Oh look (yawn), GOA and JPFO are attacking NRA again

Status
Not open for further replies.

MikeHaas

Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2003
Messages
291
Once again, as NRA deals with the serious business of gun control on the national level, the financial opportunists - GOA and JPFO - come out of the woodwork to nip at its heels and try to squeeze every dollar out of the well-intentioned but frustrated gun-owner. Truly dispicable.

As a focused association of 4 million members, NRA is the standard target for these tiny "send us your money instead" groups. But "attacking NRA" is an industry with these mouths - spin and inflate NRA's position (regardless of what that position is) to something truly twisted - to try to enrage enough gun-owners that they become convinced NRA is evil (pronounced ee-vil, of course). When you are as small as GOA and JPFO, it doesn't take many - 01% of NRA members is a BOON to their pocketbooks - to get yourselves some fast loot.

Their latest betrayal of the Second Amendment is to oppose NRA on opening the mental health records of those who have been adjudicated by a court to be a danger to themselves or others in the wake of the VT shooting. This common sense approach to a solution is drawing support from even the Democrats controlling Congress, who appear uneasy with further restrictions on gun-owners. (Again, due to the fine work of NRA over the last decade. More on that later.) Of course, these inflammatory "hate NRA, pay for our mortgages" groups are quick on the scare tactic trigger, calling the idea "more gun control", inferring that even the average mental health patient will be in danger of never owning guns again.

Of course, they won't educate anyone that NRA's position is both specific and unchanged. A person MUST be adjudicated by a court to be a danger to themselves or others, not simply under care of a doctor or even exhibiting eccentric "Brittney Spears"-type behavior in public. This has always been NRA's position, only now, it is worth money for GOA and JPFO to publicly attack it. Despite the fact that Congress is NOT attacking gun-owners and IS moving toward NRA's position, these "sky is falling" groups will serve the Second Amendment badly and oppose real progress.

This should surprise no one. It was the same story years ago, when GOA opposed NRA's relaxed CCW policies in states like Michigan and Texas. (Now over 40 states enjoy relaxed CCW policies!) Or when GOA supported the father of gun confiscation when they vigorously endorsed Republican Dan Lungren in his 1998 bid for California governor just months after he banned SKS Sporters and ORDERED THEIR CONFISCATION. JPFO has drifted far from it's roots of educating the public about the horrors gun control has perpetrated on the Jewish community to simply become another "barking dog" whenever something important happens and NRA takes a stand.

And of course, the liberal media is eager to take advantage of GOA's and JPFO's rants to confuse the issue, presenting the idiotic views of these RKBA goons as that of the "gun lobby" in an attempt to side-step NRA's point-of-view and misrepresent gun-owners as non-thinking, uncaring neandrethals. They make America's gun-owners appear unwilling and unable to co-exist in modern-day America.

And speaking of media, the differing responses of GOA and NRA following the tragedy are worth noting. Anti-gunners were in front of microphones within an hour to try to spin the event into a call for more gun control. Their eagerness to gain politically from such a tragedy was discussed with disgust by several shocked commentators, personally overheard by yours truly. But was the "gun lobby" any more respectful? Not if you based your view on GOA! Getting between these charlatans and a microphone at such a time is a dangerous place to be - GOA was eager to put their mugs on TV and jump right in! (And some of those interviews are truly regrettable from ANY perspective.)

In contrast, NRA issued this brief statement:
-----
Monday, April 16, 2007

The National Rifle Association joins the entire country in expressing our deepest condolences to the families of Virginia Tech University and everyone else affected by this horrible tragedy.

Our thoughts and prayers are with the families.

We will not have further comment until all the facts are known.

-----

Yes, NRA exhibited true class, but you guessed it - it was too late. The liberal media quickly noted how "both sides" were quick to try to gain politically from this tragic event. In reality, it wasn't NRA, or Smith & Wesson or Remington - it was GOA that brought that shame to "the gun lobby". After all, they have car payments to make! (And they need some of you out there to make them.)

We can thank NRA that anti-gunners have been unable to gain traction within the Democrat Party in recent times. The losses of Gore and Kerry combined with countless other federal and state seats have made a strong impression on Democrat leaders and consultants, who, after 2006, have been reminded how nice "winning" can be. Thankfully, there is no doubt about the initials of the group that delivered those defeats - NRA.

