Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'In the News' started by Bkite, Dec 27, 2016.
an in related news, Gun Owners of America finally got North Georgia much-needed rain in mid-December, and brought those wildfires under control in Tennessee and North Carolina.
Are their claims false? Did these things not happen? Do you just harbor so much animosity against GOA that these things can't be seen as positive?
These are true successes.
GOA was not responsible.
The only thing they are good at is taking credit for the success of others.
And collecting lots of money for doing it, of course.
For once, I have to agree with Harry Reid: â€œGun Owners of America is even worse than bad.â€
I must admit that I was unfamiliar with GOA only having heard of it but not really looking into it prior to this thread. I find it interesting, and always a cause for concern, when the same names are listed in the governance of an organization over its 35 year history. While they might do some good things, the fact that its the same circle of friends that are in charge and have been since its inception makes me wary. That is, frankly, one of my concerns with the NRA - but its at least somewhat more open to new blood (somewhat).
Did they support the things they claimed and oppose the things they said? I don't keep up with them as some may do?
Who should get credit for helping get these things done?
Can you substantiate that GOA was not responsible, directly or indirectly, for what they claim? In actuality, when 2nd Amendment successes are won, there's usually more than one gun organization involved. It's usually a combination of several local and national groups. There's nothing wrong or misleading in blowing your own horn when you've been involved in pushing your mission.
I've been a GOA member for almost as long as I've been an NRA member. Both groups, and others, have overlapping goals but sometimes you'll find one going it alone where the other doesn't want to get involved, for whatever reason.
If you want to complain about a group taking the credit of others and raking in big bucks doing it, complain about Dudley Brown and his National Association For Gun Rights. Look up the definition of "shyster" and you'll find his name in it.
Wayne LaPierre has been the EVP of the NRA for over 25 years.
Taking comments out of context is right out of the progressive left's playbook.
I can live with that type of "bad" any day.
You know what? I totally stand corrected! I was thinking of GGO, a NAGR sub group when I posted that. My bad! I agree, GOA does good work.
Do you financially support any gun organizations other than (I assume) Georgia Carry?
Yes, I know - that is part of my concern with NRA. But they have a board that is regularly elected and there have been some upsets. On the other hand, the list on the other site has most of the listed officials as being there forever.
We can go down the list and check it out.
#1. Exposing Clinton's true gun ban agenda? While most already knew about it they did spread it out on You Tube. Which is all they are claiming.
#1.1 -Helping to elect many pro-gun Representatives and Senator? If they consider making contributions and paying for TV ads sure...
#2. Killing the Anti-Gun â€œSentencing Bil? Sure they were in the fight and they published the announcement that the bill was dead.
#3. GOA Influenced Supreme Court? Well at least they influenced Justice Thomas. He was known for never asking questions but took questions directly from the GOA brief. I think they may actually get this feather.
#4. GOA credited as â€œTHE organizationâ€ which led fight that killed â€œno fly, no buyâ€? As far as leading the fight? I wouldn't go that far but Harry Reid did they the GOA was worse than bad.
#5. Successes in backing â€œConstitutional Carryâ€? Well they did "back it". How much is a big ?
#6. Led Push for â€œConstitutional Carryâ€ at federal level? Lead the push? Or just joined the push? Either way it still to this point has failed. However they can get credit for believing that it could happen under Trump.
#7. GOAâ€™s Erich Pratt named â€œGun Hero"? Yes he was. But just for the day after a debate with a CNN anchor. That didn't take much.
#8. GOA grassroots encouraged state legislators to override vetoâ€™s of permitless carry? They and every other grassroots activist.
#9. GOA succeeded in defeating pro-gun control SCOTUS nominee Merrick Garland? I think the GOP had more to do with this than the GOA.
#10. GOA rallied Maine voters to oppose Bloomberg-backed gun control on the November ballot? Maybe their members but there were a lot more voters involved than just the GOA. The NRA had a big hand in it as well as some other smaller groups.
What it sums up as is yes the GOA was involved in these things but they were not the only ones. With the 2 exceptions #3 and #7 they are taking more credit for themselves and not any giving credit to others who were also in the fight before, during and after it was over.
I've been a GOA member before.
I vaguely recall being unsatisfied with their lobbying efforts and public awareness campaigns, in relation to what the dues were.
Well, after reading all the posts i guess I have to say I am glad they put forth the effort to fight for gun rights regardless of your personal feelings toward them. Are they competition for you in some endeavor or something?
Ok, I take back my criticism of GOA.
It seems they spent $600,000 in total lobbying last year,
And this included about $50K donated to a dozen GOP politicians.
(Some candidates only got $20, but others got $3000 or $4500).
So they DO properly spend a bunch of the money the collect.
I don't know the percentage, nor how GOA compares to the NRA, SAF, NAGR, or anybody else.
Not sure where you got $600k, the figures on the pages you like to total $59,107.
Some other website (I can't find it now) shows $600k for all lobbying, not just donations to candidates or incumbents' war chests.
Multiple news sites say GOA has 300,000 members and an annual budget of about $2 million, so they BETTER spend more than $50 or 60 thousand each year.
Some other site had a chart showing they spend 1/3 of what they take in on themselves, and 2/3 goes to all forms of lobbying, campaigning, public TV and radio ads, etc.