of foolish grade inflation and endorsements. The net effect of the political actions of the NRA in the Senate are exhibit "A." They have joke a grading/endorsement system of Senate candidates and are directly responsible for the corruption of the SCOTUS by supporting senators who vote in lock-step for the nominations of idiots like kagan and sotomayor. We get dumb-a$$es like reid, manchin, warner, who all jump on the gun control bandwagon as they are Quislings just like the NRA. The NRA "unendorsed" harry reid after the fact for kagan/sotomayor, but the writing was on the wall, he was a political hack and anyone with a brain knew reid would enthusiastically compromise the SCOTUS without blinking. We know for sure the NRA helped elect reid in the first place as he parroted his NRA endorsement every chance he got in Nevada. The NRA personifies the circular firing squad. If the NRA gets it way, in this regard, and Justice Kennedy is replaced in the next four years all will be lost in the SCOTUS.

So no, I'm not going to play pretend when I know for a fact that the sell-out NRA has been destructive, duplicitous, and has set-up a circular firing squad for the ultimate destruction of gun rights in the Senate and the SCOTUS. Giving the NRA more money and warm bodied members is just giving guns, ammunition, and shooters to the NRA circular firing squad.

jmortimer · December 29, 2012, 11:13 AM

"This makes me think you might not have anything substantial to say in support of GOA."

As I said, they lobby, support candidates, go on television,file amicus briefs, and do everything that the NRA does on a smaller scale. But they do it in the right way and do not pander or promote destructive candidates. They keep it real. As Ron Paul said, the GOA is "The only no compromise gun lobby in Washington" Doing the right thing does have its rewards.

Alabama Shooter · December 29, 2012, 11:18 AM

Quote:

So no, I'm not going to play pretend when I know for a fact that the sell-out NRA has been destructive, duplicitous, and has set-up a circular firing squad for the ultimate destruction of gun rights in the Senate and the SCOTUS. Giving the NRA more money and warm bodied members is just giving guns, ammunition, and shooters to the NRA circular firing squad.

This seems a bit of dramatic hyperbole?

If what you are saying is true we should by all accounts be in a much worse position than we are now.

jmortimer · December 29, 2012, 11:38 AM

"If what you are saying is true we should by all accounts be in a much worse position than we are now."

Again, there would be no Heller or McDonald, for that matter, if the NRA got its way. So we would be in a far worse position if the NRA always got its way.

Here is an article from Keep and Bear Arms web site dated 3-29-02 documenting the fact that, in the NRA's own words, "The National Rifle Association has been in support of workable, enforceable gun control legislation since its very inception in 1871."
http://keepandbeararms.com/information/Item.asp?ID=3247

Dramatic, possibly,over-the-top, possibly, but the NRA is responsible, in part for kagan and sotomayor, and we would have never got Heller, which is better than everything the NRA has ever done, if the NRA had its way.

I think there is a better way, but as I said earlier, join the NRA if you will. The founder of GOA, a long time NRA Board of Director, recommends membership in the NRA. It is not for me. I think it is more of the problem than the solution, being compromising, duplicitous, sell-outs. From what I see, it is the NRA flacks who bash the GOA gratuitously. At least the GOA has never sold out.

Alabama Shooter · December 29, 2012, 11:42 AM

Quote:

"The National Rifle Association has been in support of workable, enforceable gun control legislation since its very inception in 1871."

I am also in support of workable, enforceable gun control legislation. Does this make me a "compromising, duplicitous, sell-out"?

jmortimer · December 29, 2012, 11:46 AM

I'm not in charge of you. Do you think Heller is a good thing? Do you think sotomayor and kagan are bad things? The NRA opposed the former and helped achieve the nominations of the later.

Alabama Shooter · December 29, 2012, 11:46 AM

Quote:

Again, there would be no Heller or McDonald for that matter if the NRA got its way. So we would be in a far worse position if the NRA always got its way.

Maybe. It was a 5-4 split. We got lucky. The NRA is more risk adverse when it comes to gun rights than GOA.

If it had gone the other way would you be still be sitting there bemoaning the NRA trying to keep it off the SCOTUS docket?

ETA-

Quote:

I'm not in charge of you.

