GOA Responds
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
October 10th, 2007 at 8:56 am
Actually, they didn’t respond to the criticism they’ve received over their opposition to HR2640; they just took another opportunity to attack the NRA (while trying to sound “reasonable” … where have we seen that tactic before?).
They have not addressed the fact that they say that things are in this bill that aren’t actually there, nor have the addressed the fact that they ignore things that are actually in the bill.
I keep reading fellow gun owners who say that we need GOA to fill a certain role, just as we need NRA to fill its role. I say, why do we need liars on our side of the argument? Get with the truth, GOA, or get the hell out of my fight for my rights. You’re not helping.
October 10th, 2007 at 8:59 am
Well-said by GOA.
Why would the NRA join the reactionary response to the VA Tech shooting with leftists in Congress? And then they voice-voted more gun control through the House! They should have been calling for VA to allow their state carry permit holders to be allowed there and on state campuses…as we shouold do here in TN.
I used to be an NRA and a GOA member, but let my NRA membership lapse.
October 10th, 2007 at 9:34 am
Boyd,
GOA didn’t attack the NRA as a whole, and particularly not it’s membership. Below is an exerpt from that response:
“Two of us are Life Members of the NRA — one of whom was an NRA board member for over ten years. And our legislative counsel was a paid consultant for the NRA.
So we certainly have no animus against the NRA staff, much less our wonderful friends who are NRA members.
In fact, over the last thirty years, GOA and its staff have worked with NRA to facilitate most of our pro-gun victories — from McClure-Volkmer to the death of post-Columbine gun control to a gun liability bill free of anti-gun “killer amendments.”
But those who staff the NRA, without consulting the membership, have now made a series of strange and dangerous alliances with the likes of Chuck Schumer, Carolyn McCarthy, and Pat Leahy. And we believe that, if allowed to continue, this will produce anti-gun policies which the NRA staff will bitterly regret.”
All pro-gun organizations work for our rights. I like the frequent driect mail approach by GOA; providing pre-addressed post cards and e-mailings to elected officials. I’ve been a member of both, but decided to focus my efforts with GOA. And I think they take a more Constitutionalist approach too, which fits my political viewpoint best.
October 10th, 2007 at 10:06 am
hahahaha – I like the part where they try to take credit for fighting gun control laws.
They just reiterate all their talking points without addressing any of the factual inaccuracies that they’ve been slinging around
October 10th, 2007 at 11:11 am
Ahab,
I’ve been using GOA for several years to fight for our gun rights. I just mailed some of thier post cards to both my senators and rep last week.
Hope you’re doin’ the same….with the NRA or however you choose.
It’s the anti-gunners who abound with “factual inaccuracies”.
And, by the way, I haven’t seen any of the alleged “factual inaccuracies”, but if they’re true and the NRA collaboration with anti-gun leftists is no big deal…I’d be happy to know that. Maybe the NRA could compromise with anti-gunners thusly: we’ll agree with you on a thing or two if you’ll support allowing gun permit holders in “gun-free” zones to allow those who CHOOSE to defend themselves and others and stop mass-murders.
October 10th, 2007 at 11:15 am
This is pure bullshit. GOA is telling outright lies about this bill and it is high time they get called on it.
October 10th, 2007 at 12:57 pm
I’m not sure about GOA lying about HR2640. I am sure that we as gun enthusiasts need to pull together rather than cross purposes. Also I am sure that if HR2640 becomes law, in less than a year, all gun enthusiasts who were for the bill will be saying, “What were we thinking.”
October 10th, 2007 at 1:26 pm
If they had responded like that from the beginning, I wouldn’t have gone after them nearly as aggressively as I did. But I agree with Boyd that this wasn’t addressing their original distortions. I’m glad they are playing pussy cat now, but it doesn’t undo the crap they were spewing before.
Some of the points they bring up here are good ones. I wish they had stuck with them, rather than taking the low road. I might address this in more detail later.
October 10th, 2007 at 1:30 pm
“Two of us are Life Members of the NRA — one of whom was an NRA board member for over ten years. And our legislative counsel was a paid consultant for the NRA.
That doesn’t mean crap. Some of the most vile things I’ve heard about NRA comes from people who became lifers, and have since become disillusioned and angry about things.
October 10th, 2007 at 1:37 pm
No, GOA is flatout lying. They could have made an argument that NICs is a waste because criminals don’t buy guns so there’s no reason to add existing paper records to it. They could have also expressed legitimate concern that adding existing records would result in garbage-in/garbage-out. No, they decided to lie and say it was going to deny all sorts of people. It’s not some sort of philosophical difference and it’s not a misunderstanding; this is deliberate smear campaign. They even had the gall to do a fundraiser mailing trashing NRA. GOAs behavior is inexcusable.