While NRA conducts the serious business of protecting gun-rights, GOA and JPFO have donned their standard mode of operation - that of the disloyal opposition in search of "bucks". We can be thankful that government officials pay them no mind, aware of the foolishness of their "automatically-anti-NRA" press releases and statements. Now it is up to the unsuspecting gun-owner, who may have sent money to these tiny groups, to realize how their valuable RKBA dollar is being abused.

Mike Haas
 
Last edited:
I guess I need to rethink my evaluation of you LawBot, because I thought you were smarter than that.

I know it's easier to spout off some pithy one-liner than to actually think about what you're talking about, but I expect better of you and many people on this board. You all should know better.

I guess unbridled fear does defeat the rational mind.
 
Once again, as NRA deals with the serious business of gun control on the national level

Yeah, by supporting some forms of gun control that are unconstitutional. The NRA is willing to COMPROMISE with lunatic gun control advocates. Rights are not something we compromise.

I seem to recall during the Columbine shooting, they cut their Denver seminar from three days down to one day. Why? Guns weren't to blame, so why did the NRA cut down the seminar?

This common sense approach to a solution is drawing support from even the Democrats controlling Congress, who appear uneasy with further restrictions on gun-owners. (Again, due to the fine work of NRA over the last decade. More on that later.)

"Common sense" is a battle cry for the gun control lobby. And the NRA is starting to use it?

I'll stick with supporting the GOA.
 
It's not "unbridled fear," it's a recognition that the NRA is engaging in dealmaking when it doesnt have to. I beleive that the NRA has miscalculated and as usual, we will be paying for it with the loss of our liberty.
 
What loss of liberty? What does this bill do that would change anything about the process that is in place now?

While I certainly could have missed them, I don't recall any threads on this board calling for the ability of those adjudicated as mental ill to own firearms. Is that what you think the NRA should be doing?
 
It's a Shame

At a time when we should be closing ranks we are fighting among ourselves. We are our own worst enemy and the gun banners best allies. Such a pity. Jimmy Ray Thomason:(
 
...The NRA is willing to COMPROMISE with lunatic gun control advocates...

...it's a recognition that the NRA is engaging in dealmaking...
Let's stay factual. Neither of these statements are true. Having mental health records checked by NICS is NOT a new position for NRA. the fact is, when Congress agrees to this idea THEY are compromising, but NRA hasn't moved an inch.

And c'mon, just like "enforcing existing gun laws" is a better idea than "passing new gun laws" (you remember NRA defeating Clinton with that approach, right?), having those adjudicated by a court to be a danger to themselves or others not only makes sense, it diffuses calls for new gun control. It makes clear that the problem here is not the gun laws, it's not gun-owners, it's not guns. The problem here is mental illness. And because NRA is insisting on such a high standard (i.e., must be adjudicated by a court to be a danger to themselves or others), I'm not worried a bit that this will turn into "more gun control" as GOA and JPFO bloviate in an attempt to scare you and me - the real "gun-owners of America". (it ain't them!)

...I seem to recall during the Columbine shooting, they cut their Denver seminar from three days down to one day. Why? Guns weren't to blame, so why did the NRA cut down the seminar?...
First, realize the HUGE difference in response to the VT shooting v. Columbine. There was a tremendous push for more gun control (specifically, the mis-named "close the gunshow loophole" idea) but ABSOLUTELY ZERO WAS PASSED. Today, Democrat leaders are steering clear of gun control, not even trying to go there.

Having been at that annual meeting, I can tell you that NRA wisely canceled the exhibits and celebratory aspects of the annual meeting. They exhibited the same sensitivity to the tradedy and those affected as last week. The Annual Meeting itself is required by corporate law so it had to be held, but the event was cutback. In those days, I posted extensive online reports about each annual meeting and I think I explained those issues rather well, at least from my perspective here. You also have the speeches of NRA leaders posted there - the official word.

I don't think you could find a single NRA member THAT ATTENDED that thought it was a bad idea to curtail the event. And IMO, that is what fellow NRA members should care about, not what GOA or JPFO or anyone else says.