True, but you have formulated your opinion based upon the same criteria. You have placed the vast majority of gun owners into the camp of opposition to all gun rights. I am against unlimited rights.

jmortimer · December 29, 2012, 12:04 PM

"If it had gone the other way would you be still be sitting there bemoaning the NRA trying..."

Realistically, no, but the Monday morning quarterback never faced a sack. I think it is better to try and do the right thing and lose. In law you must keep trying. Our legal system could have stopped with Dred Scott.That is what the other guys do, they keep trying to keep us down, and they will keep on trying, and trying and trying. They will not stop. They know the the SCOTUS Justices are the brass ring. They are so much closer to grabbing it right now with the NRA's "help" in the Senate. The CATO institute put much thought and effort into Heller and they did the right thing.

I think all gun laws after the 1950s have been generally bad. I just will never get over the NRA and the Disclose Act. That was the end for me.

Alabama Shooter · December 29, 2012, 12:13 PM

I think you are looking at it the exact wrong way. The NRA actions proved that the bill was a fraud and caused it's defeat.

MLeake · December 29, 2012, 12:25 PM

jmortimer, once again, and this is getting really frustrating - I do not care how "pure" GOA is; I want to know what they have actually accomplished.

Saying the right things is a means, not an end.

Please tell me what ends the GOA has achieved. An effective advocate would do that. All you have done so far is praise the GOA for ideological purity, and bash the NRA for impure pragmatism.

You have a moral point, but to make a politically winning point you need to show effectiveness, not philosophy.

**Mike Irwin** · December 29, 2012, 01:21 PM

As I said, my IMPRESSION is that GOA spends its time primarily bashing NRA.

This impression is based on a number of mailings I received from them over the past couple of years in which the primary content was diatribes against NRA, followed by a tacit appeal to A) send money, B) drop NRA membership, C) join GOA, and D) send money.

Didn't impress me in the least.

And this is not the first time we've had this exact discussion here.

Sarge · December 29, 2012, 01:35 PM

SAF and GOA serve a valuable purpose by offering an alternative for those of us who, for a variety of reasons that I won't argue here, find NRA unpalatable.

In the worst case they add to the overall number of potential voters willing to spend a buck or two on a 2A organization. you can bet at least some members of Congress pay attention to that figure, particularly when 2A issues come up for a vote.

rebs · December 29, 2012, 02:09 PM

can someone post a link to the SFA

**Frank Ettin** · December 29, 2012, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rebs

can someone post a link to the SFA

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF).

bkenut · December 29, 2012, 02:52 PM

Sigmic.. hit it on the head...join both and maybe they will try to out do each other in our favor.

**44 AMP** · December 29, 2012, 03:09 PM

Having begun my serious interest in guns, shooting, reloading, etc., a little while after the passage of the GCA 68, and having grown up in a house with guns, a father who worked for the state conservation dept, and was an NRA Hunter Safety, and Rifle & Pistol instructor, I have been involved since then.

I've done my bit, at some level, in every fight we've had since. I've seen us take major hits, and sometimes even regain some lost ground. The NRA didn't begin as a political animal. Bit by bit, it had to become one. And I for one, am glad it did. There was no one else, for a long, long time.

What I do not understand is why bash the NRA? Did they always win? no. Are they always right? no. Are they selling us out? Well, that is a judgement call, depending on where you stand. If you are one of the "greatest good for the greatest number" crowd, you'll have one opinion. And if you are one of the "NOT ONE STEP FURTHER!" group, you'll likely have a very different opinion.

But bashing the NRA? Isn't that like saying the ARMY is bad because Gen Screwop attacked the wrong hill?

argue tactics, fine. Good, even. But bash this group or that one? Why waste the effort?

Don't like what the NRA is saying or doing? Fine. Get in there and do better. Its not a monarchy with hereditary nobility. I've seen the leadership change several times over the years. Some have done better in their time than others, but that is the way of things, now isn't it.

What we are facing today is a full court press, from the press, a combination of the usual suspects in Congress pushing their mantra, and the top administration sympathetic to that agenda, and wanting very much to be seen as "doing something". Again.

