"Gun Owners of America" membership a good investment?


PDA






Babalouie
October 9, 2005, 05:22 PM
I was looking around the web today and came across GOA lobbyist. Anyone know much about them and whether it would it be a good and responsible investment, as gun owner and ccw holder, to join up? I belong to the NRA but feel like they have spent my membership money in all the follow up crap they send to get more money from me. I don't mean to flame the NRA but since I joined I have recieved at least five other packets asking for more. I don't mean to be disrespectful of such a great organization but it makes me wonder how much my membership monies has really supported the cause. I don't need to be flamed for this and I will continue to support the NRA but what can you tell me about Gun Owners of America? What's their reputation? Thanks for the info.

If you enjoyed reading about ""Gun Owners of America" membership a good investment?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Kamicosmos
October 9, 2005, 05:53 PM
First off, NRA membership doesn't go towards the legal stuff. You donate to the NRA ILA for that. You can also reduce the amount of mail you get from the NRA, either call them up, or do it on the website.

There have been some pretty heated discussion here and at TFL regarding GOA vs NRA. They are both good organizations and deserve our support. I am not a member of GOA mainly because I haven't seen them 'do anything' yet. I joined my local state organization instead, because they were instrumental (with the NRA's help) in getting CCW laws written up and passed here in Missouri.

GOA and SAF are good organizations, but I can't afford to be a member of every gun org out there, so I choose my two based on their past and current actions on state and federal levels.


(sits back with popcorn to watch the flames begin...)

jnojr
October 9, 2005, 06:01 PM
First off, NRA membership doesn't go towards the legal stuff. You donate to the NRA ILA for that. You can also reduce the amount of mail you get from the NRA, either call them up, or do it on the website.

Where on their web site is the "stop deluging me with mail" button? :)

MasterPiece Arms.com
October 9, 2005, 06:05 PM
If, the second these alleged republicans took control of the white house and began their one party rule, EVERY NRA member walked their membership over to GOA, gun owners wouldn't have been taken for granted and there might have been progress at the federal level (meaning ACTUAL votes to repeal crap).

The #1 thing that NRA apologists won't touch with a ten foot pole, is the fact that NRA doesn't even have it as a goal of weakening and/or repealing the NFA of 1934 or the 1968 GCA.

That being said, giving $$ to NRA's ILA will probably help the ongoing reform of these illegal "right to carry" laws (because no state has any authority whatsoever to force me to get a "permit" to take an item of my property with me around town).

The postage alone eats up your NRA membership dues in the course of a year (I figured they spent almost $2 a month just in postage back when I was a member).
Somebody always shows up to point out that you can get on NRA's "low volume" mail list (yet they never post a link). Years ago I did that, and yes, it did slow the tsunami of mailings somewhat.

The NRA, as an institution, has been allowed to get away with giving their approval to the NFA of 1934, doing nothing to stop or even moderate the 1968 GCA, and especially, giving silent approval of the 1986 ban. The NRA doesn't even admit anywhere that I've seen, that anything even happened in 1986. Whenever machine guns ever come up, they ONLY refer to the NFA. So, NRA will NEVER see me as a member until it apologizes and comes clean about the above. Why should I, or any of us expect any less?

Monkeyleg
October 9, 2005, 06:15 PM
Mike Irwin, who worked for the NRA for many years, has often posted that the mailings bring in an enormous amount of money, even though not everyone contributes. The response rate he reported was somewhere in the neighborhood of 5%, which is very good for direct mail.

The real test of an organization is not what it says, but what it does. Call your congressman and ask if any lobbyist from GOA has ever been in his office. Then ask about an NRA lobbyist.

I honestly don't know what GOA does with their money other than issue press releases.

As for the NRA not focusing on repealing the full-auto provisions of the FOPA of 1986, or the GCA of 1934, I'm upset as well. I'm also upset that the NRA hasn't found a cure for cancer yet or even a cure for the common cold.

Lone_Gunman
October 9, 2005, 06:21 PM
If the NRA worries Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, Howard Dean, Dianne Feinstein, and Chuck Schumer, it must be a good cause.

beerslurpy
October 9, 2005, 07:13 PM
The NRA's goal is to shift society in the direction we want, not to push for specific legislative goals. The problem isnt that the NRA doesnt want to repeal the NFA and GCA, its that society as a whole isnt ready for that. So the NRA doesnt even raise the issue. By supporting shooting sports and keeping the membership hooked on the issue, society is slowly moved to where the NRA needs it to be.

