Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 3/28/2009 1:07:46 PM EDT
Which one is most prefered by you guys? I've heard ill things about the NRA but nothing about GOA.
Link Posted: 3/28/2009 1:12:30 PM EDT


When the NRA calls a Congressman, he picks up the phone.

I'm not sure GOA can say that.
Link Posted: 3/28/2009 1:14:30 PM EDT
simple, NRA
Link Posted: 3/28/2009 1:14:32 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/28/2009 1:15:08 PM EDT by clement]
GOA is worthless, and their anti-gun alerts are getting pretty ridiculous.

But I suppose they make people feel better.
Link Posted: 3/28/2009 1:17:41 PM EDT
Well, I don't hear as many liberal media types fussing about the GOA like they do about the NRA, so I'm thinking that the NRA is the one they loathe and fear more.
Link Posted: 3/28/2009 1:17:41 PM EDT
I'd rather have the NRA keep doing what it does well, and not muddy the waters with other groups. Bigger is better in this case. The NRA can be a pain in the ass with it's marketing but you get used to it after a while.
Link Posted: 3/28/2009 1:17:54 PM EDT
The NRA has clout, money, a following, and the vast numbers of Fudds that mean votes.

The GOA has ideals that are more correct, they won't compromise nearly as quickly or as willingly as the NRA will.... but they aren't as big. They do help the little guy though, they helped Olofson when the NRA wouldn't touch him.
Link Posted: 3/28/2009 1:18:37 PM EDT
Originally Posted By N8088HD:
I'd rather have the NRA keep doing what it does well, and not muddy the waters with other groups. Bigger is better in this case. The NRA can be a pain in the ass with it's marketing but you get used to it after a while.


+1. If getting too much junk mail is the worst of it, then it isn't too bad.
Link Posted: 3/28/2009 1:18:39 PM EDT
I've been on the fence about the NRA. I've read that they've compromised quite a few times, and actually supported strengthening NICS checks and such.
Link Posted: 3/28/2009 1:21:21 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Suppo:
Well, I don't hear as many liberal media types fussing about the GOA like they do about the NRA, so I'm thinking that the NRA is the one they loathe and fear more.


I see it the other way. It's like when they call 'Sean Hannity' FAR RIGHT. You take a not so fearsome political opponent and make them the 'extremist.'

They call out the NRA, which is rather moderate and demonize it because they could live with it being around. Hearing a liberal bitch about it and gun owners flock to give money to an organization that supported the Veteran's Disarmament Act win-win for the tyrants.


That said I withdrew my membership after VDA and donated my American Rifleman's (still a decent mag) to the local doctor's office.

I'm JPFO now.
Link Posted: 3/28/2009 1:23:10 PM EDT
Originally Posted By bluedog2:
Which one is most prefered by you guys? I've heard ill things about the NRA but nothing about GOA.



You haven't heard anything about the GOA because it's worthless.

The GOA's only purpose in life is to bash the NRA.
Link Posted: 3/28/2009 1:24:50 PM EDT
NRA does A LOT of wasteful spending. And by wasteful I mean all the little gadgets they send out, not to mention the tons and tons of mail they send. But to answer your question, the NRA is the bigger dog, send to them.
Link Posted: 3/28/2009 1:25:36 PM EDT
Originally Posted By SIPCAT-C:
Originally Posted By Suppo:
Well, I don't hear as many liberal media types fussing about the GOA like they do about the NRA, so I'm thinking that the NRA is the one they loathe and fear more.


I see it the other way. It's like when they call 'Sean Hannity' FAR RIGHT. You take a not so fearsome political opponent and make them the 'extremist.'

They call out the NRA, which is rather moderate and demonize it because they could live with it being around. Hearing a liberal bitch about it and gun owners flock to give money to an organization that supported the Veteran's Disarmament Act win-win for the tyrants.


That said I withdrew my membership after VDA and donated my American Rifleman's (still a decent mag) to the local doctor's office.

I'm JPFO now.
School me on VDA?

Link Posted: 3/28/2009 1:25:50 PM EDT
Oh, and I emailed the NRA asking for their official position on semi-automatic weapons covered under the 1994 assault weapons ban, they never bothered responding.
Link Posted: 3/28/2009 1:26:22 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Rosenrot:
NRA does A LOT of wasteful spending. And by wasteful I mean all the little gadgets they send out, not to mention the tons and tons of mail they send. But to answer your question, the NRA is the bigger dog, send to them.