And, both congress and the admistration are immune to re-election pressure. Congress, for the next two years, at least.

Fortunately, what we have on our side, still, is that the mood of the nation, as a whole, is not the same as it was during the Clinton years, when "gun violence" was the greatest threat to our nation there was, or so they said.

SO now, here we are, all our nation's problems solved well enough so we can focus all our attention on how many "bullets" I can legally have in a spring loaded metal box? And all because of what someone might do with it?

This is the quality of leadership we have gotten, and STILL we bicker amongst ourselves???

FrankenMauser · December 29, 2012, 06:31 PM

Quote:

This impression is based on a number of mailings I received from them over the past couple of years in which the primary content was diatribes against NRA, followed by a tacit appeal to A) send money, B) drop NRA membership, C) join GOA, and D) send money.

Oh, come on, Mike. Even with the GOA out of the picture....

Modify that slightly, and you get the NRA's MO:
A) Send Money, B) We're the only group that matters, C) Join Us (or get a friend/relative to join), D) Send Money, and E) "HOLY MOTHER OF GOD!!! OBAMA IS ABOUT TO ATTACK!! SEND ALL YOUR MONEY!!!!".

GOA's appeals are irritating.
NRA appeals are irritating. (but I feel more like I'm reading propaganda than fact, when reading the NRA's reports and appeals.)

Both groups have had problems, lately, with disseminating poorly-researched articles that have bad (or completely out of context) statistics.

I'm a life member in the NRA.
I'm a yearly-renewal member in GOA.
I'm a yearly-renewal member in two state organizations.
I have previously been a member of some other national pro-2A groups.

All of them rub us the wrong way, sometimes. The NRA just gets too arrogant about their 'power', all too often.

You won't find me renouncing my membership, and I do suggest that every gun owner out there join the NRA. But... the NRA can play dirty, stab us in the back and support "compromise" legislation, and manipulate their "gun control" ratings for political or financial reasons - rather than being honest about a politician's actual stance on the issues.

As far as I am concerned, every one of the pro-2A groups is a small political party, in itself. You have to treat them just like you treat the Republican or Democratic parties: Some of their goals are good. ...But, they're mostly talk, aren't always honest about their dealings, and may stab you in the back while you're distracted.

Pick your poison.

If I was on the outside, looking in, I'd probably join both:
-GOA, to support their 'back door' lobbying and their front man. -Mr. Pratt is a fantastic spokesman for the 2A and gun rights, in general; staying calm, cool, and on topic very well (with a "no compromise" attitude).
-NRA to give the 800 pound gorilla a little more might. ...but sending them a letter to remind them that stabbing members in the back with compromise legislation or politically-driven 2A ratings is the quickest way to lose members. (And, Wayne comes across as a nut job, even to a lot of gun owners. ...not the best spokesman.)

jmortimer · December 29, 2012, 06:42 PM

Well God Bless you Franken Mauser. In the end you said it best. And good for you for belonging to four different Second Amendment groups and state and federal level.

Come and take it. · December 29, 2012, 07:08 PM

GOA has a spot on rating system on lawmakers.

The only times they bash the NRA is when they have been in the wrong.

In which case someone needs to speak out. The NRA has made some quite notable mistakes.

However most of the newsletters I received when I was an active member of the GOA hardly ever mentioned the NRA. They were more concerned with the GOA's main agenda. Which is making the stand against any type of restriction in the ownership of firearms.

The anti-gun majority are conducting a divide and conquer approach against gun owners. They keep seperating out segments of the population and denying them a right to own a firearm. Eventually only a small minority of the population will own guns and years later gun ownership will sound as strange as being a ghosthunter.

But like someone said if you have money support both. If you don't have money than support both of them morally.

December 29, 2012, 01:00 AM	#26
Metal god Senior Member Join Date: April 10, 2012 Location: San Diego CA Posts: 6,876	The NRA is offering $600 life time memberships right now . Thats $400 off . You do not get the leather jacket at that price but its not about the jacket . I just got my life time membership today . Give them a call and ask about the life time member and see if you can get it for $600 I did .•You can contact the NRA via phone at: NRA Member Programs 1-800-672-3888 . They are going to need it . __________________ If Jesus had a gun , he'd probably still be alive ! I almost always write my posts regardless of content in a jovial manor and intent . If that's not how you took it , please try again .

