TexasCHLforum.com

I've heard a lot of discussion around he relating to the NRA, both support and opposition for a variety of reasons. What about Gun Owners of America? Regardless of your stance toward the NRA, how do you feel about them?

Oh boy, you just pulled the pin from a grenade. Throw it and RUN.

For me, it's pretty easy:
NRA = tried and true, established, when they fight, WATCH OUT.
GOA = Fighting at the drop of a hat, many don't take them seriously due to this.

The best way to explain the various gun rights orgs is to use an allegory from one of my favorite Science Fiction shows, Babylon 5.

The NRA is like the Vorlon Empire [non-sci-fi: think very advanced, powerful Aliens]. They are a huge, powerful empire that seems to keep to itself. If you DO happen to attract their attention, their response will be angry and overpowering.

The GOA is like the Narns [less powerful aliens] They fight at the least provication, and not always smartly.

Notice there are no gun rights orgs like the Humans? Fierce, smart, effective fighters? I've noticed that, too.

nitrogen wrote: The best way to explain the various gun rights orgs is to use an allegory from one of my favorite Science Fiction shows, Babylon 5.

Never watched it. Could you provide future examples in the context of Magnum P.I., Battlestar Galactica or Star Wars?


Seriously though, I've often wondered about the differences between these two lobbies. Good to know.

bridge wrote:

nitrogen wrote: The best way to explain the various gun rights orgs is to use an allegory from one of my favorite Science Fiction shows, Babylon 5.

Never watched it. Could you provide future examples in the context of Magnum P.I., Battlestar Galactica or Star Wars?


Seriously though, I've often wondered about the differences between these two lobbies. Good to know.

Imagine the republic were a good organization, that would be the NRA, and the rebels would be the GOA....

The republic is huge, collected, and persuasive (the pros) it also takes many compromises to keep people happy and it doesn't always sign onto the most important fights like Heller (the cons)

The rebels are smaller, less organized and not as well known (the cons) but they sign on to every fight, don't take no for an answer, and often help accomplish some cool things (the pros)

Either way your money goes to good things, whether making GOA a larger organization or bolstering the NRA's strength. IMHO if the GOA were as big as the NRA things could be better off for gun owners, but I don't think the GOA could get that big, simply because it rarely accepts compromise. Which has it's ups and downs.

Or you could donate to the TSRA and get probably the best bang for your buck because it affects Texans directly, but I think at this point in time the national organizations are going to make more of an impact than state organizations, now 6 or 7 years ago the opposite would be true.

Pinkycatcher wrote: Imagine the republic were a good organization, that would be the NRA, and the rebels would be the GOA....

The republic is huge, collected, and persuasive (the pros) it also takes many compromises to keep people happy and it doesn't always sign onto the most important fights like Heller (the cons)

Read my post in this thread. It covers just some of things the NRA did in connection with Heller.

Pinkycatcher wrote:The rebels are smaller, less organized and not as well known (the cons) but they sign on to every fight, don't take no for an answer, and often help accomplish some cool things (the pros)

Please give an example of a pro-gun bill that GOA has gotten passed and an example of an anti-gun bill they blocked. Show us where the Brady Campaign, or any other anti-gun organization or spokesman, has blasted GOA for blocking "sensible gun laws." GOA is never mentioned by anti-gun organizations for one simple reason, they are politically ineffective and insignificant.

Pinkycather wrote:IMHO if the GOA were as big as the NRA things could be better off for gun owners, but I don't think the GOA could get that big, simply because it rarely accepts compromise. Which has it's ups and downs.

NRA "compromises" are the subject of many GOA fundraising efforts and its general NRA bashing. It appeals to people who want to see faster progress on Second Amendment issues. It's also garbage. One only compromises when one gives up something they could have achieved; it's no compromise when the issue would have been lost anyway, but you gain something in return. A good example of this is the Texas "safe-storage law" that makes it unlawful to allow a "child" access to a "readily dischargeable firearm." (TPC §46.13) There was absolutely no way to prevent this bill from passing, so we got it amended. I won't go into the details, but we "improved" it to the point that the rule is pretty much subsumed by the exceptions, as well as the statutory definition of a "readily dischargeable firearm." GOA would argue that we compromised because we didn't simply say "don't pass it," then stand by and watch it happen anyway. But gun owners received a huge benefit by the amendments we were able to put into the final statute; benefits that would have been denied them, if the GOA approach had been taken. NRA doesn't "compromise" on anything we can win.

As for GOA never compromising, that's an easy claim for GOA to make since it never does anything and is thus not in a position to have to "compromise." GOA's contention that it never compromises and it wouldn't do what the NRA did in a given situation is tantamount to standing on the deck of the Titanic and loudly proclaiming "I don't accept this!" It sounds quite gallant, right up to the point you drown.

Chas.

