[KMKeller]

In two parts. Part 1.

http://www.armedfemalesofamerica.com/takingaim/betrayal_trust.htm

Betrayal of Trust

How the NRA Bargains Away Our Second Amendment

By Nicki Fellenzer

It is with a heavy heart that I write my column this week. I write it as a columnist for Armed Females of America – a tireless proponent of the principle of “no compromise” when it comes to our freedoms. I write it as a Featured Writer and Newslinks Director for KeepAndBearArms.com – an organization dedicated to the principles of defending our Second Amendment rights fully, completely and without negotiation, concession or conciliation. And I write this column as a member of the National Rifle Association. It is this last membership that makes it so painful to convey this story, but I feel I need to convey it to all of you – whether you are NRA members or not. You need to know the truth about the largest organization of and for gun owners in the country. You need to understand that the biggest doesn’t necessarily mean the best, and that the political clout of an organization that allegedly claims to support and defend gun owners in the United States, doesn’t necessarily work in your favor or to protect your rights.

When I first joined the NRA, I did so because I felt they were the best suited to represent my interests. As the biggest organization dedicated to the rights of gun owners in the United States, I felt they had the most political influence and were in the best position possible to achieve our pro-freedom goals. I thought they served a terrific purpose – to mainstream the views of gun owners. And even though I disagreed with some if their political moves, I felt we all supported the same cause – to ensure the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not infringed – even though we took different roads to that goal.

I was wrong.

The National Rifle Association does do a lot of good. Their training programs, gun owner and children’s education programs are hard to beat. But their Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) and the NRA’s Political Victory Fund (PVF) are nothing but a horde of sycophantic, power-hungry compromisers, who aim to preserve their jobs – not to preserve your freedoms.

The ILA’s website unequivocally states the following: “For 130 years the National Rifle Association of America has stood in opposition to all who step-by-step would reduce the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms to a privilege granted by those who govern. NRA continues to fight against those who would dictate that American citizens should seek police permission to exercise their constitutional rights.”

Let’s examine this particular lie “step-by-step.” A few weeks ago I wrote in my column that the NRA supports unconstitutional gun laws and that it takes credit for victories in battles not its own. I even provided a link to their own website to support this fact. The NRA, after getting irate phone calls and emails from numerous gun owners and members, immediately took action. Did they admit this fact? No. Did they take immediate steps to change that policy? Not that I’ve seen. No. They altered the link on their website so that anyone who tries to access it receives this message. Not to worry, however, you can still access this particular information via the NRA-ILA’s website. All you need to do is access “Fable III: NRA opposes all ‘reasonable’ gun regulations.” And you will see the following:

(As this article was published the NRA removed the above link from their web site. The author had taken a screen shot of the page in order to preserve the truth.) Click Here to view the screen shot. AFA Editor

The truth is, NRA supports many gun laws, including federal and state laws that prohibit the possession of firearms by certain categories of people, such as convicted violent criminals, those prohibiting sales of firearms to juveniles, and those requiring instant criminal records checks on retail firearm purchasers.

NRA has also assisted in writing gun laws. The 1986 federal law prohibiting the manufacture and importation of "armor piercing ammunition" adopted standards NRA helped write. When anti-gun groups accuse NRA of opposing the law, they lie. NRA, joined by the Justice Department and Treasury Department, opposed only earlier legislation because that legislation would have banned an enormous variety of hunting, target shooting and defensive ammunition….

… NRA only opposed a bill that would have banned millions of commonplace handguns, and instead supported an alternative, the Hughes-McCollum bill. That 1988 legislation prohibited the development and production of any firearm that would be undetectable by airport detectors, and enhanced airport security systems to counter terrorism. In the end, the NRA-backed legislation passed Congress with wide bipartisan support and was signed into law by President Reagan.

At the state level, NRA has worked with legislators to write laws requiring computerized "instant" criminal records checks on purchasers of firearms and those who carry firearms for protection in public...

How bizarre that an organization dedicated to the preservation of the right to keep and bear arms which claims that it “has stood in opposition to all who step-by-step would reduce the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms to a privilege granted by those who govern” would not only support unconstitutional gun legislation, but help write it as well.

How strange that an organization that claims to support the rights of all gun owners favors creating an elite class – law enforcement officers – who would be privileged enough to use ammunition suitable for any type of encounter, while you – the ordinary peon and employer of said elite class – are not to be trusted with such “dangerous” bullets.

How odd that an organization which supposedly supports the idea that gun ownership as an inalienable right would support legislation to check if those wishing to practice that right are “fit” to do so – especially since the NRA claims that it “continues to fight against those who would dictate that American citizens should seek police permission to exercise their constitutional rights.”

The NRA supported the National Firearms Act of 1934 which taxes and requires registration of such firearms as machine guns, short-barreled rifles and sawed-off shotguns.

It supported the Federal Firearms Act of 1938, which regulates interstate and foreign commerce in firearms and pistol or revolver ammunition. It supported legislation to amend the Federal Firearms Act in regard to handguns when it was introduced as S.1975 in August, 1963. Among its provisions was the requirement that a purchaser submit a notarized statement to the shipper that he was over 18 and not legally disqualified from possessing a handgun.

In 1965, the NRA continued its support of an expansion of the above legislation to include rifles and shotguns, as well as handguns.

Additionally the NRA supported the regulation of the movement of handguns in interstate and foreign commerce by:

· requiring a sworn statement, containing certain information, from the purchaser to the seller for the receipt of a handgun in interstate commerce;

· providing for notification of local police of prospective sales;

· requiring an additional 7-day waiting period by the seller after receipt of acknowledgement of notification to local police;

· prescribing a minimum age of 21 for obtaining a license to sell firearms and increasing the license fees;

· providing for written notification by manufacturer or dealer to carrier that a firearm is being shipped in interstate commerce, and;

· increasing penalties for violation.

All of these facts have been carefully and meticulously documented by KeepAndBearArms.com Founder and Executive Director Angel Shamaya in an article entitled, NRA Supported the National Firearms Act of 1934. This excellent and thorough essay details the NRA’s long history of supporting gun control laws, as documented and admitted by the NRA itself in a March, 1968 issue of American Rifleman. Those of you who have the issue, may want to give it a read. Those of you who haven’t, can access the entire article on the KeepAndBearArms.com website via the above link.

Never mind that several of the above are stepping stones to registration of gun owners - which NRA has publicly, repeatedly admitted leads to confiscation. In fact, NRA has raised money to ‘fight against gun registration’ out of one side of their mouth while helping create gun and gun owner registration lists out of the other.