December 29, 2012, 10:59 AM	#32
jmortimer Junior member Join Date: January 24, 2010 Location: South West Riverside County California Posts: 2,763	I do "bash" the NRA because they sold-out on the Disclose Act and the Constitution. As NRA Board of Directors member Cleta Mitchel, rightly pointed out, if the NRA will sell-out the First Amendment they will sell-out the Second Amendment. Their opposition to Heller was wrongheaded and their intermeddling in McDonald was an affront to the real actors. If the NRA had its way there would be no Heller. How stupid is that? Thank God for the CATO institute and Alan Gura and shame on the NRA. As for the GOA they are an advocacy group, just like the NRA and they operate on a smaller scale, but they keep it real. They support real deal candidates, file amicus briefs, lobby and are respected for doing the right thing without compromise. I would rather have the support of Ron Paul than reid, manchin, and warner who would all vote for gloria allred for a SCOTUS vacancy. harry reid rightly gets an "F-" for his treachery from the GOA while the NRA lowers his "A" to a "B" which is just a single example of a pattern and practice of foolish grade inflation and endorsements. The net effect of the political actions of the NRA in the Senate are exhibit "A." They have joke a grading/endorsement system of Senate candidates and are directly responsible for the corruption of the SCOTUS by supporting senators who vote in lock-step for the nominations of idiots like kagan and sotomayor. We get dumb-a$$es like reid, manchin, warner, who all jump on the gun control bandwagon as they are Quislings just like the NRA. The NRA "unendorsed" harry reid after the fact for kagan/sotomayor, but the writing was on the wall, he was a political hack and anyone with a brain knew reid would enthusiastically compromise the SCOTUS without blinking. We know for sure the NRA helped elect reid in the first place as he parroted his NRA endorsement every chance he got in Nevada. The NRA personifies the circular firing squad. If the NRA gets it way, in this regard, and Justice Kennedy is replaced in the next four years all will be lost in the SCOTUS. So no, I'm not going to play pretend when I know for a fact that the sell-out NRA has been destructive, duplicitous, and has set-up a circular firing squad for the ultimate destruction of gun rights in the Senate and the SCOTUS. Giving the NRA more money and warm bodied members is just giving guns, ammunition, and shooters to the NRA circular firing squad. Last edited by jmortimer; December 29, 2012 at 11:24 AM.

December 29, 2012, 12:04 PM	#39
jmortimer Junior member Join Date: January 24, 2010 Location: South West Riverside County California Posts: 2,763	"If it had gone the other way would you be still be sitting there bemoaning the NRA trying..." Realistically, no, but the Monday morning quarterback never faced a sack. I think it is better to try and do the right thing and lose. In law you must keep trying. Our legal system could have stopped with Dred Scott.That is what the other guys do, they keep trying to keep us down, and they will keep on trying, and trying and trying. They will not stop. They know the the SCOTUS Justices are the brass ring. They are so much closer to grabbing it right now with the NRA's "help" in the Senate. The CATO institute put much thought and effort into Heller and they did the right thing. I think all gun laws after the 1950s have been generally bad. I just will never get over the NRA and the Disclose Act. That was the end for me. Last edited by jmortimer; December 29, 2012 at 12:10 PM.

December 29, 2012, 12:13 PM	#40
Alabama Shooter Senior Member Join Date: December 20, 2012 Location: Sweet Home Posts: 886	I think you are looking at it the exact wrong way. The NRA actions proved that the bill was a fraud and caused it's defeat. __________________ Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday.

December 29, 2012, 01:21 PM	#42
Mike Irwin Staff Join Date: April 13, 2000 Location: Northern Virginia Posts: 41,389	As I said, my IMPRESSION is that GOA spends its time primarily bashing NRA. This impression is based on a number of mailings I received from them over the past couple of years in which the primary content was diatribes against NRA, followed by a tacit appeal to A) send money, B) drop NRA membership, C) join GOA, and D) send money. Didn't impress me in the least. And this is not the first time we've had this exact discussion here. __________________ "The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower. Last edited by Mike Irwin; December 29, 2012 at 01:33 PM.