Chas I was in no way bashing the NRA, I'm a lifetime member and not a member of GOA, I figured I presented a fairly unbiased point of view. The GOA doesn't hardly get anything done, but they stand by their principles all the time and everyone knows them, which has it's pros and cons. The NRA compromises which is probably more effective, but individuals never know which way the NRA is going to swing, are they going to support this idea or not because it's feasible.

The NRA gets stuff done, the GOA doesn't but it is much more consistent. The NRA didn't really sign onto Heller until the SCOTUS case, I could arguably say the CATO institute was more instrumental than the NRA in that case, it turned out to be a pretty good case even though the NRA didn't think it would (for good reasons) but that still doesn't dismiss the fact that they didn't support it as fully as they could.

I personally think that the GOA rankings of legislators are better for ideological reasons, but that's just me.

As far as I have seen, the GOA spends more effort bashing the NRA than doing anything else.

Pinkycatcher wrote:Chas I was in no way bashing the NRA, I'm a lifetime member and not a member of GOA, I figured I presented a fairly unbiased point of view. The GOA doesn't hardly get anything done, but they stand by their principles all the time and everyone knows them, which has it's pros and cons. The NRA compromises which is probably more effective, but individuals never know which way the NRA is going to swing, are they going to support this idea or not because it's feasible.

The NRA gets stuff done, the GOA doesn't but it is much more consistent. The NRA didn't really sign onto Heller until the SCOTUS case, I could arguably say the CATO institute was more instrumental than the NRA in that case, it turned out to be a pretty good case even though the NRA didn't think it would (for good reasons) but that still doesn't dismiss the fact that they didn't support it as fully as they could.

I personally think that the GOA rankings of legislators are better for ideological reasons, but that's just me.

I know you weren't and I apologize if my post appeared that way. Larry Pratt and GOA have spread their garbage around so long that many gun owner have come to accept it as true.

Chas.

I've never signed onto the GOA bandwagon - not because I think they are wrong on the RKBA, but because I think that their passion is misguided and apt to lead them into either inaction, or defeat. The NRA are political realists with a long term vision. The GOA have a short term vision which ignores inconvenient political realities such as a large percentage of the electorate which completely disavows the RKBA as an individual right, and another large percentage which is ambivalent about the RKBA. It may be a RIGHT which is at issue, but it is POLITICS which is shaping the expression of that right, and the GOA refuses to acknowledge that fact and deal with the political realities. Consequently, they come off as a fringe element (at least in my view), and they are ineffective. Firebrands rarely are.

But that's just my 2¢. What do I know?

The Annoyed Man wrote:I've never signed onto the GOA bandwagon - not because I think they are wrong on the RKBA, but because I think that their passion is misguided and apt to lead them into either inaction, or defeat. The NRA are political realists with a long term vision. The GOA have a short term vision which ignores inconvenient political realities such as a large percentage of the electorate which completely disavows the RKBA as an individual right, and another large percentage which is ambivalent about the RKBA. It may be a RIGHT which is at issue, but it is POLITICS which is shaping the expression of that right, and the GOA refuses to acknowledge that fact and deal with the political realities. Consequently, they come off as a fringe element (at least in my view), and they are ineffective. Firebrands rarely are.

But that's just my 2¢. What do I know?

I agree, but I don't think their issues and views shouldn't eventually come true and we shouldn't fight for. I think I personally agree more with the GOA than the NRA, but I'm a member of the NRA and not GOA because the GOA is not gonna get anything done.

The way I see it is the more the better for us. Sure we need the NRA to be strong and that includes in money matters. However, we also need the GOA and like groups to push the boundaries of what the NRA champions. My complaint, one of the few, with the NRA is that I don't feel they go far enough when pushing for proactive legislation. I think if they insisted they could get more done and keep their positions. I know the problem originates with politicians who don't understand leadership means risks. However, when the bulk of 2A rights supporters expect their hard work and sacrifice on any given issue to result in a return of freedom, and are handed a half-measure patch of the problem, the NRA is viewed as weak. It seems that much of the time the NRA leadership is more interested in their positions and relationship with elected servants then constructing true reform. This is the exact reason the Republicans were thrown out of power in 2006. Do the will of the people that support you or you will be pushed aside for hope of someone that will. And like I wrote before I understand it has much to do with the career politicians who wouldn't know leadership if they had a chart to explain it.

I think we need the GOA and like groups to raise those issues and loudly so the NRA leadership will be forced to go further and stretch the boundaries of recovering our Second Amendment rights. I do not always agree with the GOAs approach just as I do not with the NRA and other groups. I look for the result and the NRA has disappointed me personally in instances where I think they could have gotten more if they had pushed harder. It is great to retain our political relationships but not at the cost of never getting another opportunity to recover our basic freedoms. With that said, that is only my outsiders view of how things have gone. The thing is that perception is reality far too much of the time.