Never mind the absurdity of placing a minimum age on a constitutional right – especially when teenagers can enter the military and use firearms in the defense of our country.

Never mind the pure maliciousness of forcing Americans to wait a week to exercise their constitutional rights!

The issue is: why does an organization which purports to be a major force in defending the right to keep and bear arms actually support infringements on said right?

Let me give you a clue: anytime the government or any other powerful entity speaks of permitting or licensing a right, it should be your wake-up call that said entity does not consider it a right, but rather a privilege – to be approved, licensed and controlled by the government. This is what the NRA supports, according to Wayne LaPierre, “We believe that a lawful, properly-permitted citizen who chooses to carry a concealed firearm not only deserves that right, but is a deterrent to crime. We support the right to carry because it has helped cut crime rates in all 31 states that have adopted it ... with almost no abuse of any kind by the lawful citizens who took the courses, submitted to the background checks, passed the tests and became part of a proud citizens movement that's making America a safer place to live.” (emphasis mine)

Seems the NRA wants to have its cake and eat it too. They want to appear moderate and supportive of “common sense” gun control legislation (cautiously avoiding the fact that the laws they have supported thus far have been an unconstitutional and ineffective farce), but at the same time they would have you believe that they stand in opposition to any attempts to gradually erode your constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Which one is it, NRA? This member would certainly like to know!

But my disappointment and disenchantment with the National Rifle Association doesn’t end there. They have repeatedly sold out gun owners by supporting petty tyrants in three-piece suits, who consistently take steps to infringe on our freedoms. In California, the NRA awarded Assemblyman Rod Wright its “Defender of Freedom” Award. This is the same Rod Wright who supported unconstitutional limits on firearms purchases and background checks. This is the same Rod Wright who authored a bill to increase licensing fees from $3 to up to $100. Never mind the absurdity of bilking peaceable citizens of hundreds of dollars for making a constitutionally protected purchase. This champion of “freedom” apparently thinks it’s perfectly acceptable to license and charge Americans for exercising their rights. The NRA’s “Defender of Freedom” in 2001 voted against gun owners 62 percent of the time, according to Gun Owners of California.

During the last election cycle the NRA and anti-gun Maine Citizens Against Handgun Violence actually supported some of the same candidates! According to the Kennebec Journal, Deborah Danuski, a Democrat from Lisbon, was endorsed by the anti-handgun group, while also receiving an "A-" from the NRA on its report card of candidates. As a matter of fact, in Maine, both the NRA and Maine Citizens Against Handgun Violence supported 18 of the same candidates!

Meanwhile, in Colorado, where the NRA supported Senator Wayne Allard for office, and even boosted his pro-gun lobby contributions to $37,000 since 1990, Allard stated flatly that he would support federal legislation requiring gun registration for private gun sales at gun shows. Is a legislator who wants to expand gun registration someone who stands up for the rights of gun owners?

The latest travesty comes from Virginia, where the NRA Political Victory Fund touted the pro-gun “accomplishments” of Delegate Jack Rollison. This is the same Rollison who in a press release had the unmitigated gall to paint Gun Owners of America and the Virginia Citizens Defense League, who have endorsed his opponent Jeff Frederick, as extremists and “milita-esque”[sic] organizations. This is the same Jack Rollison who wants to banyour right to self-defense in any restaurant that happens to sell liquor. And this is the same Jack Rollison who voted correctly on only two out of eight issues important to Virginia gun owners. And by the way, according to KeepAndBearArms.com, Frederick is actually an NRA member, while Rollison is not. But I have no doubt Rollison will run right out and join real quick just to correct that little error.

And if you have any doubt that the NRA supports gun grabbers, don’t take my word for it, read the words of former NRA board member Russ Howard, who resigned from the board in 1997. “In the past 5 years I've become increasingly concerned over NRA's penchant for giving undeserved grades to politicians who trample on the 2nd Amendment.” This is an insider talking, folks. This is a man who knows the goings on inside the NRA’s boardrooms telling you that the NRA has been giving “A” and “A-“ grades to undeserving, freedom-trampling, gun grabbing politicians! And, as you can well see, the trend continues today.

The list of NRA betrayals goes on and on. In 2001, the NRA sold out North Carolina gun owners by allowing a bill to prevent cities from suing gun makers pass committee for a floor vote in the Senate. This bill is not what it appeared to be, according to Grass Roots North Carolina. While it restricted municipal suits against gun makers it also:

· Required peaceable gun owners to register private gun sales with the FBI through the National Instant Check System if they chose to sell a gun at a show.

· Would have allowed shooting competitions and wildlife clubs to be classified as "gun shows" if anyone sold a firearm at the event.

· Required registration of black powder firearms with the FBI via the NICS.

· Punished gun show promoters for illegal sales over which they have no control, offering them only an "affirmative defense" to keep them from being punished with a Class 1 misdemeanor.

According to the GRNC, the NRA sold North Carolinians out because “despite giving Senate President Pro Tem Marc Basnight (D-Dare, GRNC *) an ‘A’ and an endorsement, he has held their gun litigation bills hostage in the Senate. So they made a deal to include all of the gun show bill which GRNC has defeated for the last 3 years – a bill drafted by lobbyists for NC's Handgun Control affiliate, North Carolinians ‘Against Gun Violence.’ Translated, that means the NRA just got into bed with NCGV!”

The NRA also went on record as supporting CARA – the Conservation and Reinvestment Act – in 2001, a bill that made available billions of dollars to essentially condemn private property. Why? Apparently to appease Alaska Congressman Don Young– an NRA board member.

The NRA supports Project Exile and Project Safe Neighborhoods, which will allow the federal government to prosecute gun crimes – primarily a responsibility of the states. It violates the 10th Amendment to the US Constitution and could conceivably lead to a “mindless zero-tolerance policy toward technical infractions of the gun laws, resulting in long prison sentences for marginal offenders who do not deserve to be in jail,” according to Gene Healy of the CATO Institute. Project Safe Neighborhoods is enthusiastically backed by the NRA, which claims to hold the entire Constitution inviolate. Dozens of gun rights organizations and leading individuals came out, in a Coalition opposed to Project Exile. It tacks on extra jail time to anyone possessing a gun during the commission of a crime, regardless of whether or not the gun was actually used in the crime. It holds “gun” crime as more heinous than, say, a crime in which a woman pours gasoline on another and sets her on fire, rendering a gun more “evil” than a lighter and some gasoline for the purpose of harming another.

