Twin Cities Carry Forum Archive
http://forum.twincitiescarry.com/

Gun Owners of America
http://forum.twincitiescarry.com/viewtopic.php?f=36&t=11670		 Page 2 of 3
Author:  JimC [ Tue Feb 10, 2009 9:39 pm ]
Post subject: 
No matter how you feel about them ,the NRA is the only reason we still have a right to own guns.
Without them guns would of been banned decades ago.

Are they perfect? No, Can they improve? Of course.

But until something better comes along we should all be supporting them, especially in this day & age. It takes a lot of time and money to deal with todays politicans. Without it they'd go under.

There's a lot of behind the scenes negoatiating going on when gun bills are looked at, acted on. We don't see the whole picture, we only see the end results. And at times wonder why they did this or that.

They do have to give things up at times, make unpopular decisions etc,

But I know our rights as gun owners has always been their main concern.
Look at the benefits they give gun owners, support, training, shooting, hunting rights etc etc

As I said, Without them we'd all up a creek. without a paddle, boat, life jacket, etc
Author:  jaysong [ Tue Feb 10, 2009 10:00 pm ]
Post subject: 
I for one will not


BAAAAAAAAAA!
Author:  JimC [ Wed Feb 11, 2009 8:03 pm ]
Post subject: 
Your reply is exactly what the Brady Campaign wants to hear & read about.

'GUN OWNERS REJECTING THE NRA!! NRA IS WEAKENING!! PUBLIC SAYING YES TO SENSIBLE GUN LAWS. Story at 11


jaysong wrote:
I for one will not


BAAAAAAAAAA!
Author:  jaysong [ Wed Feb 11, 2009 11:53 pm ]
Post subject: 
JimC wrote:
Your reply is exactly what the Brady Campaign wants to hear & read about.

'GUN OWNERS REJECTING THE NRA!! NRA IS WEAKENING!! PUBLIC SAYING YES TO SENSIBLE GUN LAWS. Story at 11


jaysong wrote:
I for one will not


BAAAAAAAAAA!


I am a NRA member and a NRA instructor. I am in no way rejecting the NRA. If any one blindly follows or blindly agrees with any organization they are being foolish IMO.
Author:  sigman [ Thu Feb 12, 2009 6:03 am ]
Post subject: 
The NRA is in no way perfect. However, the NRA still has more clout than the other organizations.
Author:  elmerfuddem [ Thu Feb 12, 2009 8:20 am ]
Post subject: 
Pat Cannon wrote:
I figure as long as legislators are afraid of the NRA, then they're worthwhile. They tend toward Fudd-minded compromises more than I like, so I approve of the GOA (and the JPFO and others) bitching about it and competing for membership.

So I belong to both.


Hey I resemble that remark.
Author:  plblark [ Thu Feb 12, 2009 8:40 am ]
Post subject: 
elmerfuddem wrote:
Pat Cannon wrote:
I figure as long as legislators are afraid of the NRA, then they're worthwhile. They tend toward Fudd-minded compromises more than I like, so I approve of the GOA (and the JPFO and others) bitching about it and competing for membership.

So I belong to both.


Hey I resemble that remark.


You can't win em all ;-) but it's not too late to come to your senses
Author:  boomingmetropolis [ Thu Feb 12, 2009 2:28 pm ]
Post subject: 
The NRA is still the 800 lb gorilla but they do seem to get to the dance a little late on a lot of issues. Life member, my club requires membership, in any case.

I really like JPFO and am happy to have spent the $ for a Life there, also.

GOA gets a check, tho not a member. Same for Firearms Coalition, 2nd Amendment Foundation.

Of course, I'll be sending in very large contributions to all of the above, just as soon as my Obama Bailout money shows up. :lol:
Author:  Sietch [ Fri Feb 13, 2009 6:55 pm ]
Post subject:  compromise
bensdad wrote:
Being interested in the protection of our 2A rights, and seeing how the NRA has acted in the last couple of years, I can see a tremendous parallel to the way my mom felt about the ACS. Staying out of Heller for so long, saying nothing about Holder, keeping Jackson on after his blasphemy... The NRA needs a fight. If the majority of firearms laws in the U.S. died tomorrow, the NRA-ILA would die with them. Think about it.

