Hard Hitting Organizations


PDA






iomasterv41
April 12, 2006, 11:14 PM
I am a member and support the NRA but sometimes they don't hit as hard as they should.

I've found the Jews For the Preseveration of Firearm Ownership (http://www.jpfo.org/) and Gun Owners of America (http://www.gunowners.org/) are very hard hitting.

Does anybody know of any other organizations that fight for the 2nd ammendment?

If you enjoyed reading about "Hard Hitting Organizations" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Mortech
April 13, 2006, 12:05 AM
GOA is THE big stick in gunrights organizations , as far as I'm concerned . There are none close to their efectiveness .

American By Blood
April 13, 2006, 12:11 AM
How is the GOA effective? I'm curious because I'm thinking of joining. Their attitude seems to gel better with mine than that of the NRA.

I'm getting sick and tired of feeling unrepresented by the NRA. My primary firearms interest is in military rifles, and I was sorely disappointed this summer when the NRA didn't say peep when the BATFE arbitrarily changed the import regulations to effectively ban all foreign Evil Black Rifles. The BATFE has since (it seems) stood down, but the NRA had nothing to do with that. Seems the only thing they're willing to do for us EBR types is oppose the AWB. Beyond that, they seem to be far more concerned with the orange vest and scoped bolt action crowd.

iomasterv41
April 13, 2006, 12:25 AM
Check this out http://www.gunowners.org/erichonnewstalk.ram

GOA is not afrade of speaking up. Check out the rest of their Media Work (http://www.gunowners.org/svtb.htm). You can see that they don't hold back.

It is still important to belong to the NRA because they are so big they have a lot of clout but I recommend also joining GOA as well.

Another thing I love on GOA's site is their Activism Section (http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm). They write the e-mail for you ... all you have to do is drop in your name. They have a mailing list to keep up with new legislation that makes it easy.

Autolycus
April 13, 2006, 12:43 AM
I am an NRA member. I really like the GOA attitude and feel they are closer to my views. Unfortunately I am not able to fulfill any financial obligations to them and will not join until I am able. The facts are that the NRA is an excellent organization but they do not do everything I wish they would. However they still do a lot of good on behalf of gunowners and should be supported. They are the largest 2nd Amendment organization and still should be supported. If GOA was larger then I might think differently. So support both the NRA and GOA until GOA gets to be as powerful as the GOA. JPFO is also an excellent organization and you DO NOT need to be Jewish to join. A lot of people have thought otherwise but that is the first question on their FAQ. My suggestion is that if you are able to join them all do it, however if you can join one thats cool. Just join the one that suits you best.

orangeninja
April 13, 2006, 01:26 AM
I think the more you join the better. However the NRA has powerful insiders in Washington, no other organization even comes close. If you can only join one, the NRA would be the best bet.

ElTacoGrande
April 13, 2006, 01:51 AM
The NRA is obviously the big one but I'm finding myself pretty far apart from them on a lot of issues. They should NOT be fighting to restrict employers' policies for employees carrying on the company location or on the job. I support my employees carrying but I don't want the government forcing me to do that. I may have my own policies for my own reasons. That is a bad fight for the NRA to be in and it makes them look whacko AND it alienates conservative business owner types. Hate to say it but the Brady Campaign is right on this one.

I also don't like their gun industry liability bills they worked on. They should have fought those bogus suits. Getting special liability protection makes them look bad and we don't need it. Hate to say it but the Brady Campaign is right on this one.

They should not be fighting against the gunshow "loophole". That makes them look bad. It makes them look soft on illegal gun transfers. Gun transfers should have to go through an FFL. Hate to say it but the Brady Campaign is right on this one.

Right now it seems like they have run out of stuff to fight for so they are fighting for stuff that no longer makes sense. That's bad because there are plenty of things left for them to fight for: CCW in California, repeal of the '86 MG ban, repeal of some of the sporting use nonsense.

