Maybe We Need an ROA

Maybe we do need an organization to defend all of the Bill of Rights, and to defend traditional republican (small r) values. If so, I eagerly await Gun Owners of America to change its name to Republicans of America. It would be a more accurate description if this post at Red State is to be taken seriously:

While I don’t know enough about the Gun Owners of America yet, it is interesting to note that (contrary to the more liberal-leaning NRA) the GOA has given Tim Walz a “D” rating.  Perhaps the GOA is looking at the other nine Amendments to the Constitution and realizes that a politician who is good on one Amendment, but despises freedom in so many other ways, isn’t all that he portrays himself to be?

That’s great for GOA. But I have to wonder why this doesn’t look like a record of support on our issue. If GOA wants to become a generic freedom organization, I think that’s great, but they should give up all pretense of being a gun rights group if they want to go there.

8 thoughts on “Maybe We Need an ROA”

  1. Wow! A blog post bashing GOA from an admitted NRA fanboi!

    Didn’t see that one coming.

    You must have missed the memo: Yes, the Second is the most important Amendment, mainly as a guarantor of the others. They’re ALL important, and disregarding any of them in favor of one or two is bad for us. All of us, gunnies or not.

  2. Hey, if they wanted to become a generic liberty group, I’d accept them as that. Just not as a gun right group that makes a name attacking other gun rights groups while undermining the 2A by throwing those that support it under the bus.

  3. The GAO website pretty clearly tracks the votes that Rep Walz was held accountable for, what the vote was for, and what constituted a pro-gun vote.

    Looked to me like he voted with gun owners once out of ten votes (at least, as GAO scored it).

  4. So they do, but I had to dig to find it.

    He voted to lift the ban on carry in national park. Obamacare has exactly nothing to do about guns, and DISCLOSE will have almost no effect on gun rights considering the largest group is exempted, and GOA’s independent expenditures amount to nearly nothing, and GOA is the only gun rights group that would conceivably have been affected by it at all.

    So what you’re saying is it’s fine for GOA to grade on irrelevant votes, and throw all the pro-gun Democrats under the bus over a bill that has a 7480 dollar effect on gun rights independent expenditures?

    Note the percentage GOA has donated to Democrats this year too? Doesn’t that seem a little suspicious? Not even Dan Boren warrants a few bucks?

  5. I should note I could go down the list and get a list of GOA A rated politicians who voted against the Credit Card Bill, and thus National Park Carry…. let’s see:

    Tom McClintock
    Paul Broun
    Michelle Bachman
    Ron Paul

    Just to name a few. Granted, these guys are actually pro-gun, and they had other reasons to voting against the bill, but you can see how GOA loses credibility on these things by counting it for people of one party, but not for another.

  6. So it looks like what GOA is counting as votes against the National Park Carry are motions to recommit, which basically sends a bill back to committee, but doesn’t kill it. It’s a procedural maneuver meant to delay a bill. In other words, it’s about as relevant as the fact that Tom McClintock voted against the eventual bill that contained the National Park Carry language.

Comments are closed.