Of course they do, they're politicians
Link Posted: 3/28/2009 1:27:17 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/28/2009 1:27:51 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Johnny_Reno:


When the NRA calls a Congressman, he picks up the phone.

I'm not sure GOA can say that.


That's very well said my friend.

Link Posted: 3/28/2009 1:28:04 PM EDT
Originally Posted By SIPCAT-C:
Originally Posted By Suppo:
Well, I don't hear as many liberal media types fussing about the GOA like they do about the NRA, so I'm thinking that the NRA is the one they loathe and fear more.


I see it the other way. It's like when they call 'Sean Hannity' FAR RIGHT. You take a not so fearsome political opponent and make them the 'extremist.'

They call out the NRA, which is rather moderate and demonize it because they could live with it being around. Hearing a liberal bitch about it and gun owners flock to give money to an organization that supported the Veteran's Disarmament Act win-win for the tyrants.


That said I withdrew my membership after VDA and donated my American Rifleman's (still a decent mag) to the local doctor's office.

I'm JPFO now.


That's a good point. I think most here would say that the NRA has more moderate/liberal views than their own, so we (ARFCOMMERS) would be viewed as even more 'extremist'.

I think an even better tactic, and an ARFCOM classic, is to "get both". I'm a member of the NRA and GeorgiaCarry.Org . GeorgiaCarry is a great organization that is unrelenting on the state level.

To be honest, I knew about the veteran's disarmament act, but didn't know that the NRA supported it.
Link Posted: 3/28/2009 1:57:54 PM EDT
My take is the NRA admirably tries to solve things diplomatically, but wouldn't be anywhere to be found if diplomacy failed.
Link Posted: 3/28/2009 2:02:25 PM EDT
GOA won't budge and inch on the 2nd amendment, NO COMPROMISE. They are extremely vigilant of any bill that comes out that may affect gun ownership and sound out alerts like crazy. They aren't taken very seriously

The NRA is the group that all the members of Congress FEAR.
Link Posted: 3/28/2009 2:09:06 PM EDT
One big difference between the NRA and GOA, the NRA has people at the state level in every state and they are very active in state issues. GOA does not get involved at the state level. In fact I think GOA is still "keeping an eye on things in New Orleans" while the NRA put boots on the ground, filed lawsuits, and stopped all the illegal firearm confiscations.




Originally Posted By BlackOp:
My take is the NRA admirably tries to solve things diplomatically, but wouldn't be anywhere to be found if diplomacy failed.


You mean the NRA solves things using the political process and maintain their integrity as a strong voice of gun owners no matter if it is the Democrats or Republican's in charge.

If politics fail there is going to be a lot bigger problems than if the NRA has clout.

If you are wanting a group that will have your back when diplomacy/politics fail contact your local militia...of course in every case that I've seen they are usually quick to rat on each other and disappear instead of having each others back.

Link Posted: 3/28/2009 2:09:37 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ArmyInfantryVet:

The NRA is the group that all the members of Congress FEAR.


You really believe that?

It is ironic that the "big dog" gun rights group has supported most gun control that has been enacted, and the confirmed Marxist President is responsible for more gun purchases then the combined marketing of the firearms industry for the last 50 years.

Link Posted: 3/28/2009 2:10:03 PM EDT
Um, both? Seriously they each fulfill a certain need. I HATE the infighting between them, which is usually just GOA bitching. And with out the NRA we would NOT have guns now. So join both. Also look at JPFO.org
Link Posted: 3/28/2009 2:11:22 PM EDT
Originally Posted By nationwide:
Originally Posted By ArmyInfantryVet:

The NRA is the group that all the members of Congress FEAR.


You really believe that?

It is ironic that the "big dog" gun rights group has supported most gun control that has been enacted, and the confirmed Marxist President is responsible for more gun purchases then the combined marketing of the firearms industry for the last 50 years.



I remember during the 2000 Presidential election, they had some thing on it on tv, about how the Democrats were afraid of the NRA and they get told by other members of Congress that voting against the NRA will make the NRA make them live through hell while in office.
Link Posted: 3/28/2009 2:12:31 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/28/2009 2:13:13 PM EDT by BlackOp]
As I said, diplomacy is admirable - my point was I don't get the feeling they're as sold into their beliefs as everyone says they are. I think we're sold into their stated beliefs more than they are.

