You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
NRA vs GOA
- Thread starter DavidB2
- Start date
I know what you mean, Sarge.
One problem the internet suffers is the total lack of non-verbal communication (with the exception of skype and other video chat).
Arguments can be taken as much more in-your-face here, than they would if made in person, in a reasonable tone, with relaxed posture.
People react to perceived attacks that are not necessarily attacks, and things start going downhill. I often have to remind myself of this. This is probably one of those cases. I am not trying to slam jmortimer, I am trying to get him to provide info that can help his readers make a more informed decision.
You seem like a good guy, too, Sarge.
One problem the internet suffers is the total lack of non-verbal communication (with the exception of skype and other video chat).
Arguments can be taken as much more in-your-face here, than they would if made in person, in a reasonable tone, with relaxed posture.
People react to perceived attacks that are not necessarily attacks, and things start going downhill. I often have to remind myself of this. This is probably one of those cases. I am not trying to slam jmortimer, I am trying to get him to provide info that can help his readers make a more informed decision.
You seem like a good guy, too, Sarge.
Luger_carbine
New member
When the Sandy Hook shooting happened all the NRA bashing stopped, and while the NRA took its time to create a measured and well thought out response to the shrill screaming of the anit-gun faction, all I read on various forums were paniked posts saying "What is the NRA doing about this?" We need the NRA to step up and fight this!"
Wayne LaPierre appeared on national TV and took one beating after another from the liberal anti-gun personalities in the media, for proposing a plan that was basically what Bill Clinton and many others had already called for previously.
I think this episode says it all. Despite how many talk shows the heads of other gun groups go to, despite their tough no-compromise rhetoric, in the final analysis the NRA is the "go to" guy when the clock is running down.
Wayne LaPierre appeared on national TV and took one beating after another from the liberal anti-gun personalities in the media, for proposing a plan that was basically what Bill Clinton and many others had already called for previously.
I think this episode says it all. Despite how many talk shows the heads of other gun groups go to, despite their tough no-compromise rhetoric, in the final analysis the NRA is the "go to" guy when the clock is running down.
In the past (the days of the old Legal & Political forum) many of the "alerts" by Larry Pratt (i.e. the GOA) were alerting folks of what the NRA didn't do in a particular situation, or did do that Larry didn't like and thought was a "sell-out" of our 2A rights.
The message that came across was, "Don't become a member of a "sell-out" organization. Join US, we don't compromise!"
The implications were quite clear.
Dave "TheBluesMan" Miller and I had a serious PM discussion about this and decided that enough was enough. We began closing, and in many cases, deleting threads and posts that served only to bash the NRA.
Over the years, most especially after the Heller decision, Larry's rants remained the same or actually grew more shrill... Up until about early 2010 or so.
For whatever reasons, the GOA became less of an attack vehicle on the NRA, while at the same time, the NRA began using many of the same provocative tactics that Larry Pratt had been using.
The straw that broke the proverbial camel's back for me, was the NRA's stance of the McDonald case in their Aug. 2010 magazines, wherein Chris Cox (NRA-ILA - NRA's Institute for Legislative Action - more on that in a moment) took full credit for the NRA in the outcome of that case. Hell, it was even hinted that the Heller case could not of had the outcome it did, without the backing of the NRA.
Sorry folks. But the results of those two seminal cases were the work of first the CATO Institute and then the SAF, via that young upstart attorney, Alan Gura.
The fact of the matter is, that the NRA has become every bit as shrill as was the GOA in the past (and to a lesser extent, even now). This was due in whole by one man.
To my mind, based strictly on what has been achieved since the Heller decision, neither the NRA-ILA nor the GOA deserve my support. I reserve that for another organization that is NOT the topic of this discussion.
Notice the distinction I have made above?
I support the NRA. They are the premier organization for the shooting sports, for training new and existing firearms enthusiasts, etc. What the NRA does, and where your membership counts and what it pays for, are things that I wholeheartedly endorse. Every gun-owner should be a member of the NRA. The NRA, as the parent organization, has the political clout (because of that membership), that is greater, by far, than its membership would suggest and greater than any other gun-rights group there is. None of the money you spend on NRA membership goes to support the other organizations under the umbrella of the NRA.
A lot of people complain about the incessant appeals for money that they keep getting in their mail. If you look closely, you will find that most of these money pleas are for donations to the NRA-ILA.
