Anyone a member of GOA?

[12131]

Like them or not, they serve a usual purpose for gun owners. And, that is defending the 2A by keeping pressure on politicians, exposing anti-gunners for what they are, promoting the 2A, and keeping gun owners informed.
Are there any 2A organizations out there that don't ask for money? Some may be more aggressive than others, but one way or another, they do need (and ask for) monetary support. If you don't like one 2A organization, then join another. The more the better.

 

[camar]

Bartholomew Roberts,
You have presented your case very well,but I disagree with most of what you say.

My bone of contention with the NRA is that they compromise on what is the law of the land-the Constitution of the United States. How can you compromise on what has been written and adjudicated?

Daniel Webster wrote the dictionary so the words of the Constitution will have the same meaning as written so there could be not argument on the words meaning.

When you compromise you are stepping back. When do you stop stepping back?

How can you compromise on a legally legislated law?

The NRA portarys itself as having more of a hunter priority that a staunch defender of the 2nd Amendment.

As far as the GOA backing conservative Republicans this is true so far as they have a proven track record of defending the 2d. Amendment ( I am neither a Democrate or a Republican). After George H.W. Bush was elected he dropped his NRA membership. I do not remember reading anything against this from the NRA, but the GOA did.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Compromise is a part of every piece of legislation out there and always has been - and believe me, GOA compromises, marketing aside. The only way to avoid compromise in our system of government is to control the leadership of the Executive and Legislative branches AND have a super-majority in both houses of Congress. Not suprisingly, few causes reach that level of support.

The first step to creating the kind of support where you don't have to compromise is to create an environment where shooters can enjoy shooting safely. If you don't have that, there is no way for the culture to grow.

 

[RandyC]

One organization being good doesn't necessarily make the other bad. Like I said, I'm a member of both. Both are on our side.

I think we each should without a doubt be an NRA member. I'm not twisting any arms for the GOA, just saying I'm comfortable being a member. I've blown 20 bucks on far less important things.

 

[Vaarok]

I actually think they're detrimental. Not only does no compromise not help when we're trying to turn the ratchet the other way, but whenever the antis need the frothing-at-the-mouth boogeyman to point at, the GOA stands there with a big target painted on.

 

[orionengnr]

Regarding post #23, Bartholomew Roberts, that is a valuable history lesson, and I need to find a way to capture that post for future reference. Exceptionally well done, and thank you.

Heller and McDonald would not have ever even been brought before a judge if not for the extremely hard work of the Second Amendment Foundation. The NRA didn't jump onto the Heller bandwagon until it started to look like a sure thing.

As for McDonald v. Chicago, that was the SAF's baby from day one.

If that is the case, then my bad, and I recant. Note that I am not doubting your word, but I had never read this here or in any other source, and I was following both cases pretty closely. Not sure how I missed that.

All that said, both the wife and I are TSRA Life Members (working towards payoff), NRA Life Members (likewise) and will be looking at which organization to suport next (once those memberships are paid off). All input is welcomed.

 

[TexasRifleman]

Like them or not, they serve a usual purpose for gun owners. And, that is defending the 2A by keeping pressure on politicians

And I will ask again.... Where is a statement from any politician at the national or state level saying his vote was influenced by GOA? Like I've said before, it may exist but no one can ever show it.

Should be easy to do if GOA is out there lobbying politicians as is claimed.

I don't have anything against GOA really, but I never see anything showing there is actual work going on there.

Here is the press release page for GOA. No press releases since January 2010. If they are having successes why wouldn't they be bragging about them?

http://gunowners.org/press-releases.htm

 

[Stophel]

You don't comprimise with RIGHTS and LIBERTY.

And some of us do NOT see the "Heller" decision as a good one.

 

[Robert]

And some of us do NOT see the "Heller" decision as a good one.

Wait. What?

 

[Stophel]

The "supreme" court said that you have the "right" to own a handgun for protection "in the home", and subject to "reasonable" restrictions by government, which is exactly the type of decision I expected to see before it came down. Make it look good to inattentive gunowners, but what it does is fling the door WIDE open for all kinds of "reasonable" restrictions. And, of course, the "supreme" court apparently thinks you have the (restricted) right to defend yourself only "in the home", but no where else. Rest assured, anti gun legislation is already being written using this court decision as a base, and as soon as the political climate is ready, it will be introduced...

