In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Options
GOA or NRA
Lucky_Lefty
Member Posts: 7,971
I really cant tell a difference between the two. I have been doing my homework and I think I will be joining the GOA. I hope I am making the right decision.
Comments
IMO, the NRA is an excellent organization for the promotion of the shooting sports. Apparently, the NRA does not believe that the 2nd is for anything other than the shooting sports and self-defense, and is thus (again in my opinion) not qualified to claim to be the standard bearer for the 2nd.
Brad Steele
The legitimate question remains, particularly when discussion the NRA and GOA. Does the replacement of one unconstitutional law with another promote our RTKBA? Or does it, as many believe, simply reinforce and further entrench the notion that Government has the power to restrict and regulate?
For example, I think Roe vs. Wade is unconstitutional because it violates the spirit and intent of the 10th Amendment. I also think that the GOP's heralded partial birth abortion ban is incredibly short-sighted because it reinforces and further entrenches the legitimacy of Roe vs. Wade.
Likewise the Heller decision, which though it affirmed the obvious, went on to legitimize and thus further entrench a government's ability to license, register and regulate. In short, it made a statement, but then spent the rest of the summary describing how that statement can be dismissed.
Therefore, when I hear that the NRA is promoting 'Castle Doctrine Laws' (again obvious) and CCW laws, I am left with the feeling that all we are doing is encouraging government to write permission slips for more and more of what I do in the day to day. For the NRA to support any CCW Laws (see Vermont link below), they are going fully against the intent of the 2nd Amendment.
http://www.gunowners.org/vtcarry.htm
It is hard for me to agree that the current approach by the NRA is 'even slightly' in line with the 2nd. They do pursue laws that have probably resulted in more firearms in the hands of more people. This is good for gun owners and for gun manufacturers. It is not necessarily good for the integrity of the 2nd Amendment.
Brad Steele
I am a Life Member of Both the GOA and the NRA, albeit I would not join the NRA in any capacity, had I known then what is crystal clear now.
The GOA is a no-compromise organization that understands and holds fast to the original intent of Amendment II.
I will not rehash all the myriad of NRA facts to shine light on their insidious past and contemporary actions. That is available through a search of these forums and hours of reading (there is alot of factual negative info on the NRA[:o)]).
If you have read my posts about what happened here in AK you can follow my reasoning. I agree there should not be a 'requirement' to have a permit to CCW. But by 'allowing' those permitted to ccw we showed it was a 'good' thing not the 'bad' thing the anti-gunners were trying to get everyone to believe. When the chips fell many people, some with a lot of influence CHANGED THEIR MINDS and supported the RIGHT and now we do not require any permission to exercise this right in AK. In other words this 'nasty' process had a positive educational effect. This is the reality of it. The 'absolute' approach can't be achieved in the real world. So we have to keeping working at get it as close to the 'absolute' as 'reality' will allow. Thus we need to support ANY organization who is on the 'right' side of the issue regardless of 'degree'![;)]
I do understand the reasoning all too well. Not terribly long ago I railed against Highball as a zealot and suggested to him that he can continue his puritan pursuits while calmer heads will go forward and the get the job done. In the intervening two or three years, it has become apparent to me that 'calmer heads' to which I referred (including myself) advocated compromise of the over-riding principle in order to achieve a short term gain. In effect, the give a little to get a little approach is too often give a lot to get a little, and the little you get is simply government sanctioning of that which they have no Constitutional authority to sanction.
Reality has been achieved in two places as diverse as Alaska and Vermont, proving to me that both liberal and conservative leaning people can understand the underlying principle of freedom. The challenge is those in the middle, the average Democrat and Republican who look at the issue on the surface and fail to grasp the greater good that has been achieved in Alaska as you point out. These people think that the NRA's 'Right to Carry Holder' mantra actually makes sense and is the end goal. Perpetuating this myth, which is a priority of the NRA, is damaging to the actual end goal which is the reality that now exists in Alaska and Vermont.
Therefore, I am forced to repeat my concern as to whether the NRA is actually on the right side of this particular issue.