I do not support the NRA-ILA. Chris W. Cox (the deputy director of the ILA and heir apparent after Wayne LaPierre) has taken charge of the litigation goals of the NRA and, in my own opinion, doesn't know what the hell he is doing. As a lobbyist, he is good. Very, very good. As a litigator, quite simply, he sucks. He has no concept of civil rights litigation and what that entails. The attorneys at his disposal are very good litigators, if somewhat inexperienced in civil rights litigation. However, Mr. Cox will not let them do their job. His ego will not allow for anything less than full involvement with the cases (with the exception of some CA cases).
To my mind, this thread is misnamed. It should be about the NRA-ILA vs. the GOA. As that's what the undercurrent of this discussion is really about. IF you keep the discussion about only the NRA vs. the GOA, there is no contest. The NRA wins, hands down. The GOA is not even in the running as a competitor to what the NRA itself does, for the shooting sports.
If you are talking about lobbying, they (the GOA) still don't compare. The GOA's lobbying efforts are minimal and even dismal, at best. You cannot play at politics with a "no compromise" attitude. You simply won't be listened to. That is a political fact of life. If you are discussing litigation, the GOA has done nothing but file a few amicus briefs. They (the GOA) have funded no litigation.
In closing, I must admit to astonishment as to exactly why this thread has gone on for as long as it has, in the General Discussion forum. It is only tangentially related to guns and more related to the 2A as a civil right and the organizations (NRA and GOA) as protectors of those rights.
Moving to L&CR.
The message that came across was, "Don't become a member of a "sell-out" organization. Join US, we don't compromise!"
The implications were quite clear.
Dave "TheBluesMan" Miller and I had a serious PM discussion about this and decided that enough was enough. We began closing, and in many cases, deleting threads and posts that served only to bash the NRA.
Over the years, most especially after the Heller decision, Larry's rants remained the same or actually grew more shrill... Up until about early 2010 or so.
For whatever reasons, the GOA became less of an attack vehicle on the NRA, while at the same time, the NRA began using many of the same provocative tactics that Larry Pratt had been using.
The straw that broke the proverbial camel's back for me, was the NRA's stance of the McDonald case in their Aug. 2010 magazines, wherein Chris Cox (NRA-ILA - NRA's Institute for Legislative Action - more on that in a moment) took full credit for the NRA in the outcome of that case. Hell, it was even hinted that the Heller case could not of had the outcome it did, without the backing of the NRA.
Sorry folks. But the results of those two seminal cases were the work of first the CATO Institute and then the SAF, via that young upstart attorney, Alan Gura.
The fact of the matter is, that the NRA has become every bit as shrill as was the GOA in the past (and to a lesser extent, even now). This was due in whole by one man.
To my mind, based strictly on what has been achieved since the Heller decision, neither the NRA-ILA nor the GOA deserve my support. I reserve that for another organization that is NOT the topic of this discussion.
Notice the distinction I have made above?
I support the NRA. They are the premier organization for the shooting sports, for training new and existing firearms enthusiasts, etc. What the NRA does, and where your membership counts and what it pays for, are things that I wholeheartedly endorse. Every gun-owner should be a member of the NRA. The NRA, as the parent organization, has the political clout (because of that membership), that is greater, by far, than its membership would suggest and greater than any other gun-rights group there is. None of the money you spend on NRA membership goes to support the other organizations under the umbrella of the NRA.
A lot of people complain about the incessant appeals for money that they keep getting in their mail. If you look closely, you will find that most of these money pleas are for donations to the NRA-ILA.
I do not support the NRA-ILA. Chris W. Cox (the deputy director of the ILA and heir apparent after Wayne LaPierre) has taken charge of the litigation goals of the NRA and, in my own opinion, doesn't know what the hell he is doing. As a lobbyist, he is good. Very, very good. As a litigator, quite simply, he sucks. He has no concept of civil rights litigation and what that entails. The attorneys at his disposal are very good litigators, if somewhat inexperienced in civil rights litigation. However, Mr. Cox will not let them do their job. His ego will not allow for anything less than full involvement with the cases (with the exception of some CA cases).
To my mind, this thread is misnamed. It should be about the NRA-ILA vs. the GOA. As that's what the undercurrent of this discussion is really about. IF you keep the discussion about only the NRA vs. the GOA, there is no contest. The NRA wins, hands down. The GOA is not even in the running as a competitor to what the NRA itself does, for the shooting sports.
If you are talking about lobbying, they (the GOA) still don't compare. The GOA's lobbying efforts are minimal and even dismal, at best. You cannot play at politics with a "no compromise" attitude. You simply won't be listened to. That is a political fact of life. If you are discussing litigation, the GOA has done nothing but file a few amicus briefs. They (the GOA) have funded no litigation.
In closing, I must admit to astonishment as to exactly why this thread has gone on for as long as it has, in the General Discussion forum. It is only tangentially related to guns and more related to the 2A as a civil right and the organizations (NRA and GOA) as protectors of those rights.
