Posted on 06/21/2006 12:39:00 PM PDT by neverdem
I'm not blaming the GOA for anything. I'm just asking exactly what they have been doing. If you or anyone can't answer that, don't give me all that BS about the group being a "no compromise" organization or better than the NRA, SAF, JPFO or the Citizen's Committe.
How come the GOA hasn't rectified those mistakes if it was possible?
At least the SAF has done some good works in partnering up with the NRA concerning the Katrina victims. The GOA should learn to work together. Or we'll fail separately.
When did GOA become a group & did they come along to compete with the NRA? What is your opinion of them? I've read some posts of people complaining about the NRA, I don't see anything wrong with them as a group personally. I wouldn't label them as slow, confused, etc.
I joined the NRA last fall, and plan on becoming a life-member when I finish school & get a job.
I don't know when they came into existance. I met Larry Pratt about 1993 so they may have been around about that time. He seemed like a decent sort.
I think the problem started when they started that "no compromise" nonsense. If they were a "no compromise" group, the slows must have thought that someone did compromise. As long as GOA members continue to do Sarah Brady's work in driving people from the NRA, they won't see a penny of my support. The final straw for that was ridiculous websites complaining about what happened over thirty years ago.
The "problem" of the NRA is they have a long history started as a rifle organization. Not as a Washington lobbying group. They went through three changes that I know of to become what they are today. The biggest change was creating the NRA-Institute for Legislative Action. I think that was Wayne LaPierre's achievement. When I vote for the Board of Director's there are still candidate's who want your vote because they were a shooting champion or are listed in the Boone and Crockett listing for hunting. They don't get my vote. Only people who started grassroots pro-gun organizations do.
If half the gunowners which is about 40 million people joined a gun group like the NRA or the Second Amendment Foundation, we wouldn't have gun control. You could buy your machine gun at the local hardware store.
I have received email alerts from the GOA for years. They do a good job of tracking local bills and state gun control issues as well as national, although the NRA does also.
I do remember back when I first heard of GOA I got the impression it was a splinter group that was not happy with the NRA.
Shooter 2.5 you are right. You cannot elect NRA board members because of an affiliation with hunting. To be honest with you, I am as pro hunting as it gets, do hunt some, and have made a living for many years thanks to hunters, but hunters can be (ARE) their own worst enemies.
They are so busy fighting each other over which weapon (compound or crossbows) is traditional enough to be legal, or the grouse hunters fighting with the bear hunters over baiting and using hounds, etc.
Most hunting is done on public lands and you can't get a handful of the hunting community to show up at Forest Service meetings to counteract the environmentalists trying to shut the hunters out or stop all logging (and destroy the many species of wildlife dependent on successional growth).
The NRA is on the right path -- focus on the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms, to protect you and yours.
Guns don't commit crimes and kill people -- but mean people can do that with a rock.
'Nuff said. Gun rights activists don't need to be bickering over what guns should be allowed, by whom.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.