I am not sure about the GOA. They focus a lot on ideological purity and they helped focus a lot of anger towards the NRA during the 90s for not doing enough to oppose the various gun control bills. They keep the NRA honest and they are great way to double check the candidate rankings that the NRA is notorious for screwing up. The NRA has long had a habit of taking two lukewarm candidates and giving one an F and the other an A. I guess it helps the rank and file pick the right one.

I would love for the GOA and NRA to help unseat Bill Nelson next year. He is a gun grabber whose time has come. Which reminds me that I need to volunteer.

AirForceShooter
October 9, 2005, 07:55 PM
is to me but that's just my $o.02

AFS

Standing Wolf
October 9, 2005, 09:15 PM
The response rate he reported was somewhere in the neighborhood of 5%, which is very good for direct mail.

Everything after 1% in direct mail is pure gold. I've done lots of direct mail work over the years, and know whereof I speak.

Cacique500
October 9, 2005, 10:01 PM
Somebody always shows up to point out that you can get on NRA's "low volume" mail list (yet they never post a link).

From the NRA's Membership FAQ:

Q: How can I reduce the amount of mail I receive from the NRA?
A: Simply email us at membership@nrahq.org or dial 800-NRA-3888 and request to be placed on the "Do Not Promote" list. This will significantly reduce the amount of mail you receive without affecting important mailings, magazine service, or your membership renewal.

...and here's your link...NRA Membership FAQ (https://www.nramemberservices.org/faq.asp) ...about 1/2 way down ;)

Kamicosmos
October 10, 2005, 12:11 AM
And, the 'button' to reduce mail and email spam is in the membership area once you get setup on the website. That's also a handy way to switch what magazine you want, keep your address up to date if yo umove alot, and they also have all kinds of neat little tools like auto email links to your state and federal reps, links to the bills in House and Senate, etc. Very useful site.

MasterPiece Arms.com
October 10, 2005, 02:45 AM
Monkeyleg: As for the NRA not focusing on repealing the full-auto provisions of the FOPA of 1986, or the GCA of 1934, I'm upset as well. I'm also upset that the NRA hasn't found a cure for cancer yet or even a cure for the common cold.

With optimism and backbone like that, who the hell needs Sarah Brady or Ms. Feinstein?

Ya know, those people who say that americans especially gun owners have been conditioned to accept tyranny step by step, calling each new step "normal" are just d-e-a-d wrong, we don't have people like that! :uhoh: So NRA doing what it claims to do (protecting 2nd amendment)

beerslurpy: The NRA's goal is to shift society in the direction we want, not to push for specific legislative goals. The problem isnt that the NRA doesnt want to repeal the NFA and GCA, its that society as a whole isnt ready for that. So the NRA doesnt even raise the issue.

Did I wander into the bizarro THR?

Of COURSE the NRA pushes for "specific" legislative goals, what are you on :scrutiny: ? Talk about having it 180 degress backwards. So you're saying that when "society is ready" THEN it's ok to expect the NRA to push for repeal of NFA and GCA 68? Oooooo kayyyyy. And just when do you expect THAT to happen? If you're waiting for society's permission before you expect the NRA to do the right thing, then you're in for one helluva wait! :)

AND, if, in some distant fantasy future, society somehow becomes "ready" for the repeal of NFA & GCA, (thus taking away yours and NRA's lame ass excuse), how will it get there? Wishful thinking? Hoping? Waiting? Or will it happen by getting excuse makers off their hind end? I think you know the answer ;) .

Didn't it ever occur to you that JUST maybe the reason the NRA "doesn't even raise the issue" is because it's the path of least resistance?

Ryder
October 10, 2005, 03:17 AM
If the NRA worries Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, Howard Dean, Dianne Feinstein, and Chuck Schumer, it must be a good cause.

The worries of such people are of no worth to me.

NRA lied to me on multiple occasions and then ignored my mail when I wrote for an explanation. I asked my wife to call them and they disrespected her to the point of tears. I won't associate with such an organization and have lately developed reservations toward those who do. I quit the local gunclub after many years of membership because they began stipulating a mandatory NRA membership requirement. I doubt the GOA will try backdoor tactics to get my money.