Moving to L&CR.
Chris W. Cox (the deputy director of the ILA and heir apparent after Wayne LaPierre) has taken charge of the litigation goals of the NRA and, in my own opinion, doesn't know what the hell he is doing. As a lobbyist, he is good. Very, very good. As a litigator, quite simply, he sucks. He has no concept of civil rights litigation and what that entails. The attorneys at his disposal are very good litigators, if somewhat inexperienced in civil rights litigation. However, Mr. Cox will not let them do their job. His ego will not allow for anything less than full involvement with the cases (with the exception of some CA cases).
I agree with most of this. The NRA-ILA is an excellent lobbying organization, but they're mediocre at best when it comes to litigation. To be fair, however, it was the NRA rather than the SAF that argued for incorporation under the Due Process clause rather than the Privleages and Immunities clause in McDonald. As we know, SCOTUS went with the former rather than the latter though they may have done that anyway even had the NRA not been involved.
That being said, I support the ILA for their lobbying expertise rather than their litigation expertise. The way I see it, the NRA-ILA is our first line of defense against new gun control as they're best when fighting legislatively. The SAF, to which I also belong and support, is the second line of defense should the ILA fail because they're quite adept at fighting with litigation. I would be tickled pink if the NRA would form a separate branch, independant of Cox, for litigation.
Webleymkv said:To be fair, however, it was the NRA rather than the SAF that argued for incorporation under the Due Process clause rather than the Privleages and Immunities clause in McDonald.
An ongoing argument in which both sides have merit. I would only point out that until Justice Thomas weighed in, the tally was 4 against and 4 for incorporation. Thomas agreed with the outcome (which made it a 5-4 decision), but not the process. This alone leaves open the question of the P&I clause.
Regardless, I too would be happy with a separate NRA Litigation branch, with no involvement by Cox.
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
In order to have a healthy Second Amendment culture, you need a place where that culture can safely grow and welcome newcomers - places to shoot and established ways to deal with safety. This is the foundation on which everything else rests.
The NRA has done THAT job so well that everyone forgets that they are basically the only RKBA organization doing that job. For that reason alone, the NRA would be at the top of my list for national organizations when it comes to supporting RKBA.
My personal priorities list goes like this:
1. State organization - all politics is local. If gun grabbers don't get elected to city council they don't move up the ladder to Senator. Get involved at the local level first.
2. NRA - you are shoring up the foundation mentioned above and building the basis for your political action
3. SAF - SAF is a great group who knows how to do a lot with a little and is willing to work with other RKBA organizations and even let them take a lion's share of the credit in order to get results. If you want to support pro-2A litigation, this is THE go-to group
4. NRA-ILA, NRA-PVF, GOA - these are the groups that lobby Congress and help get friendly Congressmen re-elected. Each has their own strong points; but the thing to remember is that the larger group you try to organize, the more you must compromise to accommodate everyone. A "no-compromise" group is going to be small and in a fight where votes matter, that can sometimes be a liability. Likewise a large group of all kinds of shooters may not be as focused or responsive as a smaller organization.
5. NRA Civil Defense Fund - not really great at strategic constitutional litigation like SAF; but when someone is trying to shut down your local range on a noise complaint or prosecute a legitimate self-defense shooting, these are the guys who answer the call.
The NRA has done THAT job so well that everyone forgets that they are basically the only RKBA organization doing that job. For that reason alone, the NRA would be at the top of my list for national organizations when it comes to supporting RKBA.
My personal priorities list goes like this:
1. State organization - all politics is local. If gun grabbers don't get elected to city council they don't move up the ladder to Senator. Get involved at the local level first.
2. NRA - you are shoring up the foundation mentioned above and building the basis for your political action
3. SAF - SAF is a great group who knows how to do a lot with a little and is willing to work with other RKBA organizations and even let them take a lion's share of the credit in order to get results. If you want to support pro-2A litigation, this is THE go-to group
4. NRA-ILA, NRA-PVF, GOA - these are the groups that lobby Congress and help get friendly Congressmen re-elected. Each has their own strong points; but the thing to remember is that the larger group you try to organize, the more you must compromise to accommodate everyone. A "no-compromise" group is going to be small and in a fight where votes matter, that can sometimes be a liability. Likewise a large group of all kinds of shooters may not be as focused or responsive as a smaller organization.
5. NRA Civil Defense Fund - not really great at strategic constitutional litigation like SAF; but when someone is trying to shut down your local range on a noise complaint or prosecute a legitimate self-defense shooting, these are the guys who answer the call.