I'm not a board member, employee or consultant. I'm a Benefactor Member and a volunteer. I've been doing that a long time and will include my full sig here by way of introduction. Glad to meet you.

Mike Haas
NRA Benefactor Member, volunteering as...
Electronic Communications Director, NRA Members' Councils of California
http://NRAMembersCouncils.com/ - aka http://calnra.com/
President, NRA Members' Council of West Contra Costa County
NRA-ILA EVC, CA Congressional District 7
Also...
Webmaster, Fifty Caliber Institute, http://fiftycal.org/
Webmaster for NRA Attorneys in CA., http://tmllp.com/
Webmaster, http://calgunlaws.com/
Owner and Author, http://AmmoGuide.com/
Co-founder, http://E-GovMail.com/
Co-founder, http://ProjectBoreSnake.org/ (PLEASE SUPPORT OUR TROOPS!)
------------------------------------
You may enjoy some of my personal web sites...
------------------------------------
http://NRAWinningTeam.com/
http://PatriotBoxers.com/
http://NRAMembersCouncils.com/lifeclock/
 
At a time when we should be closing ranks we are fighting among ourselves.
+1.

The NRA is not done negiotating yet. Hopefully they will get something in return for us. (E.g., better appeals process for those who are denied in a NICS check.) If you fear the NRA will cede to the anti-gunners, please contact them. But for now, let's give the them the benefit of the doubt, and not denounce them until it is clear what they're doing.
 
The NRA does negotiate a bit with 'the enemy'. That's why we have CC permits. The alternatives are unlicensed legal carry - concealed or open - anywhere you want to go (not likely to happen) or no carry outside your own property.
They've done some good things, I reckon - this latest business I object to 'cause we, ourselves, don't get a thing from this seeming compromise.
 
Yeah, by supporting some forms of gun control that are unconstitutional. The NRA is willing to COMPROMISE with lunatic gun control advocates. Rights are not something we compromise.

I seem to recall during the Columbine shooting, they cut their Denver seminar from three days down to one day. Why? Guns weren't to blame, so why did the NRA cut down the seminar?

This common sense approach to a solution is drawing support from even the Democrats controlling Congress, who appear uneasy with further restrictions on gun-owners. (Again, due to the fine work of NRA over the last decade. More on that later.)

"Common sense" is a battle cry for the gun control lobby. And the NRA is starting to use it?

I'll stick with supporting the GOA.

Please name ONE accomplishment that GOA has been credited with despite all their NO COMPROMISE!!! rhetoric. I'd really like to hear about one.
 
It's a Shame... At a time when we should be closing ranks we are fighting among ourselves. We are our own worst enemy and the gun banners best allies. Such a pity. Jimmy Ray Thomason
Hmm, I can understand the sentiment, but wonder if you made the same post when GOA or JPFO or (whatever group) attacked NRA IN THE FIRST PLACE?

Instead, you express shame THAT A FELLOW GUN-OWNER (and only a gun-owner) reveals his personal opinion about GOA and JPFO? WHAT ABOUT THOSE GROUPS THAT TAKE MONEY FROM OTHERS THEN ACT THIS WAY? And BTW, I haven't seen NRA attack any other group, have you?

GOA and JPFO do a lot of critisizing, but in truth, it is THEIR BEHAVIOR that cannot stand scrutiny. Anytime they try to undermine the association that 4 million of us support, they should expect scrutiny. They have a financial incentive in trying to turn you against NRA and THAT has nothing to do with the Second Amendment.

You want shame? GOA and JPFO are dripping in it.

Mike
 
A Shame

:scrutiny: Thank you for illustrating my point. Actually,I was referring more to the posts on THR than to any organization although it applies there as well. Infighting will not accomplish anything more than giving the gun grabbers more to work with and to use against us. THAT IS a d--n shame! Jimmy Ray Thomason
 
...The NRA is not done negiotating yet. Hopefully they will get something in return for us. (E.g., better appeals process for those who are denied in a NICS check.)...
There is an appeals process in the legislation for those who fall under this new provision, i.e., those that have been adjudicated by a court to be a danger to themselves or others, but of course, GOA and JPFO don't tell you that, either. (They aren't about the truth, thay are about attacking NRA. You know, just like the anti-gunners?)