I would consider becoming a life member if someone would care enough to give me a list of all the NRA "compromises" (and there are many) and a reasonable justification for them. One example I keep hearing is that they convinced Reagan not to disband the ATF. The reasoning for this is apparently that they thought the secret service would be even worse (one bad apple spoils the bunch).. but why the hell didn't they fight to have enforcement put back into the state's control?
Link Posted: 3/28/2009 2:16:18 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/28/2009 2:20:32 PM EDT by orangelo]
Originally Posted By BlackOp:
Oh, and I emailed the NRA asking for their official position on semi-automatic weapons covered under the 1994 assault weapons ban, they never bothered responding.


There is an article in the latest American Rifleman on the brady bunch screams for a new AWB. It talks about ARs being the most popular rifle in competition and also starting to be used more for hunting and tries to set the Fudds straight. The article made it clear to the Fudds that the AWB was not about 'them thar machineguns', and that it banned guns that operate the same as their Remington 1100 shotguns and Mini-14 ranch rifles.

The NRA is not dominated by the Fudds, as some ppl would have you believe. There are some wabbit hunters, they shoot too after all, but the organization as a whole isn't out to fuck EBR owners. NFA is another story.
Link Posted: 3/28/2009 2:17:28 PM EDT
Originally Posted By clement:
GOA is worthless, and their anti-gun alerts are getting pretty ridiculous.

But I suppose they make people feel better.


NRA

next question

Link Posted: 3/28/2009 2:18:34 PM EDT
NRA ftw
Link Posted: 3/28/2009 2:20:10 PM EDT
Show me where it states on the NRAs website they believe that civilians should have access to weapons for the purpose of defending themselves from an overbearing government, and we'll talk.
Link Posted: 3/28/2009 2:26:38 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/28/2009 2:28:13 PM EDT by orangelo]
Originally Posted By BlackOp:
Show me where it states on the NRAs website they believe that civilians should have access to weapons for the purpose of defending themselves from an overbearing government, and we'll talk.


I'll do you one better than that. Here's quotes from the NRA's amicus curiae to the Supreme Court:

This individual right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right; the Second Amendment on its face describes it as essential to a “free State”—a democratic state free from government tyranny. As with the fundamental democratic rights guaranteed by the First Amendment, laws burdening Second Amendment rights should be subjected to strict scrutiny and struck down in their entirety when overly broad.


While, to be sure, the Second Amendment refers to the utility of an armed population in preventing government tyranny, the Framers did not consider the right limited to that purpose.


In addition to providing some authority over the Militia to the States, the Framers sought to effectuate their purpose of guarding against federal overreaching by guaranteeing the right of the people to keep and bear arms.


What's your next excuse? The free 1 year membership is too expensive?
Link Posted: 3/28/2009 2:28:08 PM EDT
Originally Posted By orangelo:
Originally Posted By BlackOp:
Show me where it states on the NRAs website they believe that civilians should have access to weapons for the purpose of defending themselves from an overbearing government, and we'll talk.


I'll do you one better than that. Here's quotes from the NRA's amicus curiae to the Supreme Court:

This individual right to keep and bear arms is a
fundamental right; the Second Amendment on its
face describes it as essential to a “free State”—a
democratic state free from government tyranny. As
with the fundamental democratic rights guaranteed
by the First Amendment, laws burdening Second
Amendment rights should be subjected to strict
scrutiny and struck down in their entirety when
overly broad.


While, to be sure, the Second Amendment refers
to the utility of an armed population in preventing
government tyranny, the Framers did not consider
the right limited to that purpose.


In addition to providing some authority over the
Militia to the States, the Framers sought to
effectuate their purpose of guarding against federal
overreaching by guaranteeing the right of the people
to keep and bear arms.


What's your next excuse?


That's for the Heller case right?

The Heller case they tried to keep from being heard, right?
Link Posted: 3/28/2009 2:31:17 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/28/2009 2:32:06 PM EDT by SIPCAT-C]
Originally Posted By N8088HD:
Originally Posted By SIPCAT-C:
Originally Posted By Suppo:
Well, I don't hear as many liberal media types fussing about the GOA like they do about the NRA, so I'm thinking that the NRA is the one they loathe and fear more.


I see it the other way. It's like when they call 'Sean Hannity' FAR RIGHT. You take a not so fearsome political opponent and make them the 'extremist.'

They call out the NRA, which is rather moderate and demonize it because they could live with it being around. Hearing a liberal bitch about it and gun owners flock to give money to an organization that supported the Veteran's Disarmament Act win-win for the tyrants.