Last year the NRA supported a bill that would give away billions of taxpayer dollars to help states update the national database used for background checks on gun buyers. That bill was introduced by rabid anti-gunner Carolyn McCarthy – the same McCarthy who is now trying to shove yet another “assault” weapons ban down our throats – a ban that includes, among many other firearms, the widely-owned Ruger Mini-14 and Mini-30.

[KMKeller]

Part 2.

And speaking of “assault” weapons, THIS NRA member wants to know why the NRA has been transparently silent on President Bush’s promise to sign McCarthy’s ban into law! I’ve scoured their website top to bottom. I’ve done searches of major news outlets. But for the life of me, I can’t figure out one thing: Why has the NRA said nothing about Bush’s apparent support of this ridiculous “assault” weapons ban? Why, after a campaign of obsequious Bush ???-kissing in the last election, will the NRA say nothing negative about the President’s willingness to sell gun owners down the river?

I find it a bit hypocritical that the NRA is willing to consider revoking its support of the staunchest supporter of the Second Amendment in Congress, Rep. Ron Paul, because he refused to support their pet legislation on constitutional grounds, but they will not say a negative word about President Bush and his clearly political betrayal of gun owners. Ron Paul’s actions weren’t against gun owners. He didn’t do what he did to betray the Second Amendment. He rejected H.R. 1036 on clearly constitutional grounds – because he believed it violated the 10th Amendment. Yeah – another portion of the “inviolate” Constitution the NRA claims to protect. Meanwhile, a clearly political maneuver on the part of Bush in an effort to appear more moderate to clueless, uninformed, misguided anti-gun morons gets a pass from the NRA. Does this give you an indication where the NRA’s loyalties lie? It certainly doesn’t appear to be with the Second Amendment. Instead the NRA’s loyalties lie with the seat of power.

Some have suggested an even more insidious scenario: The NRA is poised to sell out gun owners. That’s why it won’t tell its members that Bush supports the extension of the present “assault” weapons ban. By staunchly opposing the much more sweeping legislation proposed by Carolyn McCarthy, the NRA could claim a victory when the present ban is extended or even made permanent by pointing out that they helped defeat the much more restrictive H.R.2038.

An anonymous Internet post reveals just such a scenario:

“PAY ATTENTION! What NRA DOESN'T SAY is just as important as what they do say. (Maybe MORE important!),” the alert says.

“NRA-ILA is conducting ‘spin control’ by omission. Nowhere …does NRA mention the fact that the so-called ‘assault weapon’ bill WILL sunset in Sept. 2004. The uninformed reader depending on the NRA for the ‘straight story’ on this issue has yet to be told of the sunset feature of Clinton’s gun ban. Neither has he been told of President Bush’s endorsement of the current gun ban. Furthermore, the ILA ‘report’ urges members to call and register opposition to the MORE RESTRICTIVE Feinstein / McCarthy bills. But, NRA-ILA fails to tell members to register opposition to the current gun ban.”

“Friends,” the alert continues, “two NRA Directors have personally contacted me. Both have implied that in secret executive session, the leadership (NRA BoD) has been informed that the situation is ‘under control.’” George Bush made his announcement in support of Bill Clinton’s gun ban just days after the anti-lawsuit bill passed its most daunting obstacle in Congress. Wayne (LaPierre) had placed the lawsuit protection bill as a ‘TOP PRIORITY’ for the NRA. By saying that in public, he placed the NRA's reputation on the line. He painted himself into a corner from which it is easy to see how he could have ‘dealt’ the ‘assault weapon’ ban off to gain protection for the gun industry.”

“My conclusion,” says this writer, “ is that NRA has ALREADY ‘struck a deal’ with George Bush and the Republican Party to use the smoke screen of Feinstein / McCarthy as the ‘windmill’ that NRA will direct its members to tilt at. Then, some Republican will propose a simple ‘extension’ of the current AWB. Wayne will claim ‘ANOTHER GREAT VICTORY’ for the so-called ‘Winning Team’ by passing the ‘compromise’ and ‘defeating’ Feinstein / McCarthy! And in return for selling out the Second Amendment, LaPierre and the gun industry will get their 30 pieces of silver in the form of protection from lawsuits.”

Dennis Jackson, an airline pilot, Second Amendment rights activist and advisor to Armed Females of America agrees. “I’ve been saying this for a long time,” he quips. “What they’re going to do is introduce a more sweeping bill that the NRA will oppose, but in the background they’ve already agreed to extend the existing ban.”

Angel Shamaya of KeepAndBearArms.com has two theories on the long and telling NRA silence on Bush’s support for renewals of the federal gun ban. “First, they may actually have inside information that says the bill will never hit Bush's desk -- and they want to let him and help him curry favor with gun prohibitionists. If that's the case, thinking gun prohibitionists will ever vote for Bush in 2004 is almost as stupid as thinking you're safer when you're defenseless. But maybe their inside information makes them think this is a sound strategy, by some kind of logic that eludes my logical mind.”

”Second,” he continues, “they are re-engaging their political cowardice and don't want to rock the boat by coming out against a president they helped put in office. NRA's managers are in fact political cowards with unfortunate frequency, so this is also likely. Perhaps the NRA Managers' yellow streak is at play here.”

While I won’t speculate about what is in the head of Wayne LaPierre and the NRA’s Board of Directors, I will say that this scenario isn’t as farfetched as I would like it to be. The NRA has been playing politics with our rights for far too long. They have compromised away gun owners’ rights in a transparent attempt to gain power in Washington. They have interfered, manipulated and tried to derail real and legitimate work on behalf of our Second Amendment rights.

For instance, note the NRA’s attempts to combine its lawsuit challenging the D.C. gun ban with another suit brought by the Cato Institute on behalf of five D.C. residents, claiming that the city’s gun ban violates the Second Amendment to the Constitution. Robert Levy, a Georgetown University law professor and constitutional scholar at the Cato Institute, told CNS News recently that his clients are “just perfectly situated to make the best case possible in the jurisdiction that has the worst laws possible.” But it seems the NRA just can’t stand being left out of a superior court case, so in an attempt to hog in on the action, it filed a motion to combine Levy’s suit with its own, far inferior one. The NRA’s suit doesn’t just address the Second Amendment violations in Washington, D.C., but it also claims the D.C. gun ban violates the Fifth Amendment protection against being deprived of property without due process, as well as the provision dealing with "equal protection" under the law. It also claims the ban violates the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and imposes regulations that are not "usual and reasonable" as required elsewhere in D.C. law. These extraneous and unnecessary claims will only serve to muddy the waters of the much more pure Second Amendment suit brought by Levy. It will give the court a way to once again avoid addressing the Second Amendment directly, and if combined with the Cato suit, it could cause it to fail.

