bk43
Member
I did not say GCO is not trying to improve carry laws. I merely said that GCO puts their selfish interests first and the cause is less important. Sorry for not making that as clear as I should have.
Bob
The NRA tried to torpedo two Pro-Gun Bills in Georgia
- Thread starter Samuel Adams
- Start date
Bob
Samuel Adams
I did not and will not try to persuade your party affiliation, in fact, I am against all politics. Politics have become a profession instead of a privilege with too many career seekers. All I wanted to say is that we are stronger together than we are separated and the NRA may be our last line of defense. Your decision! Thanks for the opportunity.
I did not and will not try to persuade your party affiliation, in fact, I am against all politics. Politics have become a profession instead of a privilege with too many career seekers. All I wanted to say is that we are stronger together than we are separated and the NRA may be our last line of defense. Your decision! Thanks for the opportunity.
oldRoger
US Veteran
We have what we have in DC both at the NRA and in the halls of congress, because those who vote in the board elections, the party nominations, and the general elections selected these folks.
If we want to change what we have, we must engage, not disengage. Some one said that the people have the congress they deserve; the same applies to the NRA.
They will not be changed from the outside. Evidently NRA members in GA are demanding answers, stick to it until you are satisfied.
The voters last summer attending "town hall meetings" did a great amount of good. As Lee asked, who will go to the NRA meeting and raise hell?
Actually the "raise hell" is my paraphrase of Lee's comment.
If we want to change what we have, we must engage, not disengage. Some one said that the people have the congress they deserve; the same applies to the NRA.
They will not be changed from the outside. Evidently NRA members in GA are demanding answers, stick to it until you are satisfied.
The voters last summer attending "town hall meetings" did a great amount of good. As Lee asked, who will go to the NRA meeting and raise hell?
Actually the "raise hell" is my paraphrase of Lee's comment.
Last edited:
luangtom
US Veteran
I have been sitting here reading the various blurbs about the recent debacle in GA with the NRA-lobbyist and the GCO staff at the legislature on its last day in session and deemed it necessary to forward my 2-cents. Here is a link to the GCO leader's article on the fiasco. Atlanta Gun Rights Examiner ....make your own judgements on its merit. The article in question begins with "NRA at odds with...." I realize that this article may have been quoted earlier, but I wished to bring it up again. It is just a bit disconcerting to read condemnations and allegations from those outside of GA when our grass-roots people here in GA are the ones at the front-lines.
Last edited:
This is a weak argument on my part as I can only offer that I don't necessarily believe that to be true. I can't argue from a logical standpoint that it isn't.
I readily question and denounce many of their tactics, and they have created a poisonous atmosphere that keeps them from being even more effective than they are, and I could give you a litany of things that I think are wrong with GCO and produce proof to back them up,
BUT, I do believe that in the end their desire to improve the carry laws in GA outweighs their pure self-interest.
Tom Servo
Member
What confuses me is that they claim the NRA wanted airport-carry language in 308. Apparently, this would have resulted in a veto from the governor, so it was excised. OK.
But the airport language is also in 291, and nobody seems to be worried about a veto on that one.
Reading through 308, it seems that it will allow carrying in bars and drinking while carrying. How is it that carrying in the airport is more likely to trigger a veto than this?
But the airport language is also in 291, and nobody seems to be worried about a veto on that one.
Reading through 308, it seems that it will allow carrying in bars and drinking while carrying. How is it that carrying in the airport is more likely to trigger a veto than this?
291 passed first. It has the airport language. It also has "Katrina" language.
Some of that same stuff was also in 308, and the governor indicated that he would veto the bill with such language; so, the legiscritters worked out a bill that improved the carry laws but didn't include the language the governor indicated he would veto. So, there are now two bills. The governor can veto the language he objects to while preserving the other changes in the other bill.
The flap is that the NRA-ILA lobbyist told the legiscritters that if they passed 308 without the stuff from 291 included that the NRA would give them bad ratings.
bk43
Member
We agree and in fact this comes out during the debate. The lead senator was trying to get the lady anti to shut up so they could vote. She brought up the NRA "opposition" and he lamented the misunderstanding over the airport drive through provisions(which obviously happened). He then said the flap was caused by "certain personalities on the other side of the ropes" clearly alluding to GCO.
My first thoughts on this issue were that a clever anti at GPB intentionally blew some of the normal give and take of the legislative process out of proportion to split the RKBA supporters. My thoughts now are that it's GCO who did the distorting for their own ends. These circular firing squads benefit no one but the antis.
Bob
I don't believe the Senator of which you type was referring to GCO as he is in pretty tight with them.
I agree that certain parties in GCO would blow things up, but the accounts from independent parties that were there in the chamber all support the claim that the NRA-ILA lobbyist is the one that created the situation causing the backlash.
I don't blame the whole NRA, but I do believe that this rest at the feet of the particular lobbyist, and the NRA-ILA needs to severe ties with this person and make this right.
luangtom
US Veteran
I guess the practice of hiring an outside source, other than members, to lobby for a group such as NRA is a method that needs to be addressed by the NRA after all of these complaints. Many have written or called to the NRA to voice their concerns with the lobbyist in question and some have resorted to resignation of membership. Whichever avenue was taken should ideally show the NRA that their members in GA are not happy and need to resolve the problem of misguided or misdirected lobbyists. I feel the NRA is the venue for national legislation monitoring and that they need support the grass-roots state and local groups more and not consider them financial competition.
Centenniel
Member
An excellent, and true quote. I will not abandon the NRA because of some hot-headed rhetoric.
In the 2008 election, about 3.4% of Georgians voted for the Libertarian candidate for the US Senate, giving Saxby Chambliss 49.8 percent of the vote, denying him an outright majority, which Georgia law requires.
