NRA vs GOA

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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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???
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.)
 
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.
 
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.
 
Yes, NRA can be irritating. You'll remember that I worked for the org. for a number of years.

But, NRA at least has the propriety to attack the enemy, NOT the other organizations on the same side.

That is all those GOAL mailings were. Attacks on NRA. unseemly at best.
 
How 'bout thinking this in a little bit different light?

Let's think of what our country, our government, would have been like if the NRA didn't exist. What anti-gun laws would have been passed? What level of education would our culture have on firearms and the 2A? How many lives would have been adversely affected by NOT having the NRA? What Supreme Court, Appellate Court, or even local court decisions would have been made without the NRA's presence? What path would your kids have taken if they didn't have exposure to NRA junior shooting matches and programs?

The list of positive things the NRA and ILA have done for our country is so long that it's unfathomable. It has to be in tens of thousands at least since its inception. There is NO perfect organization. The NRA has its issues. But when you think objectively on the pros and cons of the NRA, IMO one is definitely biting the hand that feeds them if he/she bashes them. To me, it's selfish at best.

GOA? Their method of absolute NO compromise is honorable to say the least in theory. It's a nasty grey area to compromise and not be a sell-out to the 2A. That's where personal beliefs tie into what an organization is willing to do or not do politically. With that in mind, here's my question to ponder. What has GOA gained for America when they refused to compromise? If any gain at all, what was the short term and long term result? What happened when they didn't budge? Did the bill get passed anyway? As I asked regarding the NRA; what would America be like without GOA?

Yep, as stated, GOA is like Ron Paul. No compromises. 9 times out of 10 I believe we shouldn't compromise. But there are occasions when by not working together the 2A is hurt in the end, IMO and more harm is done than good.

If I had to only go with one or the other, the NRA would have my money. If I have the option, which I almost always have, more than one organization receives my hard earned money. In other words, my vote is BOTH. We need to have multiple pro gun organizations to fight the anti-gunners.
 
Guys, I am pro-NRA, but that doesn't make me anti-GOA. The thing is, it has taken this long for somebody to point out their rating system. That is good to know. Please provide more points on GOA achievements, please, as opposed to ideology.

Those kinds of points influence people like me.
 
Most all of the pro-gun groups do some good, but what counts with politicians is voter numbers.
An organization with lots of voter members will get the attention while a smaller group gets dismissed more or less politely.

When these NRA or anti-NRA posts come up here's a little experiment I tell people to do:
Go out and stop the first person you see. Ask them about "the gun lobby".
99% of the time they'll say "You mean the NRA?".

The NRA is the 800 pound gorilla of the gun rights movement and THEY are who the politicians pay attention to.
None other then Bill Clinton admitted that it was the NRA that cost the Dems the mid term election when he was in office.

You'll notice the anti-gunners in the press and politics are not complaining about and accusing the smaller groups of being responsible for things.
Truth is, most of the press, the politicians, the anti-gun people, and the average American has never heard of the smaller groups and couldn't care less about them.
It's the NRA they hate, and for good reason.

Back in the early 1960's the NRA was what many today would call a "Fudd group" that was interested in hunting, target shooting, and collecting.
When the Dems started passing anti-gun laws, the NRA had to transform to a gun rights organization to protect ourselves and our rights, and the NRA decided that the best way to do that was to play the Politics Game.

The NRA is the gun-rights master at the Politics Game.
The other groups talk a good game and most do contribute to the effort, but none of them are players at the table.
 
"The thing is, it has taken this long for somebody to point out their rating system."

Go to post #10 where I provided links to both rating systems and discussed the merits of one over the other and again revisited in post # 32

800 pound gorillas can put out big piles of ....

I also, to address your previous requests, pointed out that the GOA does much of what the NRA does in terms of lobbying, amicus briefs, and public relations (which they are really good at). Ted Cruz listed GOA on his web site. Ron Paul calls it like he sees it. GOA drafted legislation for Rand Paul. Many other good guys in congress are pro-GOA. They do a lot with what they have, being less than 1/10 the size of the NRA.
 
Putting out briefs and all is great, but that is method, not effect.

The rating system could be useful.

I like Ron Paul. I agree with most of what he says. However, Ron Paul never had a chance.

I voted for the Libertarian in my state's senate race, as I did not care for either the D nor R. Vote was great in principle, but the end result was Claire McCaskill was reelected.

Most cases in life are about minimizing evils, not attaining pure good.

Ironically, I suspect most pro-2A idealists think anti-gunners who believe people should be nice to each other, so guns are unnecessary and bad, are unrealistic and doomed to disappointment.

So, don't tell me Ted Cruz and Ron Paul like them. Don't tell me they do "a lot with what they have." I don't care.

Tell me specific accomplishments they have made with regard to legislation or litigation. Do not give me hyperbole, ideology, nor vague platitudes. Please provide specific, measurable, directly attributable accomplishments.
 
jmortimer, you are advocating, cheerleading, and recruiting.

If you want to do that, you need to provide exactly the kind of answers I have asked for. If you can't do that, you should not try to recruit. The onus is on the person who wants others to try his way, not on those he is trying to persuade.

I don't know why you can't grasp that.

I don't know enough about them to respect them. I have heard from others about their receiving the NRA bash letters; I have heard that GOA does not compromise. But I have not heard of anything they have accomplished - and that is still true. You could change that, but instead you keep going back to ideological purity...
 
MLeake said:
jmortimer, you are advocating, cheerleading, and recruiting.

If you want to do that, you need to provide exactly the kind of answers I have asked for. If you can't do that, you should not try to recruit. The onus is on the person who wants others to try his way, not on those he is trying to persuade.

I don't know why you can't grasp that.
Click to expand...

Let's say were are talking about pickups. I like Chevys & think everybody ought to own one. You like Fords. You are free to tell me I'm nuts, why Ford is better or to just to ignore me altogether. If either of us want to check out the other guy's favorite, both Chevrolet and Ford have websites and dealerships all over the country.

The onus here is on nobody.
 
Sarge, any blowhard at a bar can do that.

If he is the serious proponent he claims to be, he could provide more substance.

For instance, anybody can say they like Ford or Chevy. (I like and have owned both.)

Somebody trying to seriously sway a buyer would provide more practical details - such as tow rating, drive train options, cab configuration options, safety equipment, equipment package options, purchase cost, rebates and incentives, long-term ownership cost averages...

Whereas the guy who just thinks one is cool because it's Dale Jr's brand is only going to sway a certain subset.

I suspect jmortimer could actually provide such detail, but he has not. If he really wants to attract new members, he needs to do that.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top