December 29, 2012, 01:22 AM	#28
jmortimer Junior member Join Date: January 24, 2010 Location: South West Riverside County California Posts: 2,763	^ The moderators here follow the legal cases better than anywhere else that I have seen. Most often I have to agree with their analysis. I just don't agree on Heller and McDonald. I think the CATO Institute was right on in their thinking and God Bless Alan Gura. Some people can tolerate more treachery than I can. The Founder of GOA has specifically stated that he recommends being a member of the NRA and he was on the NRA Board of Directors for over 10 years. I think if you read some of the links I posted you will get a better idea where I'm coming from.

December 29, 2012, 02:19 AM	#30
jmortimer Junior member Join Date: January 24, 2010 Location: South West Riverside County California Posts: 2,763	"I don't like 5-4 splits" Well that is they way most every case goes down with the exception of Roberts recently going his own way. I pray that Justice Kennedy stays healthy, otherwise, we may be toast.

December 29, 2012, 09:31 AM	#31
MLeake Senior Member Join Date: November 15, 2007 Location: Outside KC, MO Posts: 10,128	jmortimer, you are upset - even indignant - that people have said the GOA does little aside from bashing the NRA. To support your position, you have primarily and almost exclusively bashed the NRA. When I asked you to post some actual GOA achievements, you provided one of their PR bits which tried to give the GOA credit for the election of one of the most popular politicians in Florida history, and for backing a well respected candidate who lost his reelection - although the PR blurb you posted would seem to imply they thought Allen West had won. I pointed this out, but you have not responded. This makes me think you might not have anything substantial to say in support of GOA. You sure do bash the NRA, though...

December 29, 2012, 11:13 AM	#33
jmortimer Junior member Join Date: January 24, 2010 Location: South West Riverside County California Posts: 2,763	"This makes me think you might not have anything substantial to say in support of GOA." As I said, they lobby, support candidates, go on television,file amicus briefs, and do everything that the NRA does on a smaller scale. But they do it in the right way and do not pander or promote destructive candidates. They keep it real. As Ron Paul said, the GOA is "The only no compromise gun lobby in Washington" Doing the right thing does have its rewards.

December 29, 2012, 11:38 AM	#35
jmortimer Junior member Join Date: January 24, 2010 Location: South West Riverside County California Posts: 2,763	"If what you are saying is true we should by all accounts be in a much worse position than we are now." Again, there would be no Heller or McDonald, for that matter, if the NRA got its way. So we would be in a far worse position if the NRA always got its way. Here is an article from Keep and Bear Arms web site dated 3-29-02 documenting the fact that, in the NRA's own words, "The National Rifle Association has been in support of workable, enforceable gun control legislation since its very inception in 1871." http://keepandbeararms.com/information/Item.asp?ID=3247 Dramatic, possibly,over-the-top, possibly, but the NRA is responsible, in part for kagan and sotomayor, and we would have never got Heller, which is better than everything the NRA has ever done, if the NRA had its way. I think there is a better way, but as I said earlier, join the NRA if you will. The founder of GOA, a long time NRA Board of Director, recommends membership in the NRA. It is not for me. I think it is more of the problem than the solution, being compromising, duplicitous, sell-outs. From what I see, it is the NRA flacks who bash the GOA gratuitously. At least the GOA has never sold out.

December 29, 2012, 11:46 AM	#37
jmortimer Junior member Join Date: January 24, 2010 Location: South West Riverside County California Posts: 2,763	I'm not in charge of you. Do you think Heller is a good thing? Do you think sotomayor and kagan are bad things? The NRA opposed the former and helped achieve the nominations of the later.

December 29, 2012, 12:25 PM	#41
MLeake Senior Member Join Date: November 15, 2007 Location: Outside KC, MO Posts: 10,128	jmortimer, once again, and this is getting really frustrating - I do not care how "pure" GOA is; I want to know what they have actually accomplished. Saying the right things is a means, not an end. Please tell me what ends the GOA has achieved. An effective advocate would do that. All you have done so far is praise the GOA for ideological purity, and bash the NRA for impure pragmatism. You have a moral point, but to make a politically winning point you need to show effectiveness, not philosophy.