Incumbent Johnny Isakson faces the same fight. Apparently, Isakson and Chambliss, Senators that I bet a bunch of forum members would love to have representing them, are just not conservative enough for a very small percentage of Georgians.
There is a candidate for the Georgia Republican nomination for Governor named Ray McBerry. He has admitted lying to the Georgia Professional Standards Commission during an investigation of his relationship with an under age girl after being ordered by her parents to stop any contact. Just last week, the girl, now 24, said in an interview that she had sex with McBerry while he was a youth counselor at her church. There are still die-hard McBerry supporters (he is extremely conservative) who gloss over these things and continue to support him.
In my opinion, people who refused to support Chambliss, and to a much lesser extent, those who continue to support McBerry, are the majority of GCO members who are deserting NRA.
I posted in a thread that is still running on the GON forum. I said that GCO was really limiting itself if its appeal were to be limited to malcontents.
Georgia Outdoor News Forum - View Single Post - The NRA was hard at work last night in Georgia
On member responded that he was a "proud malcontentent."
Georgia Outdoor News Forum - View Single Post - The NRA was hard at work last night in Georgia
I am still a NRA member and a GCO member and will continue to support both organizations with my membership. I give very little money to political causes, and when I do, I give to specific candidates. NRA will without a doubt endorse Sanford Bishop for 2nd District Congress, and I will without a doubt send a little money to his Republican opponent.
Incumbent Johnny Isakson faces the same fight. Apparently, Isakson and Chambliss, Senators that I bet a bunch of forum members would love to have representing them, are just not conservative enough for a very small percentage of Georgians.
There is a candidate for the Georgia Republican nomination for Governor named Ray McBerry. He has admitted lying to the Georgia Professional Standards Commission during an investigation of his relationship with an under age girl after being ordered by her parents to stop any contact. Just last week, the girl, now 24, said in an interview that she had sex with McBerry while he was a youth counselor at her church. There are still die-hard McBerry supporters (he is extremely conservative) who gloss over these things and continue to support him.
In my opinion, people who refused to support Chambliss, and to a much lesser extent, those who continue to support McBerry, are the majority of GCO members who are deserting NRA.
I posted in a thread that is still running on the GON forum. I said that GCO was really limiting itself if its appeal were to be limited to malcontents.
Georgia Outdoor News Forum - View Single Post - The NRA was hard at work last night in Georgia
On member responded that he was a "proud malcontentent."
Georgia Outdoor News Forum - View Single Post - The NRA was hard at work last night in Georgia
I am still a NRA member and a GCO member and will continue to support both organizations with my membership. I give very little money to political causes, and when I do, I give to specific candidates. NRA will without a doubt endorse Sanford Bishop for 2nd District Congress, and I will without a doubt send a little money to his Republican opponent.
Tom Servo
Member
Mr. Bishop and I disagree on a great many things, but he is a supporter of the 2nd Amendment. He signed on amicus briefs in favor of both the Heller and McDonald cases, and has a B rating from the NRA.
If he's your representative, give him a call. He's pretty approachable and level-headed. Not all Democrats are a lost cause.
I have a long memory. In late 1993, Sanford promised me, personally to my face, that he would not support the Clinton AWB. Then, under heavy pressure from the Congressional Black Caucus, he, along with two others, changed to a "yes" vote on the Bill, which passed the House by a 216-215 vote. I tend not to trust people who lie to me. There is absolutely "0" doubt in my mind that Sanford would support a "reasonable attempt to stop the gun violence," or a "common-sense Bill intended to save children from gun violence" if Obama began pushing for such. If Obama is elected to a second term, there is no doubt in my mind that anti-gun legislation will be high on his agenda. Beside all that, Sanford has a rather abysmal voting record on other issues important to conservatives. I think his lifetime ACU rating is something like "30", compared to Nathan Deal's "90" and Linder's "95" lifetime ratings.
NRA is a single issue lobbying organization, and Sanford has pretty well towed the NRA line since then, so I can't really fault them for endorsing Bishop. They will probably endorse Harry Reid, who also has fairly impeccable 2nd amendment credentials.
NRA is a single issue lobbying organization, and Sanford has pretty well towed the NRA line since then, so I can't really fault them for endorsing Bishop. They will probably endorse Harry Reid, who also has fairly impeccable 2nd amendment credentials.
bk43
Member
Lautenberg proposes a gun control bill every week or so. None ever go anywhere. Please advise your keyboad that nobody cares.
Bob
Bob
Tom Servo
Member
True. Nobody's seen the bill yet, and Lautenberg's other bills have not received any sort of momentum in recent sessions. I'd presume that Rep. Johnson would still be researching the environmental effects of Guam capsizing...
Parker Phoenix
Member
I am not a GCO member, however I am a long time NRA member who understands who set the table for GCO.
I do believe the NRA rep dropped the ball. I also contacted the NRA and recieved some corny canned response. As a paying member I would like to see this Ramon White fired ASAP.
bk43
Member
Tom, a big thank you! I had no idea that's who Johnson was. Somebody posted that in another thread but for those that missed it, and want a good laugh, here it is again. How Adm. Willard handles this without losing it is beyond me.
YouTube - Rep. Hank Johnson Fears Guam May Capsize
Bob
You might want to research gun control registration that Lautenberg has managed to pass.
While I don't see sweeping gun control being an issue the national dems will touch right now, I do see the airport legislation as being an issue that might attract some "moderate" support as "common sense measures" and it is also something they can waive the "terrorist" flag over by claiming that terrorist would be able to walk right in with the guns. While Johnson doesn't hold much clout and may very well lose in the primary, but get John Lewis on board begging for national help to battle "extreme" elements in his home state would get some play.
This is why splitting the legislation at the state level was the right play.
Similar threads