CATO attorneys Alan Gura and Robert Levy even go so far as to accuse NRA’s attorney, Stephen Halbrook, of filing cases with a built in “trap door” in an effort to “give the court a basis, if it chose, to avoid a foursquare holding on the Second Amendment.” That’s one of many reasons the CATO attorneys gave the court – while trying to get NRA to stop sabotaging their case:

In a similar attempt to get in on the action, the NRA tried to convince its members to give money to a lawsuit that wasn’t theirs earlier this year. According to Gary Gorski, the lead attorney in Silveira vs. Lockyer, an NRA representative called his home asking him to renew his membership for the next three years to help take Silveira to the Supreme Court. “I asked him the name of the case,” writes Gorski, “and he said Silveira v. Lockyer. I then asked him specifically what the NRA's attorneys were doing on the case, and he said that "they were going to take the case to the Supreme Court" to get the decision overturned. I asked where he was calling from, and he said the NRA in Virginia (The NRA's legal counsel is in VA - 11250 Waples Mill Road, Fairfax, Va. 22030.) I then told him who I was, and he was dumfounded. He said it was a pleasure talking to me, and thanked me for all my hard work. I asked to speak to a manager, and he hung up the phone.”

The NRA representative had claimed that the NRA had “legions” of lawyers working to bring Silveira to the Supreme Court. But in fact, Gorski says NRA attorneys Stephen Holbrook and Chuck Michelle had earlier asked him to drop the suit, because they claimed he couldn’t win, and because the suit would interfere with other projects the NRA was working on "behind the scenes." Why would they do this? Angel Shamaya has a viable theory. “If the Second Amendment were resolved by the Supreme Court in the way educated civil rights advocates demand that it be resolved, the largest percentage of NRA's "Save the Second Amendment" income would vanish. The fact that NRA has never once taken a Second Amendment case all the way to the Supreme Court speaks volumes -- they've been around since 1871, and they've been raising money on the Second Amendment for several decades.”

In the end, this strategy will serve to alienate numerous gun owners. When my column mentioned the NRA’s sellout of gun owners by their support of unconstitutional gun laws, I was informed that the NRA offices received numerous phone calls and emails demanding an explanation. Additionally, the fact that one of their lead attorneys has tried to kill a current 2A case and another of their lead attorneys is still trying to sabotage yet another current 2A case has inspired more people to resign their memberships from NRA, according to Shamaya.

Here’s the bottom line: Groups like Armed Females of America, KeepAndBearArms.com, Liberty Belles and many other state-level non-NRA organizations exist to preserve and protect your freedoms. The NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action exists to protect its employees’ jobs. They’ve failed gun owners too many times to think otherwise. “I think the NRA, VPC, Brady, etc. they’re businesses,” says Dennis Jackson. “Without some degree of gun control there’s no need for them to exist.”

Angel Shamaya agrees. “If the NRA was doing its job, our organization would not exist,” he writes. “I could poll 30-odd non-NRA group leaders who'd likely echo a similar statement. NRA's charter calls for them to defend the Second Amendment, but they frequently attack the Second Amendment -- and we've got so much evidence to prove that statement it turns your stomach, when you look at it objectively.”

I’ll tell you the truth. I would rather be doing something else. I love to write. I want to write a novel. I used to do professional stage work while in college – musical theater – and I’d love to get back to it. Angel, Dennis, Carma Lewis of Armed Females of America and many others would love to spend their time doing something other than fighting this frustrating fight. “I'd love nothing more than to completely END the war being waged against our Second Amendment rights.” Shamaya says. “I have other things I'd like to do with my life -- this movement is an ongoing series of headaches, stresses and anxieties I'd be very happy to nullify.”

The Armed Females of America mission statement states unequivocally “A GOD GIVEN RIGHT cannot be legislated; cannot be turned into a privilege by a self-serving government who may then revoke it; cannot be judged or interpreted, and cannot be amended, added to a ballot, or repealed. OUR RIGHTS have no ‘loopholes.’ Any law restricting use, quantity owned or purchased, magazine capacity, configuration, caliber, firing operation, or age limits is unconstitutional.” This is a direct antithesis to the NRA’s actions, its constant pandering to power-hungry politicians, its compromising away of our God-given rights in exchange for political clout and its historical support of unconstitutional and immoral legislation. Enough is enough!

OUR RIGHTS ARE NOT FOR SALE. Our rights are not to be used as bargaining chips in power plays. They are not to be used as bait or manipulation. Our rights are not the NRA’s, President Bush’s or anyone else’s toys. They are inalienable and inviolate, and there will be consequences to those who try to sell our rights out for a few votes.

Nicki Fellenzer

[Boats]

So just how many times is this lamentation going to be republished here? I swear I read half of this long-winded essay in a previous thread a couple months ago.

This one does have a new gem:

While I won’t speculate about what is in the head of Wayne LaPierre and the NRA’s Board of Directors, I will say that this scenario isn’t as farfetched as I would like it to be. The NRA has been playing politics with our rights for far too long. They have compromised away gun owners’ rights in a transparent attempt to gain power in Washington. They have interfered, manipulated and tried to derail real and legitimate work on behalf of our Second Amendment rights.

Nice disclaimer after a bunch of unmitigated speculation as to the "true motives" of the NRA's leadership and before more fresh gusts of the same.

Writing Tip: Economy works wonders in the cause of readability.

[Tempest]

So just how many times is this lamentation going to be republished here? I swear I read half of this long-winded essay in a previous thread a couple months ago. Gee, that would be kind of difficult, since I only wrote it Sunday night. :rolleyes:



Nice disclaimer after a bunch of unmitigated speculation as to the "true motives" of the NRA's leadership and before more fresh gusts of the same. Try reading the original, which contains links - both from major news outlets and from the NRA itself - as supporting evidence for all that "unmitigated speculation."

Writing Tip: Economy works wonders in the cause of readability. Not when the amount of evidence is so overwhelming. But I'll take that into consideration. :rolleyes:

[Wild Bill]

Nicki

You don't need me to tell you this; but, stick to your guns. You and the folks in your group are doing great work despite the frustrating and time consuming nature of the beast.

To a large extent I agree with your analysis of the NRA. That's the major reason I belong to other RKBA groups instead.

I'd like to pose a question to you ... as an "insider" what do you think of GOA?

I note you reference them, yet don't have a link to them on your site. Any particular reason you stop short of an endorsement, or did I just miss it?

