NRA and GOA

[Carl S]

Originally Posted by Pistolenschutze
Ann Coulter should be the president of NRA! Hell, I would vote for her as president of the US! That lady knows how to kick ass and take names. I'd say she has big, brass cajones, but she's much too clearly a fine example of female pulchratude for that to fit properly. Keep giving 'em hell, Ann!

Originally Posted by Marlint
This would be an improvement for the NRA and lead them to a no compromise stance, instead of what they are today. If only all members of the NRA would drop there membership and join the GOA...

I think I'm in for a beating, but I'll take it.

Marlint, I did not want to hijack the Ann Coulter thread so I decided to reply in a new thread.

Like any organization, the NRA is less than perfect because it is made up of people. Do I always agree with the NRA? Absolutely not. Do I always agree with GOA? Absolutely not. Politics has been defined as the art of compromise. A line in the sand approach must be used selectively and sparingly. It’s sort of like the old Kenny Rogers ballad, The Gambler: "You’ve got to know when to hold them, know when to fold them…" Sometimes you have to lose a battle in order to carry the fight another day. An all or nothing approach rarely succeeds in politics and should only be used when absolutely necessary. There is a time to use this approach; but it is a dangerous tactic.

The NRA has been around a long time and is arguably the most powerful lobby in Washington. Politicians respect the NRA. Some do not like the NRA; but they respect the power and influence. The left hates the NRA. This is a testament to the NRA’s effectiveness. The GOA has nowhere near the power and influence of the NRA, especially down to state and local levels.

Second Amendment rights are and will continue to be under attack by the left. Some of these attackers are simply naive, misguiding folks who cannot see or refuse to see the real world. Others are dedicated to the eradication of individualism in favor of the collective. The latter use the former. Which organization is best equipped to stand up to and counter this threat? Which organization has the most political clout? I am not ready to throw out the experience, clout, power and influence of the NRA.

Playing devil’s advocate, maybe all GOA members should quit the GOA and join NRA. Now I don’t really believe that; I think competition helps to keep the brokers honest. Join both organizations. Make you voice heard in both organizations. Don’t fall into the left’s divide and conquer strategy.

The real problem is that a majority of gun owners belong to neither organization.

Just my humble opinion which in no way is intended to put you down.

[satellite66]

Originally Posted by Carl S

The real problem is that a majority of gun owners belong to neither organization.

Just my humble opinion which in no way is intended to put you down.

I agree and I believe that even those who don't own a firearm join. The loss of our gun rights will preceed the loss of all our rights.

[Pistolenschutze]

You make a very excellent point, Carl, and I agree. I'm a life member of NRA and yet I don't always agree with some of their tactics and hyperbole, though I certainly do agree with their basic stance on gun legislation. The same is true of GOA. An armed society is a free society.

[pickenup]

compromise =
A settlement of differences in which each side makes concessions.

Where are OUR concession when the NRA compromises?
What do WE gain?
What have they ever given back to us?
Or is it simply that we concede a little, so that they don’t take it ALL.
No more “compromise” sounds good to me.

[dge479]

I dont think the NRA does that bad of a job, Id rather see them more on the offensive.
I reallyy dont feel like getting into a rant on the topic right now, but ther is a major crisis brewing politically .
McCain is a front runner for GOP nomination =Bad
Hillary=Bad
Pataki=Bad
Kerry=Bad
In NJ Corzine Gov VERY bad
In NJ Senators both Anti Gun =bad
In NY Same
Ct Same
Mass Same
There is a major battle to be fought at this level. Id like to see the NRA and GOA get alot more aggressive here ,but not sure it will happen.

[Carl S]

Originally Posted by pickenup

compromise =
A settlement of differences in which each side makes concessions.

Where are OUR concession when the NRA compromises?
What do WE gain?
What have they ever given back to us?
Or is it simply that we concede a little, so that they don’t take it ALL.
No more “compromise” sounds good to me.

