Gun Rights Groups

**ChrisAHF** · March 18th, 2008, 12:32 PM

What large gun rights groups are out there and which one do you think is doing the best job securing our rights? Of course the NRA is the first that comes to mind but I have heard people say they dont always do the best job representing us. So which one and why?

**MrUgly** · March 18th, 2008, 12:59 PM

This does not relate to your query exactly, but while looking up gun rights organizations, I found this site.

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

Darned good info.

**mjfletcher** · March 18th, 2008, 02:27 PM

Theres also Gun Owners of America http://www.gunowners.org/

The only real complaint I've heard about the NRA is about their willingness to compromise. The GOA represents itself as being "The only no-compromise gun lobby in Washington."

Both attitudes have their good and bad points. Anti-gun groups tend to try to portray gun owners as "nutcases" who think they have the right to carry a bazooka if they want which means a "no-compromise" attitude plays right into their propaganda while being the strongest proponent of our rights. A willingness to compromise blatantly disproves the "nutcase" propaganda, but means it may become a case of give up on one hand to receive on the other

For me, I recognize that life is all about compromise, especially when politics is involved, so if I have to give up my 'right' to carry a bazooka in order to be able to carry a semi-auto pistol thats fine with me. Ill gladly run like a mouse at a cat expo when a someone pulls an M1 Abrams to rob me, and i'll pray each night that all the gods of creation have mercy on the soul of anyone stupid enough to pull a pistol on me or my family because he's gonna be meeting them soon.

**LittleRedToyota** · March 18th, 2008, 03:05 PM

my favorite is the JPFO (jews for the preservation of firearms ownership...but you do not have to be jewish to belong...i'm not and i do.)

i am also a member of the GOA and the NRA.

the NRA ticks me off royally from time to time, but they also have the most clout by far.

imho, it is good to have all of them.

(ETA: i forgot to say why...

i like the JPFO the best because they absolutely do not pull any punches. they tell it like it is...period. they understand what "shall not be infringed" means better than any other group, imho. they have seen first hand--or maybe second hand, but directly from their parents and grandparents--what gun control can lead to and so they understand the true importance of the 2nd amendment. i also like them because they speak out against other government abuses of power...though that might be a turn off for some people.

i like the NRA because they have so much clout.

the GOA is in between. less clout than the NRA, but more than the JPFO. not as "radical" as the JPFO, but not as compromising as the NRA.)

**rev214** · March 18th, 2008, 03:39 PM

Originally Posted by LittleRedToyota

my favorite is the JPFO (jews for the preservation of firearms ownership...but you do not have to be jewish to belong...i'm not and i do.)

i am also a member of the GOA and the NRA.

the NRA ticks me off royally from time to time, but they also have the most clout by far.

imho, it is good to have all of them.

(ETA: i forgot to say why...

i like the JPFO the best because they absolutely do not pull any punches. they tell it like it is...period. they understand what "shall not be infringed" means better than any other group, imho. they have seen first hand--or maybe second hand, but directly from their parents and grandparents--what gun control can lead to and so they understand the true importance of the 2nd amendment. i also like them because they speak out against other government abuses of power...though that might be a turn off for some people.

i like the NRA because they have so much clout.

the GOA is in between. less clout than the NRA, but more than the JPFO. not as "radical" as the JPFO, but not as compromising as the NRA.)

yep, the heavy hitters...

i'll throw in CCRKBA / SAF and KABA for honorable mention...

**Jared McLaughlin** · March 18th, 2008, 04:29 PM

Originally Posted by mjfletcher

Both attitudes have their good and bad points. Anti-gun groups tend to try to portray gun owners as "nutcases" who think they have the right to carry a bazooka if they want which means a "no-compromise" attitude plays right into their propaganda while being the strongest proponent of our rights. A willingness to compromise blatantly disproves the "nutcase" propaganda, but means it may become a case of give up on one hand to receive on the other

My only objection to this line of thinking comes from the actual purpose of a militia. I think military arms should not be excluded, but indeed should be the bottom line standard. Turn the thing on its head and see that all citizens, who may be asked as members of a militia to serve the state or federal government ought to be able to own and carry all military arms, and that the arms carried ought to be of a military sort as a minimum condition.

Does this include the Abrams or RPG's? I think arms that can be carried on the person should be the limit. Hence, RPG's are a go, and the Abrams is not. Shoulder-fired missiles and small mortar system have a definite applicability to infantry-oriented ground combat.

**mjfletcher** · March 18th, 2008, 08:11 PM

Originally Posted by Jared McLaughlin

My only objection to this line of thinking comes from the actual purpose of a militia. I think military arms should not be excluded, but indeed should be the bottom line standard. Turn the thing on its head and see that all citizens, who may be asked as members of a militia to serve the state or federal government ought to be able to own and carry all military arms, and that the arms carried ought to be of a military sort as a minimum condition.

Does this include the Abrams or RPG's? I think arms that can be carried on the person should be the limit. Hence, RPG's are a go, and the Abrams is not. Shoulder-fired missiles and small mortar system have a definite applicability to infantry-oriented ground combat.

I won't argue the militia point, as I am a firm supporter of the rights of states to maintain a militia independent of the federal militia. I will however follow your line of thinking.

Does the military arm every soldier/guardsman/reservist with an RPG/mortar? No.
Does the military have an RPG/mortar in every post and barracks on every base? No.
Does the military arm every soldier/guardsman/reservist with pistol and rifle? Yes.

The military stores RPG's, mortars, and other "heavy artillery" at an ammo depot and issues them only when circumstances are such that there may be an immediate need for them. As the regular military (first line of defense), and guard/reserves (second line of defense) are not arming each soldier with "heavy artillery" all the time, there is no legitimate reason for the civilian militia (third line of defense) to be armed with RPG's/mortars all the time either. Distribution at need is the military standard for the first two lines of defense, there is no reason for it to be otherwise for the third line.

As for as pistols and rifles, I will agree that all military pistols and rifles; regardless of caliber, rate of fire, capacity, etc, should be permitted to ensure that those eligible for service in militias have the capability to immediately respond to any situation requiring their service.