Mike
 
So wait a minute. Is this bill that the NRA is about to help pass supporting more gun legislation or not? Sure looks liek it to me.

Can't have it both ways. It boils down to more gun control being supported by the NRA.

In any case looks like the Dems are going to try to pass it without a vote anyway.

Mike, when you post you should identify your association with the interested parties. *cough* *cough*
 
Yeah, the NRA did a real professional and classy job with SB43 here in Georgia.

Good job, fellas. I'll be sure to write you a check for that. :rolleyes:
 
I've seen what feels like a dozen of your posts referencing this one, so I'm pretty sure you want lots of replies...

Once again, as NRA deals with the serious business of gun control on the national level
Right now this translates into "in this time when politicians realize that gun-control is a 'third rail' just as deadly as Social Security, we've found ourselves facing another tragedy involving firearms. Since no-one has made any moves on the national level to restrict the purchase and ownership of firearms, the NRA has taken it upon itself to lead the push. In exchange for nothing, we'll strengthen structures that most of our members believe are unconstitutional, in order to look like we're working to prevent a future tragedy we know our changes won't prevent. But, it's good PR..."

the financial opportunists - GOA and JPFO - come out of the woodwork to nip at its heels and try to squeeze every dollar out of the well-intentioned but frustrated gun-owner.
Because the NRA never resorted to hyping anything and mailbombing their membership for more donations. (If you hadn't guessed, this was something I thought was most frustrating when I was a member...)

Their latest betrayal of the Second Amendment is to oppose NRA on opening the mental health records of those who have been adjudicated by a court to be a danger to themselves or others in the wake of the VT shooting. This common sense approach to a solution is drawing support from even the Democrats controlling Congress, who appear uneasy with further restrictions on gun-owners.
Let me rephrase this a little bit for you. "The NRA is seeking common sense gun control in the wake of a national tragedy. Even Democrats, when approached by the NRA with the intent to strengthen rules that limit civilian firearm ownership, are willing to go along, so long as they're not seen as pushing it. But those eeeevil inconsequential gnats of the pro-gun movement are oppressing this very reasonable push for more controls on gun ownership."

That's not even getting into the issues of medical privacy, or privacy in general (remember, some of us care about all of our rights, and aren't willing to trade some for others, thanks.)

the scare tactic trigger, calling the idea "more gun control", inferring that even the average mental health patient will be in danger of never owning guns again.
Quick: name a power that's been given to government that they've never abused. Can you really not see how this is going to be bad for us in the long term? Can you not look at the big picture and see that there's better than a 30% chance that the limiting factor in question is going to be broadened greatly in future decades? Do you really not get that funding the infrastructure for this now is a bad thing long-term?

You have noticed that small-time meth cooks have been prosecuted under "weapons of mass descruction" rules, right? Any chance you've seen how RICO statutes have been abused in the last few decades? Do you really think that the BATF won't take advantage of any leniency we give them in enforcement or how lists are compiled and maintained?

I've not read the rest of your post. This was enough. Please stop the "hooray for my team" posting. We see the same thing with Republicans versus whoever, and all it does is get everyone upset for no good reason.

You have been working with the NRA for a decade, and you trust them implicitly. Good for you. Others don't like your organization, and many of them have solid reasons (likely reasons you'd argue over, but you need to understand that these reasons are good enough for those who hold them.) Other folks prefer smaller organizations. Why attack?

Do you think posts like these are helping the cause any?

(No, I won't join GOA either as Larry Pratt's a religious bigot in my mind, and I don't care to have anything to do with him. The JPFO seems all right, though they certainly have a "post-Auschwitz" no-compromise approach that likely terrifies NRA board members. They're well within their rights to educate/lobby as they please. Personally I think they're a little shrill at times, but there you go...)
 
I'd be willing to concede that the NRA is working for our rights by compromising, if they could identify what it is we are gaining by this compromise. Usually, a compromise results in both parties giving a little to get a little. I can't remember when the NRA managed to gain anything substantial from compromising.
 
Excuse me but where exactly has GOA or JFPO ever helped pass a single law or gain us any rights, just one example please????

I do know that the NRA just gave my Gun club $4,000 for a better backstop, and improved ventilation.