The whole so called assault weapons ban was a compromise from both camps. The politcal climate at the time was favoring some type of legislation due to the hysteria. Some of the compromises that helped us were that the magazine capacity was not lower than ten rounds and the act had a built in expiration date. As a result, the ban expired and we got high capacity magazines back as well as no restrictions on semiautomatic firearms, unlike the Firearms Act of 1934(?) which restricted the right to own automatic firearms and has no expiration date.

I stick by the statements in my original post. I do not always agree with the NRA; but they are best game in town at the present. We certainly cannot trust SCOTUS to protect the Bill of Rights. SCOTUS approved the restrictions on free speech in the McCain's Incumbent Protection Act and at least two justices have sited international law and the laws of other nations in making their decisions on our Constitution.

I absolutely agree with MrMagnum's post.

[pickenup]

The assault weapon ban having a expiration date, was put in place, to persuade some of the representatives (who would not have otherwise) to vote for it. It was not a concession to us.

[Bruce FLinch]

Well I feel a bit slighted I belong to the NRA, Cal Rifle & Pistol Assoc. , US Practical Shooting Assoc. & subscribe to several Gun magazines. Never been solicited by GOA. Don't recall if I've seen an ad for them...Will check them out, I agree, better to spread the support. I don't agree w/ everything the NRA or the Republicans say & do. But w/o competition, we would lose all our choices, eventually.

[Marlin T]

Carl, once I saw the title of the thread I could feel at least one of my eyes beginning to swell from the beatings, lol Thanks for being kinder than I expected!! But I'm sure this thread isn't over yet

This is really a tuff one, in the real world that is. BUT "Shall not be infringed" is pretty plane english too. As you know, the antis are not stupid and every little 'gain' is a huge victory and they have way to many huge victories. As is shown in news sites like keepandbeararms.com, almost every day.

I completely understand what you said and where you are coming from, but the NRA doesn't really have that good of a voting record. Maybe the NRA needs an Ann Coulter as there Pres! I will agree with you when you said something like join them all and don't forget to vote.

Thanks

[1952Sniper]

It's funny that even the NRA supporters here admit that they compromise.

You guys may feel comfortable compromising your rights away. I don't. The anti-gun camp will NEVER stop until your guns are gone. You can either lose your rights little by little, one compromise at a time, or you can boldly say NO.

When the day finally comes that "they" knock on your door to take your guns thanks to our compromises, will you ask them to only take some of your guns? Hell no. It's all or nothing, folks. Don't let the anti-gunners take one single freedom from you without a brutal bloody fight. Don't compromise anything. Because all you're doing is giving in. They aren't compromising a darn thing. They demand to take away our rights, but what are they giving up? Nothing! Every compromise we make, we walk away with one less freedom.

I'd rather stand with an organization that says absolutely no. Even if it means defeat. If the anti-gun camp is willing to take it as far as they can and we lose legislatively, then let's take it to the streets. I'd prefer an all-out bloody fight for freedom than this mamby-pamby bartering of our rights. If it's going to come to a civil war for us to defend our rights, then so be it. We still have some strength in this nation as gun owners. But I guarantee you that if you keep playing the NRA's game, by the time your guns are taken from you, there will only be a few of us left. We will go out with a whimper.

I'm a proud EX-NRA member and current GOA member. And I'd be happy to re-join the NRA if they would make a solid commitment to defending the rights of EVERY GUN OWNER and EVERY TYPE OF GUN, no compromises.

[Carl S]

It's funny that even the NRA supporters here admit that they compromise.

I think you misinterpreted my point. I was specifically referring to the AWB. Some type of antigun legislation was going to pass, period. That was the politcal climate at the time. Democrats were in power; Republican Senators did not have the gonads to filibuster nor the votes to sustain a filibuster. Faced with that, the situation became one of how to do the least damage to the Second Amendment and how to do so in a manner that could be reversed. It worked. Now these are not the words of the NRA; these are the words from my Representative and one of my Senators. For the record, I was not a member of the NRA at the time. I had already gotten mad with them.