Border
October 10, 2005, 03:47 AM
So you stop supporting a powerful and effective pro-gun lobby because you encountered someone rude, don't like their rhetoric, and don't agree with every tactic and position they take. You even left your gun club! I think that you are losing perspective. The anti-gun crowd would love to see us all drop the NRA and support little splinter groups that can't even get a return phone call from a congressman or the media to show up for a press release!

Anyone catch "Nightline" a month or so back? It was on the bill that would prevent the gun manufacturers from being sued that we won on. Ted Koppel and the Democratic sponsor of the bill (whose name escapes me) both credited the NRA in a BIG way for the passage of this pro-gun(manufacturers) bill through the Senate!

The show went on to talk about the NRA being "on the ropes" a few years back but "has since doubled it's membership!" Everyone on the show from both sides, including independent analysts, spoke of the NRA as being a HUGE influence on Capital Hill! Not joining the NRA if you care about gun rights is indefensible in my opinion!

Ryder
October 10, 2005, 05:11 AM
Hi Border,

It's priciple. Upholding your priniciples often requires sacrifice. I hold others accountable for their actions. Anyone that lies or steals from me ceases to exist. Treat my family wrong and I take it personally.

No big deal about the gun club. They needed me worse than I needed them. There are lots of other places to shoot.

I contribute to GOA but I wouldn't go as far to say I rely on them to defend my firearm rights and that wasn't the reason I joined the previously joined the NRA . I'm perfectly willing and able to undertake that defense on my own.

:)

pcf
October 10, 2005, 06:43 AM
The #1 thing that NRA apologists won't touch with a ten foot pole, is the fact that NRA doesn't even have it as a goal of weakening and/or repealing the NFA of 1934 or the 1968 GCA.

Okay dude we get it, if it's not GOA, you're going to take a crap on them. In the last couple of minutes I've read two threads where you've dumped on the NRA and SAF. Good thing after that little NO fiasco GOA came through after the NRA and SAF hung us out to dry.

http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=160114

Back to your quote, can you or GOA name 60 senators that will bring cloture to this issue?

bearmgc
October 10, 2005, 07:07 AM
NRA is not a Sacred Cow. I don't interpret anyone's reasons for not being NRA as "crapping" on this organization. NRA is accountable for its practices. And for reasons already cited, I no longer am a member.

MasterPiece Arms.com
October 10, 2005, 08:10 AM
Okay dude we get it, if it's not GOA, you're going to take a crap on them. In the last couple of minutes I've read two threads where you've dumped on the NRA and SAF. Good thing after that little NO fiasco GOA came through after the NRA and SAF hung us out to dry.

Back to your quote, can you or GOA name 60 senators that will bring cloture to this issue?

Please actually read what I wrote. I was HARDLY "dumping" on the NRA. I simply collected some very public facts that I felt had been forgotten. If that's "dumping" then you are either too sensitive, or in denial, or both.

I also never said that the NRA was all bad. I say almost every time this comes up that NRA is helping to reform the illegal concealed "permit" laws. Your last sentence seems to have no real point.

Hey, pcf, you bothered to quote me, but you had no response to the very topic you quoted. What say you? How 'bout an actual response?

Waitone
October 10, 2005, 08:35 AM
You get direct mail because you responded to direct mail or you joined. The best predictor of future success in direct mail is the last response to direct mail. Don't repond and it will stop.

5% response on direct mail puts it the top 10% of the business. The figure is astounding (if accurate). I always used 1%. :eek:

Harve Curry
October 10, 2005, 10:22 AM
Yes

Border
October 10, 2005, 10:32 AM
Well Ryder, I don't know what happened so you may well have made the correct decision. I just hope that it wasn't because of just one or two rude employees/single event-that's no reason to condemn an entire organization.

Monkeyleg
October 10, 2005, 06:55 PM
"With optimism and backbone like that, who the hell needs Sarah Brady or Ms. Feinstein?"

I'll put my backbone and optimism up against anyone's at any time. I've done more than my share.

Before we try to get the public acclimated to the idea that it's okay to own full-auto's, let's convince them that .50 BMG rifles are not the threat that "60 Minutes" portrays, or that gun shows are not flea markets for terrorists, or that serial-numbering ammunition is rational way of fighting crime.

Would I like to see the GCA of '34 and the full-auto restrictions of the FOPA of '86 repealed? Hell, yeah. I made the mistake of selling my full-auto Thompson for $1800 nine years ago. I'll probably never be able to afford one again.

