imported post
G.O.A. may not be as big as the N.R.A., but that doesn't mean that they are totally ineffective. Although large numbers of members are good, they aren't everything. Small groups can make a difference, if they are very vocal and active, just look at some of the environmental and animal rights groups that affect policy. The only difference between them and most gun owners is the fact that they are passionate enough to fight, not just for a little while as long as it's convenient, but for the long haul.
Numbers may get you recognized by politicians initially, but activity also plays into the influence you have, without it you quickly lose their attention. The current U.S. population is approximately 305 million, the current N.R.A. membership is approximately 4.3 million (1.4% of the U.S. population). In my state of Nevada we have a population of about 2 million, one organization of about 450 members (.000225% of the state population) affects gun policy for the entire state. We would love to have 1.4% of the population on our membership rolls, but the reality is that we just don't. What we do have is a few very dedicated members that are willing to invest a LOT of timeworking with our state's lawmakers and L.E.O.s.
We don't threaten them with anything other than revealing their voting records to the public. We use only the law as it is written and logical arguments, but we are relentless.
Yes, numbers are important, but a small, determined, andactive group will accomplish more than a huge inactive one that is willing to give in without a fight almost every time. No we don't win every battle, but progress is being steadily made.
It is estimated that thereare about 52 million households with guns in them in the U.S. Imagine what we could do if just one person from each household, or even one in five,becameACTIVE in the fight to defend our rights.