GOA doesn't not compromise. That’s well and good. Of course the capacity to compromise is politically valuable. That’s appropriate for a political vehicle, such as the NRA. And the NRA is a diversifying lobby; it’s experimenting in its approach to battles and perhaps testing its mission statement a bit to that end; compromise suits it just fine. Furthermore: yes, it really is the central focus in the lives of the leadership and, yes, integral to some livelihoods. I’m not prepared to take an all-or-nothing position come contribution time.
boomingmetropolis has it right. The NRA is still the biggest show in town and, recent shortcomings aside, it’s worth our dollars to keep it empowered.

That said, a streamlined head-on lobby is inspiring, and the straightforward no-bullshit-here/just-the-facts manner of GOA gets peoples’ attention. It’s the perfect concomitant to the NRA juggernaut; it keeps things in perspective.
Author:  Andrew Rothman [ Sat Feb 14, 2009 12:17 am ]
Post subject: 
To compromise is to give something to get something -- to meet halfway.

What the NRA does is give in slowly.
Author:  jaysong [ Sat Feb 14, 2009 7:42 am ]
Post subject: 
Andrew Rothman wrote:
To compromise is to give something to get something -- to meet halfway.

What the NRA does is give in slowly.


I believe the NRA has compromised (by your definition). They have given up ground on the 2nd amd to gain political clout and amass more power for the NRA. Some folks are not willing to see it for what it is IMO. To quote a friend of mine. "Denial kills you physical, mentally, and financially. It has no survival value. Chew it up, spit it out, get rid of it. Moment of truth today - no more denial. Rid yourself of every ounce." -Lt. Col Dave Grossman
Author:  Sietch [ Sat Feb 14, 2009 2:29 pm ]
Post subject: 
That's correct, and I'm with GOA all the way.
It wasn't lost on me, the way Chuck Baldwin made a point not to exclude his affiliation with GOA in the shadow of the NRA, during the campaign, getting pretty cozy with it in his videos.

I don't throw in my lot with the NRA, but I'm not ready to write them off just yet.

One thing I'm sure we'd agree on: it's easier to cursorily examine a GOA brief than an NRA alert. Increasingly, I open NRA updates with a distinct wariness, often to find something suspect that I have to scrutinize closely. Anyone else notice that?

I find that I can read GOA items with confidence.
This is what's happening. We're pissed about it, and this is what we're doing to stop it. Period.

It's true, some times NRA letters read like government press releases.
Author:  chuckw [ Fri Feb 20, 2009 1:51 am ]
Post subject: 
I too wish the GOA would spend less time bashing the NRA.

And while I agree with the GOA's stand on virtually every 2nd amendment issue, I don't think the GOA has the political clout to get a souvenir pencil from Capitol Hill.

I think that the NRA ignoring the Holder nomination was prudent. I think they did the political math, and decided they couldn't stop Holder. After that analysis, they were faced with the question of "do we fight the nomination tooth and nail, and send him into his position trying to think of a way to pay us back, or do we let it slide?"

Further, the election already has anti-gunners crowing about the NRA's waning political clout. In that climate, you want to save your efforts for ones you've at least got a chance of winning.

I understand those who don't feel the NRA takes a strong enough stand. But they're seen as the voice of gun owners in America. Not being a member of the NRA just makes us seem smaller.
Author:  Sietch [ Sat Feb 21, 2009 7:20 pm ]
Post subject: 
Listen, Chuckw.

I see where you're coming from, but that's a misguided assessment of the NRA's silence surrounding Holder's confirmation.

They are not hedging their bet with this guy.

Believe me. The NRA board spends more time discussing UFOs than favors they can expect from the Attorney General.

This guy is so dead set against firearms ownership, and now in such a powerful position to manifest his agenda, that there's just no excuse for the NRA's silence.

Take a look at Eric Holder, then look up Attorney General of the United States on Wikipedia. There's no justifiable reason for any gun lobby to have sat this one out.
Author:  chuckw [ Sat Feb 21, 2009 7:31 pm ]
Post subject: 
I know he's anti-gun, but I don't think they were hedging their bet.

I think they saw it as lost, and folded rather than risking another example of "why the NRA doesn't matter anymore".

Do you have any evidence that they would have been able to defeat Holder's confirmation?

And do you also feel that there's no risk that putting Holder through a confirmation fight (and losing) wouldn't cause Holder to move his anti-gun goals to the top of his list of priorities?

"He who knows when he can fight and when he cannot, will be victorious." - Sun Tzu
Page 2 of 3 All times are UTC - 6 hours
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/