Leave employers alone. That's just the kind of government intrusion that none of us should support.

iomasterv41
April 13, 2006, 02:38 AM
I think its important to join all 3. Definatly join the NRA ... they are huge. Both the GOA and JPFO both agree with that point. This is a fight for our rights ... we need to support as many as possible in this fight!

As far as the $$ situation goes both GOA and JPFO are only $20/year

You can grab an NRA membership at $25/year with this link (http://membership.nrahq.org/default.asp?campaignid=XS018392). Normally they are $35 but if you find a recruiter link its only $25.

So - $65/year gets you all 3 ... and if you can make that $45 gets you NRA plus either GOA / JPFO. I think a small price to pay for our right to bear arms.

American By Blood
April 13, 2006, 08:50 AM
The NRA is obviously the big one but I'm finding myself pretty far apart from them on a lot of issues. They should NOT be fighting to restrict employers' policies for employees carrying on the company location or on the job. I support my employees carrying but I don't want the government forcing me to do that. I may have my own policies for my own reasons. That is a bad fight for the NRA to be in and it makes them look whacko AND it alienates conservative business owner types. Hate to say it but the Brady Campaign is right on this one.

I also don't like their gun industry liability bills they worked on. They should have fought those bogus suits. Getting special liability protection makes them look bad and we don't need it. Hate to say it but the Brady Campaign is right on this one.

They should not be fighting against the gunshow "loophole". That makes them look bad. It makes them look soft on illegal gun transfers. Gun transfers should have to go through an FFL. Hate to say it but the Brady Campaign is right on this one.

Right now it seems like they have run out of stuff to fight for so they are fighting for stuff that no longer makes sense. That's bad because there are plenty of things left for them to fight for: CCW in California, repeal of the '86 MG ban, repeal of some of the sporting use nonsense.

Leave employers alone. That's just the kind of government intrusion that none of us should support.

Are they really fighting to force employers to allow employees to carry? I was under the impression that their fight was about not allowing employers to search workers' vehicles and dictate what they can or cannot store in them. This is reasonable seeing as how the interior of one's car is traditionally treated the same way a person's home is, regardless of whose property it is parked on. Hence LEOs needing warrants to search a vehicle even when it is pulled over on a public roadway. If this fight really is that limited in scope (and I could be wrong here), it's a good battle. It's about the Second AND Fourth Amendments.

As for the lawsuit bill, you'd be right in a perfect world. However, the bill was necessary and if the controlled media weren't so anti-gun that fact would be clear to every American with two neurons to rub together. When was the last time Ford got sued because somebody was a bad driver? Or Crest because some toothless cretin didn't brush his teeth enough? Judges routinely throw cases like this out because they are entirely lacking in merit. All the lawsuit bill did was compel the legal system to treat gun manufacturers like any other company. It would be a bad bill if it protected companies like Hi-Point and Bryco from liability for making guns that are dangerous to the user. But it doesn't.

I'm going to defend the NRA on the "gun show loophole" as well. Not all firearms transfers should go through FFLs. That's an unnecessary regulation of legal commerce. If I want to give my brother (who has never so much as spent a night in the drunk tank) a rifle for Christmas, I should not have to pay an extra fee to someone outside of the family or ask permission from the BATFE. The "gun show loophole" doesn't make it legal for disqualified people to buy guns and it doesn't make it legal to sell to them either. All it means is that some state governments still trust us not to break those laws but reserve the right to enforce them if need be. (For the sake of honesty I'll admit that the whole idea of having to get a FFL to sell guns offends me. A business is a business, whether they're selling guns or mops.)

The RKBA is a civil right like any other and should be treated as such. I'm pretty sure even the atheists would be frightened if church-goers suddenly had to apply for permits to own Bibles or worship, so what is it about gun owners that makes us more willing to submit to the illegal regulation of the exercize of our rights?

If you enjoyed reading about "Hard Hitting Organizations" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!