[Tempest]

Hi, Wild Bill -- thanks for the kind words.

No, there's no particular reason I don't mention GOA. I had plans to talk with Larry Pratt and get a few quotes from him for the article, but our plans fell through. By the time I spoke with him yesterday, the article was already in the can. GOA is a terrific organization. They work hard on behalf of our rights, and its leaders have a lot of honesty and integrity. I didn't mean to give any particular group an "endorsement" so to speak. I think very highly of Mr. Pratt and his organization.

[Tempest]

I don't plan on quitting. As frustrating as this fight is, I'm willing to see it through to the end (or until I collapse from a stroke, whichever comes first ;) )

[Wild Bill]

I've read several of your pieces on www.keepandbeararms.com . Nicely done by the way.

Somehow quitting doesn't seem to be in your vocabulary. Thanks for the good reads, and for the efforts on behalf of all of us who believe in unfettered rights.

[Boats]

I did some digging and found what sounded familiar about this thread. It struck me as largely a rehash of stuff I had read before because largely it is.

Most gun owners disgust me (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=20651)

The deja vu paragraph:
I spend no less than 30 hours per week working to preserve your freedoms, despite the fact that I have a family, a full-time office job, and I’m a student working on my degree. I write this column for free, when I generally get $600 for one article of this length. I have donated my April salary from my part-time job to the Silveira case, even though we live paycheck to paycheck in this house. I’m not bragging. I’m simply telling you my level of commitment, so you don’t think I don’t practice what I preach.


Today's same song second verse:
I’ll tell you the truth. I would rather be doing something else. I love to write. I want to write a novel. I used to do professional stage work while in college – musical theater – and I’d love to get back to it. Angel, Dennis, Carma Lewis of Armed Females of America and many others would love to spend their time doing something other than fighting this frustrating fight. “I'd love nothing more than to completely END the war being waged against our Second Amendment rights.” Shamaya says. “I have other things I'd like to do with my life -- this movement is an ongoing series of headaches, stresses and anxieties I'd be very happy to nullify.”



CATO Attorneys to NRA: Butt out! (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21262) Featuring a Shamaya/Tempest tag-team raising many of the topics of this post.

I appreciate windmill tilting as much as the next observer and I can hardly wait watching you two trying to compress your verbosity during a hostile CNN interview in the future. Please post when that happens will you?

[Tempest]

I did some digging and found what sounded familiar about this thread. It struck me as largely a rehash of stuff I had read before because largely it is. Which proves you either didn't read the articles in question, or you have very poor comprehension skills. I'm betting it's the latter. But thank you for playing.

CATO Attorneys to NRA: Butt out! Featuring a Shamaya/Tempest tag-team raising many of the topics of this post. Hmmmm. One similar link proving the NRA - in their own words - supports gun control. Hardly the definition of "many," but I guess we'll attribute this to your lack of comprehension skills yet again.

I appreciate windmill tilting as much as the next observer... If you define "windmill tilting" as telling the truth, then I'm guilty.

You watch CNN? That would explain much of your ignorance. Thanks for playing. Buh-bye

[Wild Bill]

If you define "windmill tilting" as telling the truth, then I'm guilty. You watch CNN? That would explain much of your ignorance. Thanks for playing. Buh-bye

:D :D :D

Game point to Nicki!

Boats - your serve.

PS: Not to get personal here, but were y'all married in a former life? Seems both of you expend a whole lot of effort smacking the other everytime you post. :uhoh:

But seriously, if y'all could overcome the objections to the other you could make a hell of a tag team kickin' butt for the good guys.

[Tamara]

The personal sniping will end here.

[Oleg Volk]

Agree or disagree with the article, but be polite to the author.

This article is not bellyaching for its own sake, but providing accurate information to the current NRA mambers. Changing the course of the organization would be more useful than either sittle idly or complaining without action -- and this write-up provides lots of useful info.

I read it yesterday and learned a few useful things. Questioned one item and found out that the author did more research than I. So -- agree or not -- please take this write-up as a good-faith effort to steer NRA-ILA back to the task of fighting for our liberties rather than against them...if that is even possible in view of the history of that organization.

[Tempest]

Tamara, I apologize for the personal barb. I tend to retaliate when someone attempts disingenuous misrepresentation of my work. I did a heck of a lot of research for this thing, citing no less than 25 sources, so when someone accuses me of idle speculation, it tends to grate. It won't happen again.

No, we weren't married in a past life. As a matter of fact, this is the first time I've ever had any type of conversation with Boats. :D

Oleg, I do think it's possible to change things. That's why I haven't burned my membership card on their front steps yet. :D I appreciate the NRA for a lot of things. I've met some pretty phenomenal people who work there - people committed to the cause and dedicated to freedom, who are intelligent, passionate and well-spoken. Unfortunately, I have to question the leadership's motives, especially given everything I've learned doing research for this article.

[Oleg Volk]

A while back, I bought gun magazines from 1967-69 just to see what happened. The published NRA comments were largely supportive of the restrictions. The NRA, which is made up largely of people who have preservation of RKBA as a goal, ought to be most careful of getting sidetracked into cooperation with our common enemies.

Follow the links provided in the original article and research for yourself. Don't take the author's conclusion on faith -- take the time and come to your own.

[Ol' Badger]

Is the "Cliff Notes" verson out let? :D

[Shooter 2.5]

Yawn, here we go again.

Some people think the NRA actually passes laws.

Wake the hell up. They don't. For the last forty years they have been trying to slow down the incursions against our rights because no one else was doing it.

We didn't have the votes in the House or Senate in order to stop a lot of the gun laws. When the NRA couldn't stop the laws, they offered compromises.

Have we repealed any gun laws? No, because we don't have the votes. We won't have the votes if gunowners flee to a weak third party either.

[Shooter 2.5]

Oleg,

Back in 68 the NRA didn't even have a million members and they were a rifle competition group. They didn't have the polticial muscle they have today.

I wasn't a member at the time but there was major change over around 1977 which was called the Cincinnati revolution. I think Neal Knox had a part in that.

The whole organization changed after that.

I'll give you an example how bad things were back then. I was at a Texas Pistol match and the head of the TSRA was yelling at someone and trying to explain that the "black rifles" should be banned.

The guy was voted out in the next election.

[Tempest]

Some people think the NRA actually passes laws. Who does? But they can exert a lot of influence, and their support for a gun control law generally means it passes.


We didn't have the votes in the House or Senate in order to stop a lot of the gun laws. When the NRA couldn't stop the laws, they offered compromises. Many people, myself included, don't believe compromise is the way to go. The NRA has a lot of political clout. When they go on record as supporting legislation, they're betraying gun owners.