That said I withdrew my membership after VDA and donated my American Rifleman's (still a decent mag) to the local doctor's office.

I'm JPFO now.
School me on VDA?



Because the gov't fears veterans with guns even more than Fudds with guns, the VDA was a backdoor way to disarm our best and bravest (those who served in combat mostly).

It's truly dispicable, it prevents those who seek any mental help or counseling from buying a firearm.

So if you serve through some real tough stuff and just want to get it off your chest, well you have no rights.

It's another 'win-win' for the anti-gunners. Vets either get the help they need and can't enjoy their rights, or they go without counseling and help (possibly go postal) and become the posterboy of 'why vets shouldn't have guns.' Once vets can't have guns, why should the Fudds?

There was a lot of opposition, a doctor I knew who had a lifetime membership rescinded it.


A LOT of other people did not renew. (myself included)

short write up
Link Posted: 3/28/2009 2:31:38 PM EDT
1. Too weak.
2. NRA tried to suppress heller. Come on.
3. So answer my previous question first, with explanations of all the compromises in the past 20 years.
Link Posted: 3/28/2009 2:39:10 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/28/2009 2:40:28 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/28/2009 2:48:30 PM EDT by orangelo]
Originally Posted By BlackOp:
1. Too weak. Good luck trying to find a larger or more influential gun rights group. GOA? JPFO? Your state rifle association? None of those have even a tenth of the membership of the NRA
2. NRA tried to suppress heller. Come on. It irks me too that they tried to stop Parker, but after Heller was granted certiorari they gave it their full effort. Alan Gura and Dick Heller don't seem to have any grudges and appreciated the support. How many amicus briefs did you submit in support of Heller btw?
3. So answer my previous question first, with explanations of all the compromises in the past 20 years.


Link Posted: 3/28/2009 2:41:08 PM EDT
You can join the NRA for free right now, so if you're undecided, get both.
Link Posted: 3/28/2009 2:42:56 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/28/2009 2:44:09 PM EDT by clement]
Originally Posted By SIPCAT-C:
Originally Posted By N8088HD:
Originally Posted By SIPCAT-C:
Originally Posted By Suppo:
Well, I don't hear as many liberal media types fussing about the GOA like they do about the NRA, so I'm thinking that the NRA is the one they loathe and fear more.


I see it the other way. It's like when they call 'Sean Hannity' FAR RIGHT. You take a not so fearsome political opponent and make them the 'extremist.'

They call out the NRA, which is rather moderate and demonize it because they could live with it being around. Hearing a liberal bitch about it and gun owners flock to give money to an organization that supported the Veteran's Disarmament Act win-win for the tyrants.


That said I withdrew my membership after VDA and donated my American Rifleman's (still a decent mag) to the local doctor's office.

I'm JPFO now.
School me on VDA?



Because the gov't fears veterans with guns even more than Fudds with guns, the VDA was a backdoor way to disarm our best and bravest (those who served in combat mostly).

It's truly dispicable, it prevents those who seek any mental help or counseling from buying a firearm.

So if you serve through some real tough stuff and just want to get it off your chest, well you have no rights.

It's another 'win-win' for the anti-gunners. Vets either get the help they need and can't enjoy their rights, or they go without counseling and help (possibly go postal) and become the posterboy of 'why vets shouldn't have guns.' Once vets can't have guns, why should the Fudds?

There was a lot of opposition, a doctor I knew who had a lifetime membership rescinded it.


A LOT of other people did not renew. (myself included)

short write up


So how much of the above just turned out to be speculation? Has there actually been a case where someone was denied a gun just because they took anti-depressants or talked to a psychologist as a result of this bill? (bold part emphasised, as I'm sure you might be able to find a case or two of this having happened before the bill was enacted anyways)

Did you forget to mention that this bill allowed for a way to actually get off the prohibited persons list?
Link Posted: 3/28/2009 2:44:21 PM EDT
It was 5 to 4 on D.C. -vs- Heller, the NRA had been wanting to get more conservative judges appointed to the SCOTUS. We came very close to losing because there are still too many liberal activist judges.

The NRA has a longer view towards winning the war where the GOA types are reckless.
Link Posted: 3/28/2009 2:46:20 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/28/2009 2:47:07 PM EDT
Where is this 1-year free membership you speak of? Their site still charges.
Link Posted: 3/28/2009 2:50:28 PM EDT

Originally Posted By BlackOp:
Where is this 1-year free membership you speak of? Their site still charges.

http://www.nrahq.org/nrabonus/
Link Posted: 3/28/2009 2:54:08 PM EDT
NRA
Link Posted: 3/28/2009 2:56:37 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Coltman77:
Originally Posted By Johnny_Reno:


When the NRA calls a Congressman, he picks up the phone.