The Right to Bear Arms means the Right to BEAR Arms! ;-) And the only thing that really protects your right to bear arms is YOU BEARING ARMS!

 

[TexasRifleman]

The question before the Court though was not whether or not you had a right to bear arms.

The very specific question asked of the Court was :

Whether the following provisions, D.C. Code §§ 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02, violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?

That the Court settled once and for all that the Second Amendment applies to individuals, and got rid of this militia nonsense, is a win for us and that stupid argument is now settled.

It's a tiny step, and that's where this whole "no compromise" thing falls apart. If the question before the Court had been one of complete "bearing arms" or nothing, we'd have nothing. More truthfully the Court wouldn't even have heard the case.

 

[DeepSouth]

About two weeks I went to GOA's site and was going to join for the first time. But it looked like they redo memberships every Jan so I was planning on waiting till then to join, that way I could have an entire year to decide weather or no I wanted to continue my support instead of just two or three months before repaying dues.

With that said If no one can can answer TexasRifleman's question "Where is a statement from any politician at the national or state level saying his vote was influenced by GOA?"
then I will not be joining.


If you GOA guys want a potential convert please answer the question, a link will do fine.
I think I'll go check out the 2nd Amendment Foundation for now.

FWIW: I already have 2 NRA memberships (couldn't decide which magazine I wanted) and I routinely give extra donations. I just figure there is power in numbers so I would like to join another pro-rights group.

 

[Art Eatman]

GOA's value with Congress is to make all the other organizations look rational, as Congressfolks see "rational".

Neal Knox has had his stinger out for the NRA ever since he was forced out by the competent and thoughtful folks of the NRA leadership at the Kansas City meeting. Seems to me like he spends more time whining about the NRA than in any effective action in behalf of RKBA. The key word is "effective".

It's all well and good for us as individuals to hold to our principles. Trouble is, when you're dealing with politicians, principles and three bucks buys a beer at happy hour.

 

[Justin]

I actually think they're detrimental. Not only does no compromise not help when we're trying to turn the ratchet the other way, but whenever the antis need the frothing-at-the-mouth boogeyman to point at, the GOA stands there with a big target painted on.

I wouldn't even go that far. I couldn't tell you the last time I heard a representative of the Brady Campaign, Ceasefire, Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, or Violence Policy Center even make reference to the GOA.

It's not that they give ammunition to the antis so much as they're so irrelevant as to not even be on the radar of the anti-gun activist groups.

 

[Justin]

The "supreme" court said that you have the "right" to own a handgun for protection "in the home", and subject to "reasonable" restrictions by government, which is exactly the type of decision I expected to see before it came down. Make it look good to inattentive gunowners, but what it does is fling the door WIDE open for all kinds of "reasonable" restrictions. And, of course, the "supreme" court apparently thinks you have the (restricted) right to defend yourself only "in the home", but no where else. Rest assured, anti gun legislation is already being written using this court decision as a base, and as soon as the political climate is ready, it will be introduced...

The Right to Bear Arms means the Right to BEAR Arms! ;-) And the only thing that really protects your right to bear arms is YOU BEARING ARMS!

Meanwhile, outside of Internetland and in the real world, people like Alan Gura are slowly chipping away at the plaque of anti-gun laws that have been building up over the last half-century and making real and honest changes. Sure, those changes aren't as fast as we'd all like, but they're a damn sight more than the "activism" undertaken by all of the "no compromise" internet chest-thumpers combined.

Compromise is a two-way street, and the political and cultural climate is now such that the anti-gun people are the ones forced to compromise with us, not the other way around.

 

[stickhauler]

My main complaint with the GOA is their insisting on trashing other pro-gun groups in order to recruit members. I see this as a huge negative, as we all should be linking arms to fight the anti-gun crowd rather than fighting each other.

Yes, the NRA came late to the party on Heller, but they came with a helluva lot more than simply a amicus brief.

 

[g.willikers]

Having been a member of the NRA, GOA and SAF for decades, these days my donations mostly go to the SAF.
The other two are helpful, the more the merrier.
But the SAF is been doing the heavy lifting with meaningful results for us all.