Politics are politics and the goal of most politicians is to get reelected and remain in power. That is the reality with which any lobby must concern itself. That is one of the reasons that the NRA is so powerful; they have demonstrated that anti-gun candidates and anti-gun incumbents can be defeated. The McCain - Feingold Act, disguised as campaign financial reform, was really an attempt to silence the NRA and other conservative organizations. And SCOTUS upheld this travesty on the First Amendment.

I also stated there was a time to draw a line in the sand. We can draw a line in the sand as Khadafy did which was a totally useless symbol and nearly got him killed; or we can draw our line in the sand when we have the muscle to make a stand. That line in the sand should have been drawn in 1934. That was the beginning of the erosion of the Second Amendment. If we elect pro 2A candidates, boycott anti 2A businesses and get all gun owners to join a pro 2A organization, then we have the muscle to back a line in the sand.

It does not make any difference to me if gun owners join NRA or GOA or XYZ. Gun owners need to join, period. The NRA is currently the best thing going for 2A rights in spite of their failings. The NRA has made a huge difference in the State of Florida - even with the influx of northeasterners who are largely anti 2A. Examples, our shall issue CW license which has been widely copied and our recent "Castle Doctrine" law for self defense which is now being copied by other states. These advances would not have come to pass without the efforts of the NRA and the grassroots support generated by the NRA. The GOA cannot generate this type of support and pressure at present. That is the reality.

The latest effort in Florida is to pass a law prohibiting companies/corporations from forbidding any legal property in an automobile parked in a private parking lot with legally owned firearms being the thrust of the legislation. Corporations and property rights advocates are fighting this legislation. And I can see both sides. There will be some kind of a political compromise on this issue. Will the NRA support the compromise? I don't know. I don't know what the compromise will be. But the sponsor of this legislation wrote and told me that they are negotiating with the business community. Negotiating = compromises, the reality of politics. The NRA and the GOA do not pass legislation. They can only endorse or oppose.

And by the way, the NRA did adamantly oppose any renewal of the AWB to the point where the tort reform failed the first time around - a line in the sand.

I am certainly not anti-GOA. The GOA simply does not have the clout of the NRA at present.

[pickenup]

Originally Posted by Carl S

The real problem is that a majority of gun owners belong to neither organization.

This is the heart of the matter. Even if we can not get them to "join" an organization, if we could just get every gun owner to VOTE, we could roll back some, if not all, of the UN-constitutional laws that have been imposed on us. But alas, apathy runs rampant.




I have to wonder if the GOA, given enough time and membership, would turn into another NRA. Or if they would keep their “no compromise” position.
Time = More Members.
More Members = Money.
Money = Power.
Power corrupts?



P.S. The NRA can do more than endorse or oppose. They can WRITE (or help write) anti-gun (or pro-gun) legislation. Then find a representative to bring up the bill. They have done it before.

[1952Sniper]

The GOA simply does not have the clout of the NRA at present.

You're absolutely right. Which is why we need more people to join GOA. I can't claim for certain that GOA wouldn't turn into another NRA over time. But at present, I like GOA's stance better than NRA. If we could get enough gun owners to support GOA like they support NRA, then I do think GOA would do more for us.

[Carl S]

Below is a quote from Representative Dennis Baxley. Dennis is the author of the firearms in parking lots bill and was the author of the successful "Castle Doctrine " law. This is what I mean by compromise in politics:

Another important issue that gathered media attention this week is HB 129, a “parking lot gun bill” that I sponsored. This bill, as brought forward in the Judiciary Committee this week, would stop employers from adopting policies that would prohibit employees from having a firearm in their locked vehicle. This measure was temporarily postponed in the Judiciary committee, while the chairman is working on finding a common ground with the business community and those of us that want to preserve the constitutional right of self-protection in Florida. Rest assured that we will pass a bill after the right practical solutions have been reached. The business community and Second Amendment supporters have too much in common for us not to reach an agreement on the proper fitting together of our personal property rights and our Constitutional right to bear arms. My final assessment is that if the corporate business community chooses to take on the 6 million Floridians who own firearms, these business groups will most certainly lose.

Compromise is a part of the political process in a representative republic. NOe, I am the first to say that Constitutional rights are not up for compromise.