Brad Steele
I do not advocate giving an inch. If it is illegal to carry a weapon and a CCW laws passes requiring a permit we did not give one bit. We gained, because this law (much as I disagree with the requirement of a permit) is a step closer to the 'absolute' right. No legal carry to , permitted carry, to no permit required to carry.
WE MUST NOT WILLING GIVE ONE BIT!!!![:(!]
The 'absolute' will never happen, but we can get as close as realistically/humanly possible. But not by taking a 'my way (absolute) or the highway' stance.[xx(]
I would be willing to agree, but only if the expressed end goal in each and every case was the total elimination of CCW laws. The absolute does exist in practice, so by definition it can happen. Thus, stating 'The absolute will never happen' is willing giving more than one bit even before you start.
Now I understand that you are referring to existing starting points, and not giving from there, but if you truly believe that the absolute will never happen, you have pulled all your aces out of your hand before you even sit at the table.
Brad Steele
Jim has expressed a number of times his support for various government restrictions on certain firearms.
Thus, his "absolute" is far different from that which some of us wish to achieve.
It is what it is, or as Jim has suggested "if it looks like a duck"......
I do not 'support' restrictions as a hole. But as a realist I know there will be some, like it or not. The question is, "What restrictions can we live with?" If you say NONE then you are denying reality. There WILL be some restrictions, but we MUST fight to keep them to a minimum![V]
Don,
We MUST use here and now as our starting point, this is the reality of the situation. We must fight tooth and nail to keep them from taking anything else form us and keep fighting to get more of our rights back. We are way in the hole now!!!![V]
Don,
I do not advocate giving an inch. If it is illegal to carry a weapon and a CCW laws passes requiring a permit we did not give one bit. We gained, because this law (much as I disagree with the requirement of a permit) is a step closer to the 'absolute' right. No legal carry to , permitted carry, to no permit required to carry.
WE MUST NOT WILLING GIVE ONE BIT!!!![:(!]
The 'absolute' will never happen, but we can get as close as realistically/humanly possible. But not by taking a 'my way (absolute) or the highway' stance.[xx(]
If the zealots here cannot have perfection in their gun owning world, then they prefer destruction of that world. Simple as that.
If the zealots here cannot have perfection in their gun owning world, then they prefer destruction of that world. Simple as that.
Tr,
Once again, you have proven via your statement, that your ignorance knows no boundaries. Those 'zealots' here, of which I am one, simply demand 100% adherance to the Constitution.
Others, however, choose to support watered-down government privileges, as opposed to rights. Those folks, and the organizations which they support, represent the greatest threat to the Constitution and our individual liberty.
You yapping jackanapes really think you can change the way I do business when I have resounding responses like this ?
I observed Don go silent, awhile back...after the initial flurry of blows were struck. He defended his position as long as he could;
Then HONESTY compelled him to come back and discuss the matter quietly, calmly...and rationally.
You will find that the solidest Citizens on these boards are Canary *....and Don is an articulate, thoughful man......
What you observe today is a man that re-though the position he had held for a long, long time...a position force-fed by the NRA and the government.
A position deadly dangerous to the Republic, and our personal freedoms and Rights.
Most of the gun owning public holds this position .and they do so because nobody ever pointed out the gapping holes in it.
I will take the few Canary * over TEN THOUSAND weak-kneed sycophants of the Beast.
I trust them.
-WoundedWolf
Slumlord, I would like to know more about this. Who will be excluded from these activities and on what basis? And who will decide who is "able" to do these things and who is not?
I hate to be the one to burst your bubble, but your 'demands' will NEVER BE MET!!!![:(]
quote:Not terribly long ago I railed against Highball as a zealot and suggested to him that he can continue his puritan pursuits while calmer heads will go forward and
You yapping jackanapes really think you can change the way I do business when I have resounding responses like this ?
I observed Don go silent, awhile back...after the initial flurry of blows were struck. He defended his position as long as he could;
Then HONESTY compelled him to come back and discuss the matter quietly, calmly...and rationally.
For clarity, my position was that I saw no problem in those convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence being forever banned from firearm ownership. This position was based upon the very real destruction of spirit I have seen through my wife and my volunteering at a women's shelter. Suffice it to say that my heart was crushed every time I was exposed to it, and there was nothing (legally) that I could do.