December 29, 2012, 01:35 PM	#43
Sarge Senior Member Join Date: May 12, 2002 Location: MO Posts: 5,457	SAF and GOA serve a valuable purpose by offering an alternative for those of us who, for a variety of reasons that I won't argue here, find NRA unpalatable. In the worst case they add to the overall number of potential voters willing to spend a buck or two on a 2A organization. you can bet at least some members of Congress pay attention to that figure, particularly when 2A issues come up for a vote. __________________ People were smarter before the Internet, or imbeciles were harder to notice.

December 29, 2012, 02:09 PM	#44
rebs Senior Member Join Date: January 10, 2012 Posts: 3,881	can someone post a link to the SFA

December 29, 2012, 02:52 PM	#46
bkenut Member Join Date: December 30, 2009 Posts: 17	Sigmic.. hit it on the head...join both and maybe they will try to out do each other in our favor.

December 29, 2012, 03:09 PM	#47
44 AMP Staff Join Date: March 11, 2006 Location: Upper US Posts: 28,833	Having begun my serious interest in guns, shooting, reloading, etc., a little while after the passage of the GCA 68, and having grown up in a house with guns, a father who worked for the state conservation dept, and was an NRA Hunter Safety, and Rifle & Pistol instructor, I have been involved since then. I've done my bit, at some level, in every fight we've had since. I've seen us take major hits, and sometimes even regain some lost ground. The NRA didn't begin as a political animal. Bit by bit, it had to become one. And I for one, am glad it did. There was no one else, for a long, long time. What I do not understand is why bash the NRA? Did they always win? no. Are they always right? no. Are they selling us out? Well, that is a judgement call, depending on where you stand. If you are one of the "greatest good for the greatest number" crowd, you'll have one opinion. And if you are one of the "NOT ONE STEP FURTHER!" group, you'll likely have a very different opinion. But bashing the NRA? Isn't that like saying the ARMY is bad because Gen Screwop attacked the wrong hill? argue tactics, fine. Good, even. But bash this group or that one? Why waste the effort? Don't like what the NRA is saying or doing? Fine. Get in there and do better. Its not a monarchy with hereditary nobility. I've seen the leadership change several times over the years. Some have done better in their time than others, but that is the way of things, now isn't it. What we are facing today is a full court press, from the press, a combination of the usual suspects in Congress pushing their mantra, and the top administration sympathetic to that agenda, and wanting very much to be seen as "doing something". Again. And, both congress and the admistration are immune to re-election pressure. Congress, for the next two years, at least. Fortunately, what we have on our side, still, is that the mood of the nation, as a whole, is not the same as it was during the Clinton years, when "gun violence" was the greatest threat to our nation there was, or so they said. SO now, here we are, all our nation's problems solved well enough so we can focus all our attention on how many "bullets" I can legally have in a spring loaded metal box? And all because of what someone might do with it? This is the quality of leadership we have gotten, and STILL we bicker amongst ourselves??? __________________ All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.

December 29, 2012, 06:42 PM	#49
jmortimer Junior member Join Date: January 24, 2010 Location: South West Riverside County California Posts: 2,763	Well God Bless you Franken Mauser. In the end you said it best. And good for you for belonging to four different Second Amendment groups and state and federal level.

December 29, 2012, 07:08 PM	#50
Come and take it. Senior Member Join Date: May 16, 2009 Location: Kentucky Posts: 999	GOA has a spot on rating system on lawmakers. The only times they bash the NRA is when they have been in the wrong. In which case someone needs to speak out. The NRA has made some quite notable mistakes. However most of the newsletters I received when I was an active member of the GOA hardly ever mentioned the NRA. They were more concerned with the GOA's main agenda. Which is making the stand against any type of restriction in the ownership of firearms. The anti-gun majority are conducting a divide and conquer approach against gun owners. They keep seperating out segments of the population and denying them a right to own a firearm. Eventually only a small minority of the population will own guns and years later gun ownership will sound as strange as being a ghosthunter. But like someone said if you have money support both. If you don't have money than support both of them morally.