Have we repealed any gun laws? No, because we don't have the votes. We won't have the votes if gunowners flee to a weak third party either. So your solution is to vote for people who will betray you, but on a smaller scale? Sorry, not mine.

[Wild Bill]

www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=20651&highlight=Most+Gun+Owners+Disgust+Me

:eek:

Deja vu - sorry Tempest, you’ve been there before.

Oleg – good advice. I too researched all the citations in Nicki's article (and in others of hers I've read). Found her sources legit and her points well made.

I don't have an NRA card to burn on their front steps, but I would if I could. Why? History.

I'm a refugee from our great neighbor to the north – that semi-socialistic utopia that is Canada. Spent most of my life there and the last five long years struggling in the fight against their current legislation.

Let me tell y’all - trying to keep a gun shop/range business viable in that legislative regime, working on nearly every political/shooting committee I could join, promoting three shooting sports as a director/RO/instructor on the local level, and spending what seemed like every waking minute embroiled in the fight is exhausting and frustrating to no end. I joined political parties to have a voice from the inside, wrote enough letters to the media and the powers that be to overflow the Rideau River with ink. Did everything in my power to change the obvious direction the legislation there was taking us.

Did it help? Sure. Did we win? Duh, nope. Why? COMPROMISERS.

The political reality of Canada is quite different than here. Change is much harder to affect at any point in the process. The proverbial deck was stacked against us from the outset, but we might have done it if we had all stuck together. But noooo … too many individuals and organizations were willing to sit idle or give-in on issues that didn’t personally affect them.

My long-winded point? Compromise will never be an effective political strategy, period. It’s a sentence to the death of a thousand cuts.

Analyzed the RKBA groups here before we moved and decided against the NRA then. For an educational group you couldn’t ask for better. But there is way too rich a history of compromise in the ILA to ever see a dime of my cash.

[Boats]

Well I know a lot of back scratching takes place among the purists here, but I don’t mind taking a little heat for being contrarian.:)

My primary objection to the “NRA is Judas” conspiracy theory is that it is historically ignorant to a point that is almost fantastical.

Has the NRA drafted “anti-gun legislation?” You bet it did. Where the conspiracy of “before the Bradys there was the NRA” breaks down is in the lack of acknowledgment that the NRA operates in a real environment populated by people who really are more “evil” than they.

Oftentimes in the legislative process, many organizations are placed in an unenviable position. Does one let their desired policy position get steam-rolled whilst maintaining principle at all cost, or does one mitigate the damage by offering watered down “alternate” legislation? When one is looking at the prospect that something they really do not want is going to pass in spite of all purist opposition and entrenching, the latter course of action is far more sane. The seemingly revisionist history here is that the NRA has happily proposed things or endorsed legislative efforts, apparently in an effort to shill more donations to combat their own doings.:rolleyes:

History paints a different picture. My apologies for the quick and dirty take.

Gun control, and the evolution of the NRA into a political animal is a story that largely begins, much as it continues today, during a national overreaction to political and gang violence in the 1920s and 30s by punishing the law-abiding. “Communist” agitation, racial fears, ethnic fears, and organized crime all played their parts in a burgeoning gun control movement that was beginning to find its voice in the beginning of last century.

The first landmark national legislation is usually considered to be the NFA of ‘34. This legislation was an apparent reaction to the popular conception of the day that the Thompson SMG was the preferred criminal “assault weapon” of its day, therefore no one should be able to readily own one, or anything like it, save for our friends in the police and military. The Second Amendment seemed to present a bar to direct gun control because of a very conservative Supreme Court, so as was the penchant during the New Deal, the commerce and taxation clauses were used instead to gain a de facto ban. The question is not really if the NFA was going to pass, it was in what form would it pass, especially with a Democratic President in office. A quick scan of the 75th Congress provides the scope of the problem for conservatives. If we make the fairly safe assumption that the Republicans were generally the party of less governmental regulation and the Democrats more the fans of centralized authority, the political make-up of the 73rd Congress shows what the NRA was up against. The 75th Congress contained 313 Democrats, 117 Republicans, and 5 Independents–most likely liberal Progressives from the Upper Midwest. Surely by standing firm with conservatives in that Congress the NRA would have stopped the NFA. Yeah right.:rolleyes:

What about 1938's 75th Congress ? Hmmm. The picture is even worse. 333 Democrats, 89 Republicans and 13 Independents. Same Democratic President. Fat chance.

What about 1963, the year JFK was assassinated, the time of the 88th Congress? 258 Democrats and 176 Republicans along with a president who took office in the wake of his predecessor being killed. We can all safely assume that there wasn’t far worse legislative proposals making the rounds than the NRA’s can’t we?:scrutiny:

What about 1968's 90th Congress in the aftermath of the killings of RFK and MLK? I am sure the NRA’s endorsed proposals were much more draconian than the competing bills being circulated in a Congress with 187 Republicans and 248 Democrats. The Speaker of the House was only John W. McCormack (D-Massachusetts) and the Democratic Caucus Chairman one Dan Rostenkowski of Illinois, remember him?

I don’t understand how people can forget that until relatively recently, the Congress was in a Democratic Party death grip for all but the briefest of moments. The Demos proposed, and they disposed, and if the Republicans had a president in the office, the veto had to be carefully considered so as to not be overused and lose effectiveness. One can readily note that almost all of the major gun control legislation ever passed came about when the Democrats controlled all of the branches of government.

So did the NRA write some “gun control legislation” Yep. Just think of where your gun rights would be today if they hadn’t. At least acknowledge the reality that the most erstwhile opponents of the Second Amendment called the tune for most of last century and puritan stances would have led only to marginalization and irrelevance, much like the gun lobbies in other English speaking democracies today. Perhaps such historical perspective isn't possible for some "non-compromisers?"

[whoami]

Some people think the NRA actually passes laws.

I'll remember that comment the next (how I wish there WOULDN'T be a) time an NRA Life member claims that the NRA is the sole reason we still have gun rights, then goes on to call all non-members lazy <unprintable> shills leeching off the work of 'the rest of us'.

Perhaps such historical perspective isn't possible for some "non-compromisers?"

Yes...perhaps in many cases we should have been more compromising. I'm sure life wouldn't have ceased had we compromised on 'no taxation without representation', or 'infringement of religious practices'. Yes, yes...in fact life would not have been much different today, had we merely compromised with the good King George....after all, it was going to happen one way or the other. And what marginalized souls those men and women were who refused to see the logic of compromise, what with that Declaration of Independence and all?

