Anyone NOT a member of Gun Owners of America, if so, why?

Status
Not open for further replies.
When I look at the GOA Congressional ratings, I see a much more pronounced partisan tilt than the NRA. I believe they choose votes for their ratings to skew against Democrats, e.g., the vote for House Speaker. They seem to be advancing a right-wing agenda more than gun rights, and I have no desire to support that. For now, I support the NRA, but that is also subject to change.
 
If I gave money to everyone who asks, I would be broke in a month.
NRA and SAF are the two I support right now.
 
I am not a member since I see them as believing you complete a marathon in one giant leap, without any baby steps.
That is a complete falsehood as it relates to GOA's strategy. There's just no truth in saying that GOA tries to do things in "one giant leap w/o any baby steps." GOA uses small steps with every agenda, such as trying to repeal the 1934 NFA and 1968 GCA in small steps (such as trying to just get rid of the "sporting purpose" clause). They fought for incremental REPEALS when republicans held congress, which was the best time to try. I don't remember the NRA trying to repeal anything connected to the 1934 or 1968 abominations. Heck nra looked the other way when the 1986 ban and Lautenberg passed with a republican pres (1986) and a republican congress (1996). It truly appears that nra still supports 99% of the 1934 NFA and the 1968 gun control act.
 
As fas as I am concerned they are not viable political force and hence ineffective in protecting my 2 Amendment rights..... their short sighted approach again confirmed for me, that they do not know how to fight battles and consequently how to win them.

I'd rather send more money to the NRA!

+1
 
I got a GOA letter that went way too far into talking about religion for my own comfort. I do not like it when my special intrest groups start pushing something other then that perticular special intrest.

I do get their newsletter, as they are very good at writing out responses to bills for me (when I try to write someone about my 2nd amendment, it usually gets off of the high road a bit, so I like to use their pre-made letters, with minimal change). I just don't like the way they alienate everyone who doesn't follow their line of thinking on every subject.

I might sign up at some point, but right now my money is stretched too far.
 
I got a GOA letter that went way too far into talking about religion for my own comfort. I do not like it when my special intrest groups start pushing something other then that perticular special intrest.
Your "comfort?" What a manly way to put that :rolleyes:

If you're going to say something like that, have the guts to elaborate. You make it sound like GOA is proselytizing. Give me a break. Just because they mentioned God or Christianity (I'm just guessing because you didn't bother to explain yourself) at some point just makes GOA on par with the founding fathers who frequently mentioned the creator (how dare they) :eek:
I just don't like the way they alienate everyone who doesn't follow their line of thinking on every subject.
The listener bears responsibility if "alienation" occurs. The listener makes choices also.
 
Hey, 7.62, I don't see what's unmanly about comfort, but either way, you'd be better off not picking fights over it at THR, OK?

Guy's got a right to say what he wants about the GOA, and he has the RIGHT not to join a group he thinks is too religious for his taste. (Is taste unmanly too? I forget.)
 
Hey, 7.62, I don't see what's unmanly about comfort, but either way, you'd be better off not picking fights over it at THR, OK?
Wow relax, nobody's "picking a fight" here. Why can't a spirited discussion be allowed to be a spirited discussion without calling it "picking a fight" :rolleyes:

Guy's got a right to say what he wants about the GOA, and he has the RIGHT not to join a group he thinks is too religious for his taste.
That's a "water is wet" statement. It's goes without saying don't you think? Especially since I never said or implied that people don't have a right to say what they want or NOT join a certain group. Why are you misstating my position like that Don?
 
Originally Posted by 7.62 shooter:
Your "comfort?" What a manly way to put that

If you're going to say something like that, have the guts to elaborate. You make it sound like GOA is proselytizing. Give me a break. Just because they mentioned God or Christianity (I'm just guessing because you didn't bother to explain yourself) at some point just makes GOA on par with the founding fathers who frequently mentioned the creator

Sadly I lost the email, and the reason I didn't elaborate is because I cannot remember exactly what it said. So instead of quoting something from my not so great memory, I decided to just post the fact that I remember it making me uncomfortable.

I have no problem with talking about God in public or kids praying aloud in school (or anywhere else for that matter) or having "In God We Trust" on all our money. I do however have a problem with someone telling me which god I have to belong/pray to. The email referred to christianity in particular, and had overtones impling that its member should have a similar look on things.

I have the right to not give money to groups for whatever reason I choose. If I had said I didn't sign up because I didn't like the format of their website, it still would have been my right, and I do not have to justify anything that I do, or have done, to you.

I have explained well enough on why I did not join them. Someone reading it can look at it and say,"Clearly this hell-bound sinner doesn't understand causal mention of religion on a subject that has nothing to do with religion is not a big deal." That is not a problem with me.

I do however, take offense to getting my intestinal fortitude questioned on a site that is named The High Road.
 
I do however have a problem with someone telling me which god I have to belong/pray to.
I have the right to not give money to groups for whatever reason I choose.
As I've already stated (man I wish people would read what is ACTUALLY written), NO ONE is challenging your right to give money to whatever organization you want or don't want to. Good grief why do so many people get all offended so easily and start pretending like their right to NOT join an organization has been attacked.:rolleyes: :barf: :rolleyes: :barf:

No one is challenging your right to choose your god either so why you felt like diverting in that way only God knows :D How bout stop looking for ways to be offended when no offense was given and no one is challenging your right to spend your money or your right to religion.
 
