NRA vs GOA

[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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
jmortimer said:
...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...
Click to expand...
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.
 
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
 
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 .
 
"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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
^ 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.
 
^ 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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
"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.
 
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...
 
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:
"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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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

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

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-
I'm not in charge of you.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
"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:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top