I'm not sure GOA can say that.


That's very well said my friend.



GOA nips at the heels of the NRA, and manages to come across at too 'extremist' far attract any real attention and influence.
Link Posted: 3/28/2009 3:04:31 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ArmyInfantryVet:
GOA won't budge and inch on the 2nd amendment, NO COMPROMISE. They are extremely vigilant of any bill that comes out that may affect gun ownership and sound out alerts like crazy. They aren't taken very seriously

The NRA is the group that all the members of Congress FEAR.


GOA= no accomplishment except for tough talk and lies about veterans' disarmament. If that gives anyone a woody––go for it..

ps I guess the American Legion is also anti-vet since they worked with the NRA on the bill that the liars call "veteran disarmament!"
Link Posted: 3/28/2009 3:13:00 PM EDT
Originally Posted By BlackOp:
Show me where it states on the NRAs website they believe that civilians should have access to weapons for the purpose of defending themselves from an overbearing government, and we'll talk.


Go join a militia if you want to plan your attempts to over throw the US government. The NRA routinely comments how governments fear armed people but they work in the political process because that is how laws are made in this country.
Link Posted: 3/28/2009 3:15:32 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ArmyInfantryVet:
Originally Posted By nationwide:
Originally Posted By ArmyInfantryVet:

The NRA is the group that all the members of Congress FEAR.


You really believe that?

It is ironic that the "big dog" gun rights group has supported most gun control that has been enacted, and the confirmed Marxist President is responsible for more gun purchases then the combined marketing of the firearms industry for the last 50 years.



I remember during the 2000 Presidential election, they had some thing on it on tv, about how the Democrats were afraid of the NRA and they get told by other members of Congress that voting against the NRA will make the NRA make them live through hell while in office.


People have explained this to Nationwide repeatedly, and he chooses to ignore it.

Every time an anti-gun bill is a shoe-in for passing, the NRA always gets on board to mitigate the damage as much as possible. The 10 year sunset of the AWB provision of the Crime Bill is a perfect example. If GOA types ran the show, they would have ranted all they wanted, but we would still have a ban today. With no prog-gun group helping right the law, no such provisions would have been able to be negotiated.

NRA detractors use this to somehow insinuate the NRA supported the whole bill.
Link Posted: 3/28/2009 3:15:53 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/28/2009 3:17:06 PM EDT by SWIRE]
Originally Posted By nationwide:
That's for the Heller case right?

The Heller case they tried to keep from being heard, right?


They opposed the Heller case because they had their own case waiting to be heard. The NRA's case had 4 different ways to win and if they didn't win we wouldn't have lost all protection provided under the Second Amendment the way the Heller case would have. They had more ways to win and a much safer case. The NRA does things in a prudent manner, they don't just go in guns blazing, all or nothing, like Heller. Heller worked out but it was a big gamble.

Can you imagine how bat shit crazy people like yourself would be going if the NRA took that big of a gamble and it didn't work out. You would be making all sorts of claims that the NRA sold us out on purpose blah blah blah.
Link Posted: 3/28/2009 3:17:17 PM EDT
Whichever one Congress actually listens to, and whichever one has the better record of getting shit done.
Link Posted: 3/28/2009 3:20:57 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/28/2009 3:22:54 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Garand_Shooter:
The GOA showed its worthless colors when they invented the name "Veterans Disarmament Act" and then went around screaming chicken little nonsense- totally not backed up by the facts, the law, or the proposed law- that anyone who siught treatment fro PTSD at the VA would have their right to bear arms removed. Then other idiots read it, did not bother to actually learn the real truth, and repeated it.

It was a total falsehood and misrepresentation of the proposed bill, but they convinced a lot of people with their idiocy.

And, the only thing they accomplished was to convince a whole lot of vets who have a legitimate need to talk to someone about PTSD to avoid treatment.

So, your could say very legitimately that the GOA has accomplished nothing for gun rights, and actually HARMED a lot of vets by spewing their bullshit, convincing some with it, and as a result they are going without the help they need.


In other news, Larry Pratt received more membership and his bottom line thanks them all.
Link Posted: 3/28/2009 3:23:00 PM EDT
NRA.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top