What opened my eyes was the realization that these gun laws prey upon that very emotion, and that emotion is used by those in the Brady camp and similar groups to circumvent the Constitution by the passing of emotion satisfying, and thus vote getting, restrictive laws that effect all of us.
Bottom line is that my emotions do not trump the law of the land. The truth of the matter is that the actual calmer heads are those that stand by the Constitution and stand by the rights of free men. It is the very essence of being a nation of law and not a nation of laws.
Brad Steele
Don,
You are correct. Emotion/prejudice can only be defeated by PROPER education![;)]
I have since moved though not only misdemeanor but also felony conviction and now support a full restoration of rights upon completion of incarceration, proscribed probation and some basic benchmarks. The thinking is that if society is not safe from this person with a firearm, it is not safe from this person period, and that person should be permanently removed from society. This is effectively the realization that we are accepting gun laws to solve a criminal justice problem when these laws have a far greater impact on anyone who would protect himself than they do on anyone who is a threat.
Not to go all conspiracy theory on you, but it should be obvious to all thinking people that the bans and restrictions we see in many cities and the states of California, New York, etc. put the law abiding population at greater risk than they would be absent those bans and restriction. We are thus faced with two and only two possible reasons:
1. Those that implement the laws are guided by pure emotion.
OR
2. Government entities and all LEO's that support these bans and restrictions are purposely disarming the citizenry for selfish motives of their own, as statistics show it does not improve the safety of the citizens.
If option No. 1 is the case, giving the emotional response any credence by not totally rejecting any and all bans and restrictions backing down on some level, as people must be forced to think rather than feel before we can even hope to reason with them.
If option No. 2 is the case, the answer is obvious.
Brad Steele
Unless there has been a great change in the attitudes of LEO's since I retired (and I don't think there has) 85 to 90% do not support gun 'bans'. But I think it's not cut and dry. It is a combination of both. The origin of guns bans go way back and the purpose of the bans was to keep corrupt political machines in power!
Jim:
I have since moved though not only misdemeanor but also felony conviction and now support a full restoration of rights upon completion of incarceration, proscribed probation and some basic benchmarks. The thinking is that if society is not safe from this person with a firearm, it is not safe from this person period, and that person should be permanently removed from society. This is effectively the realization that we are accepting gun laws to solve a criminal justice problem when these laws have a far greater impact on anyone who would protect himself than they do on anyone who is a threat.
Not to go all conspiracy theory on you, but it should be obvious to all thinking people that the bans and restrictions we see in many cities and the states of California, New York, etc. put the law abiding population at greater risk than they would be absent those bans and restriction. We are thus faced with two and only two possible reasons:
1. Those that implement the laws are guided by pure emotion.
OR
2. Government entities and all LEO's that support these bans and restrictions are purposely disarming the citizenry for selfish motives of their own, as statistics show it does not improve the safety of the citizens.
If option No. 1 is the case, giving the emotional response any credence by not totally rejecting any and all bans and restrictions backing down on some level, as people must be forced to think rather than feel before we can even hope to reason with them.
If option No. 2 is the case, the answer is obvious.
Don,......those are my beliefs also.
The "feelgood" laws have no impact on criminals whatsoever.
That has been debated to death.
You dislike my attitude and 'method' of dealing with anti-gunners.
Want to make me go away, from now on ?
Simply read ..carefully ..the posts from LT496 and Don...and a few others.
Erudite, eloquent ..gentlemen to the core. Able to convey their points without a single insult, if they are dealt with honorably.
Join them. Get a few more like you. Carry the fight to the enemy ..as I do.
I am old and tired ..I would love to sit on the front porch and rock.
I have a homemade porch swing over looking my pasture with the cows, horses , and a mule grazing away. I would love to set there and sip on my Corona and have the likes of Obama and his liberal AH friends leave me alone too. But that is not likely to happen. So I will have to keeping making the 5000 mile commute to pay the bills. And I will do everything with in my power to get our rights resorted, and try to limit there restriction any further.
You just keep rallying the troops, but try not to piss everyone off in the process. [;)]