Gun Owners of America, formed in belief NRA was ‘too liberal’, spent $3.3m lobbying against gun control and boasts 2m members

The GOA is an adamant enemy of gun control measures of all stripes, and proudly calls itself the “no compromise” gun lobby. Its surge in lobbying spending reflects one way it has capitalized on the financial and legal problems of the once 5 million-member NRA in the hopes of expanding the GOA’s political clout, say gun experts.

“The GOA was formed in the 1970s because they believed the NRA was too liberal,” said Robert Spitzer, the author of several books on guns and a professor emeritus at Suny Cortland in New York. “True to its creed, the GOA has opposed every manner of gun law and attacked the NRA at every turn.”

  • JunkMilesDavis@kbin.social
    113·
    1 year ago

    With constitutional originalism being all the rage nowadays, a person could certainly ask what sort of arms existed at the time of writing.

    • babboa@lemmy.world
      7·
      1 year ago

      I own a musket for home defense, since that’s what the founding fathers intended. Four ruffians break into my house. “What the devil?” As I grab my powdered wig and Kentucky rifle. Blow a golf ball sized hole through the first man, he’s dead on the spot. Draw my pistol on the second man, miss him entirely because it’s smoothbore and nails the neighbors dog. I have to resort to the cannon mounted at the top of the stairs loaded with grape shot, “Tally ho lads” the grape shot shreds two men in the blast, the sound and extra shrapnel set off car alarms. Fix bayonet and charge the last terrified rapscallion. He Bleeds out waiting on the police to arrive since triangular bayonet wounds are impossible to stitch up. Just as the founding fathers intended.

    • nicetriangle@kbin.social
      114·
      1 year ago

      I love how originalists have zero interest in playing that game wrt the 2a. Proves how full of shit they are.

      • Billiam@lemmy.world
        91·
        1 year ago

        Also with judicial review. Courts didn’t have authority to invalidate laws until Marbury v. Madison. A true “originalist” would argue the judicial branch doesn’t have that ability.

      • Ranvier@sopuli.xyz
        2·
        1 year ago

        The supreme court does even have the nerve to do that when it suits them, but doesn’t give one crap about the obvious hypocrisy. The conservatives ruled recently while striking down a hundred year old gun control law in New York, that no gun regulation laws can exist unless there is proof that law or something very similar existed in the 1780’s. Well then does this mean I’m only allowed guns that existed or are very similar to what we had in the 1780’s as well? No? Ben Franklin thought I should get to open carry an AR15? Well alright then.

        The whole originalist junk has always been a load of made up bullshit conservatives use to justify whatever they already decided they wanted.