Perhaps some of us do not see rights as something to be bartered. For in bartering we admit their release and thus both relinquish our current claim to them AND destabilize their very nature as a right. And in the case where they are taken, then it provides all the more justification to TAKE THEM BACK.

[D.W. Drang]

And the tinfoil hat brigade weighs in again. "Every time we lose one it's because the NRA sold us out! I'm going to write an article exposing their support for gun crontrol and entitle it 'Betrayal of Trust' and give aid an comfort to Schumer and Feinswine and flog that d***ed dead horse until it's jelly!" :barf:

[KMKeller]

boats - in your previous post, you take great pain to sort by political affiliation. It's my understanding that the democrats as recently as JFKs time were more left leaning than modern republicans and largely supported gun owners and their rights. In fact, JFK himself and other dems of the era like Hubert Humphries were supportive as well.

How does this factor into the equation? Your logic requires that dems and republicans have always been on opposite sides of the gun question and I don't believe that's a line that can be so neatly drawn.

[Boats]

Well Mr. Keller my "nose counting" contains premises and deductions. Among these:

Parties that defend their legacies of yesteryear have roots in their past accomplishments or there would be strong signs of cognitive dissonance in their modern platforms. (i.e. Democrats and Republicans identify with their past practices).

Democrats have historically (since the Industrial Revolution) drawn a large part of their strength from urbanized, big population industrial cities and states.

Gun control is a legislative phenomenon driven by urban constituencies.

Does a strict party line count tell all of the tale of how ancient gun control got proposed and passed? No. That would require more than the 20 minutes of research I did this morning. However, the general trends of the far past on this issue are likely to mirror the more recent past on this issue. The fact that cities such as Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, New York, Detroit, Boston, and others have long had vibrant antigun policies argues that their "machine" politicians would and did hold those views as well, even in the remote past. As Congress has historically been a senority driven institution and the majority party controls the committee appointments, the legislative calendar, and other levers of power, and urban interests usually have the safest Democratic seats in the greatest number to gain senority with, it is not much of a stretch on my part to blame Democratic knee-jerk activism in response to "national gun crisies," combined with their obvious numerical superiority in 1934, '38, '68, '89 and '94 as the more likely gun legislation force than the NRA-ILA was, even if the latter played an influential role in what ultimately passed.

I do not however, recall an alternate NRA sponsored AWB in 1994. Perhaps someone would be kind enough to search Thomas and provide the traitorous text here? Surely it exists if the NRA has been playing guilty as charged.

[Wild Bill]

Well I know a lot of back scratching takes place among the purists here

No back scratching ... I just happen to agree with Tempest's points.

Now let me surprise you by agreeing with a few of yours. :eek: ;)

While we’re at it perhaps we can all avoid lumping people into broad characterizations here. I was under the impression this board was above that. What happened to the free exchange of ideas without the personal characterizations? Are we so literally challenged, so week that we need to stoop to that? I (and I seriously doubt Tempest or Oleg either) are neither conspiracy theorizing historical revisionists, nor factually ignorant, nor even (oh joy) part of the tin foil brigade.

Boats, I agree with your take on history. The NRA was indeed the pivotal gun rights group for much of history. They have been instrumental in defending us to a large degree. But that doesn’t give them a free pass to ongoing loyalty, especially when through some of that very historical compromise they’re also partly responsible for some of the issues we face today.

I’ve also been around long enough to know the reality of politics. Certainly there are times when compromise is both politically expedient and unavoidable. We’ll never win all battles. Sometimes it’s all we can do to head home defeated (perhaps even forced into a compromise) but with pride in putting forth a valiant effort.

My problem is with the attitude that we can start from a position of compromise, or be fully willing to do so well before all our resources in the fight are exhausted. The NRA seem far too willing to play give-and-take games even when they have a good chance of total victory.

Worse, they play as if they are the only game in Washington, and refuse to share credit when due. This weakens the entire RKBA by seeming to marginalize other perhaps more effective groups.

But enough for now … apparently I need to go polish my tin foil hat
:rolleyes:

[Shooter 2.5]

So do a better job than the NRA. It's that simple. Establish a track record that doesn't include begging for help from the NRA members and do a bettr job.

It's simple supply and demand. Create a better mousetrap and go for it. You don't need to even acknowledge the NRA.

In short, build it and they will come.

To the other poster who said they wouldn't give money to the NRA because they aren't the ones voting on the bills. That's correct. The NRA in the last two election had an impressive track record for getting A rated candidates elected. They also are the best lobbying group according to Fortune Magazine.

They just don't push the button for the politician. They can only trust, just like any other voter, that the politian will do the right thing.

[Geech]

Boats, if the situations were really as bleak and the NRA as powerless as you claim, why should I believe they've actually accomplished anything? Seems like the only national "victories" would be the cop-killer and plastic gun legislation.

[KMKeller]

For me, I think that social demographics played a more important role in the decisions. The fear of the wealthy (read politicians) of popular uprising during the depression, the politicians (read wealthy) fear of political uprising from the "bonus army". Black uprisings for civil rights and MLK...

For virtually every anti-gun legislative action there was a set of circumstances that fostered that knee-jerk fear of the masses. In every instance, had emotions been given time to cool, liklihood of passage of the anti-gun legislation would have greatly diminished.

The same is true of the Patriot Act and other modern affectations of knee-jerk emotional reactions. Sure political party affiliation has something to do with it, but in those days, I believe that fear of the masses had more to do with it.

Boats - NRAs platform of compromise worked very well for them over the years, but we're rapidly running out of things to compromise. Where do we go when there's nothing left? I agree with Wild Bill. There may be a time coming when the NRA is going to have to shift their strategy to one that refutes compromise as their preferred model. And some of their "A" candidates are absolutely, unequivocally not worth their "A" rating. Why did the NRA provide that rating when it is so sharply contrasted by that politicians efforts?

[jsalcedo]

The NRA is an 800 Lb gorilla. That is the good news.

They have worked hard and have prevented some pretty horrific gun laws. However, when an organization gets too big and becomes a political entity itself, abuses, back door dealing and compromise will always follow.

The same thing has happened to the United Way, AARP and others.

They are more interested in their own survival and retention of their high paying positions than actually doing the right thing for its members.

I'm still an NRA member but I am very disappointed at some of the decisions made sacrificing machine guns and ugly black rifles.

What to do?

[Wild Bill]

jsalcedo - well said.

[revlar]

One can readily note that almost all of the major gun control legislation ever passed came about when the Democrats controlled all of the branches of government.