But we're trying to get concealed carry passed here in a state that completely prohibits carry. To the south of us, in Illinois, legislators are coming up with a ban a minute.

Sun Tzu said words to the effect that a good general doesn't attack until he knows he has won.

The public would go ballistic if the NRA or any group tried to repeal the restrictions on full-auto's.

Fortunately, the public is moving away from gun control, albeit slowly. So it may take many more years before a repeal effort could be possible.

beerslurpy
October 10, 2005, 10:21 PM
Clarification about my statement that the "NRA doesnt push for specific legislative goals"

Yes, the NRA does attempt to sabotage anti-gun bills and craft pro-gun bills, but the NRA's long term goals CANT be about specific legislation. Why? Because whether such legislation can make it through is entirely dependent on society's overall attitudes towards firearms ownership. An anti-gun or gun-neutral populace will get laws just like in the UK in short order. As the populace becomes more and more pro-gun you will get less and less gun control, eventually no gun control and later still, repeals.

If people chafed at the restrictions of the GCA or NFA and it became a voting issue, then you would see movement. But the people have to be there. And they arent- yet. Which is why we all have to make an effort to evangelize about guns, get people interested in shooting and get them to vote on the issue.

Waitone
October 10, 2005, 10:35 PM
I'd be happy with slight modifications like ending the ban on silencers.

MasterPiece Arms.com
October 11, 2005, 02:02 PM
The public would go ballistic if the NRA or any group tried to repeal the restrictions on full-auto's. You did not think that through all the way. The only ones that "would go ballistic" are those against us right now anyway, AND THAT INCLUDES the worthless "sporting purpose" cowards among us. You underestimate how many who are not currently in any camp would join us.

By the way, the best defense is a no fear offense.

Would I like to see the GCA of '34 and the full-auto restrictions of the FOPA of '86 repealed? Hell, yeah. I made the mistake of selling my full-auto Thompson for $1800 nine years ago. I'll probably never be able to afford one again. How much did you pay for it originally?

If people chafed at the restrictions of the GCA or NFA and it became a voting issue, then you would see movement.

I would like to point out that several of you are helping the enemy without realizing it by essentially being reactionary and making your tactics dependent on the whims of the idiot public. If the unconstitutional B.S. known as F.D.R.'s NFA and L.B.J.'s GCA don't "chafe" people, then you need to become extra strength gold bond itching powder. A comfortable populace is one that is controlled by the status quo NOT PRINCIPLE!

JohnBT
October 11, 2005, 04:12 PM
"the whims of the idiot public"

I'm going to give you a free piece of advice that's worth exactly what you paid for it. Cut back a tad on the condescending tone (Displaying a patronizingly superior attitude). Maybe you'd have more success converting folks to your way of thinking if you didn't come across like you believe everybody is an idiot except you.

John
Member www.vcdl.org
NRA Endowment Member

Monkeyleg
October 11, 2005, 06:25 PM
MasterpieceArms.com: "How much did you pay for it originally?"

$1800, same as what I sold it for. Prices stagnated after the initial run-up, and it just cost too much to shoot for any length of time. I also sold an original Bridgeport drum for the $300 that I paid for it.

I can understand your thinking that the public won't care, or that somehow they'll come along, but I assure you they won't.

Proponents of the 1994 AW ban sold it to the public by confusing them about semi-auto's and full-auto's. If they had told the truth, there wouldn't have been such a clamor for the bill. Most people still believe that "assault weapons" are full-auto.

We're still playing defense in many states, but not as much as we were in the 1990's. In some states, we're actually--and finally--on offense.

Going for a repeal of the GCA and FOPA would put us back on defense.

It isn't cowardly to go after what you want incrementally; it's smart politics. That's how the anti's got us in the first place. And it was only when they tried to grab too much too fast, as they did in the 1990's, that they began to lose ground. It's a fact that gun sales boomed under Bill Clinton, and the reason is that the anti's showed their hand.

The same thing could happen to us if we don't play things right.

MasterPiece Arms.com
October 11, 2005, 06:45 PM
"the whims of the idiot public"

I'm going to give you a free piece of advice that's worth exactly what you paid for it. Cut back a tad on the condescending tone (Displaying a patronizingly superior attitude). Maybe you'd have more success converting folks to your way of thinking if you didn't come across like you believe everybody is an idiot except you.

