search
top

GOA Gets Burned Dabbling in Ancillary Issues

Apparently GOA held a position on “net neutrality” based on Larry Pratt’s paranoid delusions, and ended up aligning themselves with a left-wing who’s who. The writer of this article got a clarification from Pratt himself, saying they no longer support net neutrality now that it’s boiled down to Government control of the internets. Well, what else was it going to be? If private companies collude to limit bandwidth of certain services, or give priority to certain content, who else is going to come in to correct it? Jesus?

This is the danger of becoming involved in ancillary issues outside of your core mission. If GOA had held serious and convincing evidence that this was really a core gun rights issue, and aligned themselves with left wing groups who were also on the same side, I would have applauded them. But GOA’s entry into this issue was based on the vague idea that private businesses could or would conspire to limit access to Second Amendment information and communication. Could it happen? Maybe. But then the group they join asks Uncle Sam to step in, and suddenly it’s a horrible idea.

Again, I believe GOA to be a completely unserious organization when it comes to defending the Second Amendment, and this is just more evidence. They never should have involved themselves in this issue, and it seems pretty clear to me their involvement was poorly thought out. If you don’t trust private enterprise to control the Internet, and you don’t trust Uncle Sam to control the Internet, what is your preferred solution?

10 Responses to “GOA Gets Burned Dabbling in Ancillary Issues”

  1. Carl from Chicago says:

    I recently requested removal from GOAs mailing list. I had requested it once, but was still receiving mailings. When I recently received one asking me to contact my legislators to oppose the new health care plan, that was it.

    I called to be removed again. Was asked why … my answer was “Larry can’t keep his eye on the ball. Give me a call when he figures it out.”

  2. Miguel says:

    Sebastian, Ye shall be be burned in Hell for speaking evil of the sacred cow!
    Wait, you already dabble in hell stuff… never mind.

  3. Fiftycal says:

    Larry Pratt is only concerned with Larry Pratt. If he figured the tinfoil hat brigade would give him more money if he called the pope “the devil’s stepchild” or whatever, he’d do it. Won’t listen to what they have to say or even laugh at them. They are in the same catagory as alex jones.

  4. DirtCrashr says:

    I just shred the stuff they (GOA) sends me, and the send a LOT of stuff.

  5. I have only the most vanishingly superficial knowledge of the net neutrality issue, so an honest question:

    If private companies collude to limit bandwidth of certain services, or give priority to certain content, who else is going to come in to correct it? Jesus?

    Is net neutrality about collusion? My understanding was that the principle prohibits any individual provider from pricing its services differently, regardless of whether or not it’s coordinating its actions with other providers. Don’t existing price-fixing laws already deal with collusion?

  6. Dann in Ohio says:

    Sebastian, as usual, well stated.

    GOA was upset about the NRA not going all out and all broke on the Disclose Act/First Amendment issue when it arose…

    Maybe the GOA needs to decide if it is focused on the 2nd amendment or the 1st amendment and issues like net neutrality.

    If it ever gets to the point I don’t have freedom of speech in America, I’ll let my 2nd amendment rights speak for me – with a bang!

    • Bitter says:

      It’s not about the first amendment for Larry Pratt, it’s about the GOP – at least the ones he decides he likes.

  7. Ian Argent says:

    Incidentally, a pox on both sides of the Net Neutrality fiasco.

  8. MicroBalrog says:

    So what is the solution? Where should all the gun rights radicals go?

    The NRA is nice, and they should probably become members and voice teir opinion – but – as you pointed out yourself – a venue/organization is needed to ‘carry the banner’ of slightly-more-radical gun rights.

    Who will that be?

  9. Kharn says:

    I wish I’d thought of the GOA first. “We refuse to compromise so we can get absolutely nothing accomplished (and we don’t even have to pick up the phone to do it), so send us money!” “They’re still not listening to our demands for accepting our position without compromises (but even talking to Ron Paul would be a compromise), send more money!” etc etc

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. GOA position? Might be something to watch - Page 3 - INGunOwners - [...] once again, steps on it: GOA Gets Burned Dabbling in Ancillary Issues | Snowflakes in Hell Maybe…
  2. Guns I Didn’t Need – 109 - [...] GOA loses focus of gun rights, inadvertently aligned with leftists. [...]
top