They also sponsor youth shooting events and education at both Gun clubs I belong to.

They also train and certify instructors who teach the CCW classes in Delaware and Pennsylvania, so folks can get a license (DE) or at least have some idea of how to properly shoot and maintain firearms.

NRA certified instructors teach Pistol and rifle classes, and even train Law enforcement officers how to shoot. Most LEO instructors are NRA certified.

Without the competitions and training, and Gun clubs the NRA finances and staffs there would be fewer folks who own guns and shoot them safely and many fewer hunters and shooters who vote.
I can think of about 200 new gun owning shooters I know personally who began their gun owning and shooting careers at NRA sponsored youth shooting events.

I have never seen, been to, or received training from, or at a GOA class, Range, or match.

I have also never read where any of the antis are the least bit concerned about what JFPO or GOA members think.

The gun grabbers certainly do HATE AND FEAR THE NRA and that is good enough for me;)

If you can think back to that old Yellow form we used to fill out before NICS they had a question about being adjudicated mentally defective or committed by a court of law on that form as well, answering yes was a disqualification even before NICS.
 
The kind of "adjudications" NRA is supporting are those that occur without any legal counsel for the individual and with a 2 minute "hearing." The police say "Bob is acting weird again. We need to get him evaluated." The only way to force Bob to see a mental health "professional" (many states don't require the "professional" to be a trained psychiatrist, a psychiatric SOCIAL WORKER will do) is to BRAND him as "as danger" to someone, then you can reguire him to be examined. All of this happens BEFORE there is any diagnosis. The judge JUST GUESSES (in Va. a part-time judge).

If Bob is cleared by the REAL psychiatrist, it does not erase the "finding" (guess) made by the ill-informed so-called judge. And under 18 USC 922, it lasts forever.

IMAL, it's a kangaroo court.

P. S. Remember that, in 2007, most psychiatrists consider gun ownership alone to be a "sign" of mental illness.

P. S. The unintended consequence of this is that after I explain the consequences of seeking mental health treatment to my clients, NONE will ever go voluntarily. Would you?
 
Found in the General Gun Discussions forum.

Mr. Cho's TDO shows exactly why we should be afraid of this.

Link to Mr. Cho's TDO

Just read the text.

The situation in a nutshell:

1. Someone managed to convince a judge [Ed.- who has no expertise in mental health issues] that Cho was mentally unstable.
2. Doctor found that Cho were depressed, but otherwise mentally fine. It is specifically noted that Cho was not a danger to himself or others.
3. Judge [ed.- who has no expertise in mental health issues but is politically sensitive] goes against doctor's diagnosis, says Cho was a danger to himself.


Should someone permanently lose their gun rights for that? I don't think so.
 
The kind of "adjudications" NRA is supporting are those that occur without any legal counsel for the individual and with a 2 minute "hearing." The police say "Bob is acting weird again. We need to get him evaluated." The only way to force Bob to see a mental health "professional" (many states don't require the "professional" to be a trained psychiatrist, a psychiatric SOCIAL WORKER will do) is to BRAND him as "as danger" to someone, then you can reguire him to be examined. All of this happens BEFORE there is any diagnosis. The judge JUST GUESSES (in Va. a part-time judge).

If Bob is cleared by the REAL psychiatrist, it does not erase the "finding" (guess) made by the ill-informed so-called judge. And under 18 USC 922, it lasts forever.

IMAL, it's a kangaroo court.

P. S. Remember that, in 2007, most psychiatrists consider gun ownership alone to be a "sign" of mental illness.

P. S. The unintended consequence of this is that after I explain the consequences of seeking mental health treatment to my clients, NONE will ever go voluntarily. Would you?

Well, Mike Haas, where's your snappy retort for this?
 
I think F4GIB summed it up quite nicely.


Their latest betrayal of the Second Amendment is to oppose NRA on opening the mental health records of those who have been adjudicated by a court to be a danger to themselves or others in the wake of the VT shooting. This common sense approach to a solution is drawing support from even the Democrats controlling Congress, who appear uneasy with further restrictions on gun-owners. (Again, due to the fine work of NRA over the last decade. More on that later.)

Imagine that, gun grabbers going along with more restrictions. Well I'll be.:eek:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top