October 10th, 2007 at 2:38 pm
Alchemyst writes, ‘I’m not sure about GOA lying about HR2640. I am sure that we as gun enthusiasts need to pull together rather than cross purposes. Also I am sure that if HR2640 becomes law, in less than a year, all gun enthusiasts who were for the bill will be saying, “What were we thinking.””
Well-said, there you have it!
It seems organizations (not only gun ones) become more important than the reasons they exist.
No compromise with anti-gunners unless they compromise to the pro-gun views!
October 10th, 2007 at 6:23 pm
Don’t talk about this anymore. You guys are wrong, but I can see your loyalty to a group is more important to you than your loyalty to your rights, yourselves, or your country. I can also see your minds are not going to be changed despite all the historical evidence of where crap such as this bill leads. So, I have changed MY mind. I hope you get it.
But don’t you dare Goddamned cry when you realize how stupid you have been. And you will realize it.
October 10th, 2007 at 6:49 pm
Yet another person unable to come up with any substantiative argument for their position.
October 10th, 2007 at 8:35 pm
If Schumer thinks it is a good thing, then it’s not. Period. I’m with the GOA on this one. I’m an NRA Life member as well.
October 10th, 2007 at 9:37 pm
While Schumer was in the NYS Assembly, he voted to abolish the Sullivan Act, making NY shall issue.
October 12th, 2007 at 2:24 pm
Sometimes you just have to let the slow child sit on the hot stove, because nothing else will convince him he is going to be burned.
As I said above, I hope you guys get 2640, that will be your hot stove. Perhaps you will be smarter the next time around, at least about hot stoves.
And that division you are talking about amongst gunowners, you left us. We stayed right where we were. So if you want to talk about unity, come back.
October 12th, 2007 at 4:46 pm
And you still haven’t said anything of substance. That’s because you can’t and I know it.
I’m not interested in unity. Unity is not synonymous with being effective and being effective is the key to victory. I want to be effective and I don’t want to associate with people who are not. If you can’t deal with the fact HR-2640 is a plus for gun owners, who cares what you think.
October 13th, 2007 at 6:49 am
HR-2640 is NOT a good thing for gun owners. First of all, where in the 2A does it say “shall not be infringed, except…” ?
Now, on to the substantive part. This is the camel’s nose. Once they have this passed then they just need to adjust what mental health information results in a loss of gun rights. I’m not sure whether or not that will require a law, or if they can just make a ruling.
Yes, they have a method of reinstating gun rights reiterated in this bill. However, I did not see any mention of funding it. In fact I believe that Schumer stated that he would see that it is not funded, pretty much like the current method to get your gun rights reinstated.
Please note that the mental health organizations are predominately anti-gun. Look at the APA, the NASW etc… Do you really think that having members of a field who tend to be anti-gun evaluating whether or not you ought to be allowed to have a gun is a good idea?
Have you ever been clinically depressed? How about anxiety disorders, panic attacks, PTSD, have you ever suffered from any of those? Do you feel that your life or the lives of your family are or might be in danger?
Basically, they do not need to invent new pathologies, although they are. All that they need to do is diagnose you using the worst possible interpretations of what you say, or just mis-diagnose you. Yes, it happens and a lot more often than you might think.
I have been in and closely associated with the medical field, including the mental health field, for 17+ years.
I don’t care if you ignore me, but please do a little research.
Personally, even if I did not oppose ANY firearm legislation I would oppose this bill.
October 13th, 2007 at 7:35 am
You are reciting more already discredited BS from GOA. HR-2640 does none of this and there is no way it can even remotely be interpreted to do any of this.
October 13th, 2007 at 4:17 pm
It’s built into the 1791 definition of “infringe,” which is a bit stronger than most of today’s gunnies seem to realize. Think “frangible,” which also derives frmo the same Latin “infringere.” Any law that does to the RKBA what a brick wall does to a “frangible” bullet is a clear “infringement.” Anything less is, at a minimum, debatable.
October 13th, 2007 at 4:17 pm
It’s built into the 1791 definition of “infringe,” which is a bit stronger than most of today’s gunnies seem to realize. Think “frangible,” which also derives from the same Latin “infringere.” Any law that does to the RKBA what a brick wall does to a “frangible” bullet is a clear “infringement.” Anything less is, at a minimum, debatable.