A. If the public quacks like a duck...

B. If you think I'm interested in "converting" the mind numbed, easily suggestable (by government), mentally lazy, luxury oriented, short attention spanned, "prove it to me, then I'll believe," selfish as all hell, post F.D.R. american public, then YOU sir are wayyyy off. What I do, is put out the stinging truth in a way that I HOPE offends people too weak to handle anything but milk. My goal is to reach those few who are prepared to stop coddling each other and tell it ALL like it is. I learned a long time ago, that the truth of the big picture will never be allowed into most people's COMFORTABLE minds anyway (oh sure, some will accept bits and pieces in between watching C.S.I. and American Idol, and even then, it usually takes a traumatic experience with government to wake them out of their rem sleep).

I am the antidote to the "let's water everything down and package it with a nice bow and then people will agree with us" crowd. I choose to be the antidote to a society that markets nearly EVERYTHING to a female audience.

I'm also not interested in "converting" or "convincing" the clones of anything, because truth can stand on it's own. It doesn't need me to exist, it just needs someone willing to speak it to those who have forgotten. Since the bush supporters have mostly forgotten 99% of the principles of even Ronald Reagan, we've got a little work to do.

MasterPiece Arms.com
October 11, 2005, 07:16 PM
And it was only when they tried to grab too much too fast, as they did in the 1990's, that they began to lose ground. Holy smoke, that isn't at all why they lost ground. It's hard to grab any more any faster than they did via the 1968 GCA, and the 1980's was a lightning round of ATF rulings and bans by the New World Order front men (for pete's sake, that 1986 ban was the whole freaking enchilada snuck in all at once!!).

The antis lost ground because of certain cumulative tyrannical laws and actions by the federal monster that FINALLY had the net effect of causing the mostly memory-less public to FINALLY at least open one lousy eye from their deeeeeeep sleep.

By the way, notice how it only took a few years for the public to shut that eye again. For this awful president to be able to get away with being L.B.J. part II, most republicans are in a phony patriotism induced coma at the moment. I live in a red state and meet them every day. They literally don't want to hear ANYTHING but this "worship the troops" nonsense and even worse the "let's get osama" diversion. I can't even stand country music anymore because of these phony patriotic songs that are everywhere.

We not only can, but SHOULD grab as much liberty as fast as we can. You forget that going in liberty's direction doesn't cause a backlash. However being too scared to go in liberty's direction FULL BORE results in us fading into the background. Even worse, it has resulted in a crop of big government "republicans" (especially these traitor "neo" cons) TOTALLY SOILING the name of what conservative used to mean, not to MENTION all the work good people put into that damned republican party for 50+ years :cuss: :fire: :mad:

MountainPeak
October 11, 2005, 08:25 PM
NRA, GOA, RKBA, SAF, JPFO, Pink Pistols, etc.! Any friend of the Second Amendment, is a friend of mine.

MountainPeak
October 11, 2005, 08:38 PM
TO THE NRA BASHERS: "They send me so many mailings'! "They call me"! You damn WHINERS! I wonder what the Founding Fathers would think of your EXTREME sacrifice; the having to throw a letter in your trash, or saying no thanks, to a phone call,and hanging up?!!! IT AIN'T THAT TOUGH GUYS. Orgs. don't do fund raisers because it LOSES money. Oh, sorry you were SOOOOOO inconvienced by it all. WHINE ON! :banghead:

c_yeager
October 11, 2005, 08:50 PM
Its easy to decide. Go over to their website and look where the money gets spent. Look at what the GOA has ACTUALLY ACCOMPLISHED. I think you may be underwhelmed by the national "angry letter" movement.

bearmgc
October 11, 2005, 10:49 PM
JPFO, where I put my money, my choice. :D I love choices.

GunGoBoom
October 11, 2005, 10:54 PM
Absolutely yes (life member GOA here).

Monkeyleg
October 11, 2005, 11:22 PM
MasterPiece Arms.com, may I ask your age?

"Politics is the art of the possible." Otto Van Bismark

MasterPiece Arms.com
October 12, 2005, 07:51 AM
NRA, GOA, RKBA, SAF, JPFO, Pink Pistols, etc.! Any friend of the Second Amendment, is a friend of mine. That statement is well intentioned but paper thin in substance. That statement assumes that the "any friend" part is obvious. Phony "citizen's" committee blows that assumption right out of the water for example.