I hope he shows better judgement this century than he did last century. John
_______________________

"Pratt also spoke at an anti-government meeting in 1992 while looking into the Ruby Ridge, Idaho, incident in which federal agents killed the wife and son of white separatist Randy Weaver. A federal marshal also was killed during the siege.

The meeting was called by Pete Peters, leader of Christian Identity, which critics say supports violence to promote white supremacy. Other featured speakers included former Ku Klux Klan leader and Aryan Nation official Louis Bream and Aryan Nations Founder Richard Butler.

Although Buchanan said Pratt did not deny speaking before the groups, he said Pratt is a member of several organizations dedicated to promoting racial harmony. But Buchanan said after discussing the matter with campaign officials, Pratt agreed to give up his post "for the good of the campaign."

At a news conference, Pratt denied he holds any racist or anti-Semitic views and called the effort to link him to hate groups a move to smear Buchanan.

"I see this as a political effort, a tool to try to discredit the Pat Buchanan campaign," said Pratt, one of four co-chairmen listed on Buchanan's letterhead.

"I loathe the Aryan Nation and other racist groups with every fiber of my being.""

- Copyright Detroit News. The AP contributed to this article.
_____________________

He loathes them, but, but, but...

Amazing, simply amazing, that'd he go speak at their meeting. Poor judgement.

JT
 
I've never heard of them until now and after reading the links in this thread I don't plan to be.
 
I don't usually trust Wikipedia, but the article cites references.

"The Southern Poverty Law Center also reports that Pratt "was a contributing editor to a periodical of the anti-Semitic United Sovereigns of America, and that his GOA had donated money to a white supremacist attorney's group."[20]"

Sure, it's a free country, but I don't have to support his efforts.

John
 
"From our perspective, I can't understand why anyone here would NOT be a member of Gun Owners of America."

Shall I continue, or is that enough?

John
 
Well, anytime someone questions my manliness I get in defensive mode (penis-inferiority-complex).

Next time just ask me to explain myself. I would be more then happy to go into farther detail with anything that anyone wants to know. It would, help if I could find the damn e-mail (I have since stopped deleting e-mail) :(.
 
They seem to be advancing a right-wing agenda more than gun rights, and I have no desire to support that.

No, they're not. Their largest supporter is Ron Paul and he isn't what you would call right-wing. The state senators are more or less right-wing and they've only gotten Bs in their report.

Some of you guys are saying you want to protect your Second Amendment Rights and support the NRA for doing so, but then they're up in Washington already willing to compromise with anti-gun lunatics who use absolutely no logic in their decisions. I'm not saying that the GOA is perfect but they're a lot closer to what I'd expect the NRA to be.

The NRA just likes to play dealmaker when it's shouldn't be doing that at all.

JohnBT, I'm more interested in WHY Ruby Ridge happened and WHY the Feds did what they did rather than what Aryan or Nazi types happened to be at the meeting.
 
borrowedtime69, RE a "registry" of gunowners, were I a member of the BATFE or other large bureaucratic LE agency, I'd use THR over an NRA/GOA member list hands down. Many people's only involvement with the NRA each year is to sign up, sign their family members of up, and then forget about it until renewal time comes around. Many of the members are not individual gunowners, whereas forums such as THR show who's active in the gun community and in what capacity. From there, finding addresses and phone numbers is no big chore. Food for thought.
 
I joined GOA because their 'mission statement' suited me.
I became a Lifemember of GOA in the hopes that as I get more involved I might be able to influence somewhat how the organization goes about accomplishing it's goals.

I think GOA has great potential.
I don't agree with everything they do, but I hope to change some of what they do.

Many NRA members don't agree with everything the NRA does.
Many of them try to change things.

Members of different organizations bickering over 'who's better', or organizations picking at each others means and methods, all do a disservice to the cause we are all fighting for.
 
Things I think GOA has done well on:

1. Making the election of Sen. Tom Coburn their primary goal in 2006 was a smart move. He has been a great friend to gun owners.

2. Pointing out the "fill the tree" process that Sen. Frist could have used to block renewal of the AWB. GOA was absolutely right about that. On the other hand, had Sen. Frist filled the tree we wouldn't have a lot of anti-gun votes right before the 2004 elections to know who our enemies were. We also wouldn't have had Kennedy's gift that keeps on giving, the "Ban the .30-30 ammo which pierces armor plated limousines" speech.

Things that concern me about GOA:

GOA reports 300,000 members and engages only in lobbying/PACs. At $20/30 member, that is a pretty big lobbying budget. Yet Open Secrets reports that they have never contributed more than $200k on campaign funds/soft-money for any election cycle. But for 2005, they are reporting $1.3 million in lobbying expenses, all of which they paid to in-house GOA people.

For contrast, the NRA has contributed $948k via NRA-PVF in campaign funds/soft money in 2006 and NRA-ILA spent $1.6 million on lobbying in 2005, of which $560k was used to contract with outside law firms.

So it seems to me like the bulk of GOA's money is going to support an in-house lobbying team of five people (IIRC). I just don't see how that is effective.

Personally, I think we need both organizations; but I am not a GOA member because like others I have limited funds and I prefer to concentrate my donations to SAF and TSRA. NRA and GOA are both currently towards the low end of my list, though I am at least a member of NRA.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top