Its easy to decide. Go over to their website and look where the money gets spent. Look at what the GOA has ACTUALLY ACCOMPLISHED. I think you may be underwhelmed by the national "angry letter" movement. "Actually accomplished" huh. For GOA's size, to get open indignation from antis on the senate floor, AND credit for helping kill various legislation over the years, is pretty damn good. Where is your memory man? Don't you remember the rant from Di Fi, who indirectly named GOA by fuming about how "Their very motto is no compromise?" It was a classic. :D

MasterPiece Arms.com, may I ask your age? That question in a debate always has ulterior motives behind it, but since this a higher class forum, here ya go:

http://img375.imageshack.us/img375/5505/myccwpermit4ys.png (http://s9.invisionfree.com/MasterPiece_Arms_MAC/)

JohnBT
October 12, 2005, 08:48 AM
"What I do, is put out the stinging truth in a way that I HOPE offends people too weak to handle anything but milk."

I think you offend more people than that.

John

MasterPiece Arms.com
October 12, 2005, 12:52 PM
I think you offend more people than that. Big woop.

John, you went to the effort to make a post just to say that? :rolleyes: What IS your point (if you have one)? You seem to prefer to divert attention away from the topic and ONTO the messenger. That's the sign of someone with nothing to add to the discussion.

Ravenslair
October 12, 2005, 01:39 PM
"Gun Owners of America" membership a good investment?

To answer your question, yes. I am a life member of the NRA and JPFO. GOA is my next life membership. They all do things a little differently, but have a similar goal. One less handgun or rifle today for the cost of a life membership is worth it to me in the long run.

JohnBT
October 12, 2005, 01:44 PM
"John, you went to the effort to make a post just to say that?"

Sure did. Consider it my good deed for the day.

"That's the sign of someone with nothing to add to the discussion."

What discussion? You seem to be mostly preaching with a chip on your shoulder and it's making it a tad difficult to get your message across.

"I can't even stand country music anymore because of these phony patriotic songs that are everywhere."

Imagine how they feel about you. ;)

John

Baba Louie
October 12, 2005, 04:13 PM
Gun Owners of America" membership a good investment?
From one Baba Louie to another (babalouie)
I'm sure that you'll get out of it, whatever you put into it (like most things in life)
For those who are new, those who lurk and wish to know more about Gun Owners of America, their link is
http://www.gunowners.org/
Chock full of useful info, it might be worthy of a bookmark. ;)

It costs money to stay on the WWW, keep newsletters updated, keep the name alive in front of cameras, in print and on the politician's radar, to fight the good fight. If you cannot afford to give up hours of your life for the cause, you can always give them $10 - $25+ to allow them to fight the fight.

I find it interesting when others end up denigrating the action (or lack thereof) of the oldest gun group in America when this thread asked zero about anything other than GOA.

Monkeyleg
October 12, 2005, 06:51 PM
MasterpieceArms.com: "That question in a debate always has ulterior motives behind it, but since this a higher class forum, here ya go:"

No, not an ulterior motive. I was just curious as to how old you would have been when the '68 and '86 laws were passed.

In 1968, the NRA's leadership was woefully naive politically. When gun owners realized the impact of the Gun Control Act, that NRA leadership got booted out.

The '86 FOPA, as I'm sure you've read, was intended to fix problems with the '68 bill. The full-auto ban was tacked on at the very last minute. Scrapping the bill would have been worse.

I have the luxury, if you want to call it that, of remembering what things were like for gun owners before 1968. I also remember that there wasn't any Brady Campaign, Violence Policy Center, MMM, or other pissant groups pushing for the bill. Instead, there were a bunch of legislators in DC who had witnessed a president, his brother, and Martin Luther King get assassinated, and the Black Panthers showing up at the Democrat convention armed. And it would seem that those legislators were afraid for their own lives.

The "old" NRA actually helped to write the bill. I doubt the NRA of today would be so accomodating.

Back to full-auto's, though. Your position reminds me of the position of a gun group here in Wisconsin on the issue of concealed carry. We're trying to get a shall-issue bill passed, and they're insisting on Vermont-style carry, which is an impossibility in Wisconsin, at least in this decade or the next.

We're willing to get 75% of what we want now, and work toward getting the other 25% later. The other group wants the whole 100% now. Meanwhile, the anti's are having a field day.

If you enjoyed reading about ""Gun Owners of America" membership a good investment?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!