Really?

It was under the watch of a Republican president that the BATF came into being. And it was under watch of yet another Republican president that the Crime Control Act of 1990 became law.

[Boats]

Well I'd say that the three major, paradigm shifting, pieces of anti-gun legislation ever passed were all Demo originated and signed into law, namely the NFA of '34, the GCA of '68, and the '94 Crime Bill. Compared to that unholy trinity the rest are minor.

[Tempest]

Well I'd say that the three major, paradigm shifting, pieces of anti-gun legislation ever passed were all Demo originated and signed into law, namely the NFA of '34, the GCA of '68, and the '94 Crime Bill. Compared to that unholy trinity the rest are minor. Two out of the three were supported by the NRA, according to their own article in Rifleman.

[Boats]

Time to play revisionist lobbyist Nicki.


What should the NRA have done to kill ultimate passage of the 1934 NFA or the 1968 GCA in light of the huge Democratic majorities present in Congress at the time and with no hope of a veto?

This ought to be interesting. BTW, I'm still awaiting evidence of the NRA sponsored AWB of 1994.

[KMKeller]

What they should have done in the past is not the issue here. What they are doing now is.

[Tempest]

.What should the NRA have done to kill ultimate passage of the 1934 NFA or the 1968 GCA in light of the huge Democratic majorities present in Congress at the time and with no hope of a veto? Boats, You're not grasping the difference between fighting it tooth and nail and failing (something I can respect) and voicing support for it! (Something I will not and cannot condone.)

This ought to be interesting. BTW, I'm still awaiting evidence of the NRA sponsored AWB of 1994 Who said it did?

[hops]

The NRA is the 'Brady Bunch' in disguise?

The best that the NRA can ever do at a political level, is help mobilize the masses to elect pro-gun politicians. Beyond that the NRA is playing against a stacked deck. About the only other thing the NRA could to, near a political level is let its membership know the evils going on with regard to the continuous subversion of the 2nd ammendment by elected officials.

Given that, I'll continue to support their efforts to that effect.

[Boats]

C'mon! Let's not have it both ways. One cannot decontextualize the NRA and then essentially accuse it of staying in business to fight legislation it promulgated.

KMKeller:
What they should have done in the past is not the issue here. What they are doing now is.

Well I am not the one that has detached the NRA from the moorings of history and the tenor of the times to accuse them of thriving on falsely combatting gun laws by passing them.

It is interesting that such a thought disconnect is possible. How can one decontextualize the NRA from the political scene as they confronted it and then claim that the present would be somehow better had they fought tooth and nail and failed? Had the NRA not supported alternate bills in exceedingly hostile legislative environments, it is likely that none of us would have anything more than singles shot rifles and black powder weapons today if that.

I do not even consider the American Rifleman article to be all that damning back in 1968. The truth is that since it had to deviate from its founding mission of improving American marksmanship into defending weapons access to the lawabiding, the NRA has been fighting a rearguard action.

In 1871, one could and did afford, any type of firearm within his or her means unless subject to some Jim Crow style restriction.

Let us start from this premise then: In 1871, the average white male American gunowner had the world as his oyster. Any size, any caliber, any range, any rate of fire, any concealbility feature desired, facing only the odd local restriction in Dodge City and other notable places.

When one has everything and one's opponents have nothing, and one cannot kill one's opponents, there is only one direction the fight is going to go in the long term. The nascent antis started nowhere and could only get somewhere at gunowners' expense.

It is an interesting feature of the Orth article that it uses the word undesireables. Like any conservative institution staffed by humans, the NRA took on the cast of its membership of the times. There was a broad WASPish consensus that undesireables not be armed at all, and as a byproduct, only unseemly women went armed. Those positions wouldn't have been controversial even amongst the membership of the day and in no way does modern second guessing make the old-timers "wrong."

The gang wars of the Prohibition Era only intensified this culture biased reaction. "True Americans" had always sought to disarm the alien "other," be they Native Americans, blacks, Catholic European immigrants or Jews. One could not properly allow the teeming masses to have the tools of violent revolutionary overthrow and crime. Such we see things such as NY's Sullivan Law and the NFA.

I will attempt to check the legislative history soon, but I am confident that the NRA agreed with the NFA to the extent that they wanted to tune the bill within the framework of knowing it was going to be passed with or without them. A group gets its say by getting in on the process rather than being shunned as outside of it.

Another interesting item in the damning Orth article was a couple of terms attributed to Senator Robert F. Kennedy. He called the NRA "extremists," and furthermore a piece of agitprop, the so-called "mail order murder" (loophole no doubt) was employed. What rings so familiar about that these days? One can only wonder.

So a 1968 presidential candiate with an much beloved assassinated president brother accuses the NRA of being extremist and by implication, anti-American, catering to lowlifes and undesireables who have been linked to the death of his brother with a mail order Italian surplus rifle. Seems like a major political problem even today. Orth responds that push come to shove, the NRA has worked with its opponents in an attempt to ensure that the law-abiding weren't too harmed by pending gun control legislation by trying to frame it and steer it in a direction they could live with. There is a fundamental difference between enthusiastically supporting a hated cause of the opposition, and compromise with opponents to preserve something of what one wants when defeat is a distinct possibility. Remember the NRA started with everything, a total loss through inflexibility was probably never even comtemplated in those more genteel times.

Today's view of the NRA from certain absolutist quarters says much more about the coarsening of public debate than it does about the NRA historically. People could respect an ancient NRA that could have moved itself into early marginalization a long time ago and left the field clear for the gun haters? That is, quite frankly, nuts. One cannot decontextualize either people or their organizations from the times in which they were operating and expect the parallels made between today and yesteryear to hold.

So go ahead and judge the NRA through a lens of warped history if it gets you NRA haters through another day on the fringes. I "forgive" them of their past "transgressions" because I have little doubt that the heights of liberal power spasms during the New Deal and The Great Society would have eviscerated the Second Amendment into uselessness by now save for the NRA.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

The author makes some decent points, although most of them are old news to anyone who even bothers to read the NRAs press releases. I also think it is informative for NRA members to understand exactly what the organization is doing. I even appreciate the rehash of the NRA press releases without the positive spin.

Having said that, the post goes overboard with its thesis. It never once addresses the positive things the NRA has accomplished; only the negative things it doesn't like. On top of that it tries to imply a monolithic and continuous policy over a 70 year span of the organization. This isn't too far removed from describing the modern day Republican party's main platform as abolition.

It is disingenuous to compare the NRA of old to the current NRA. The NRA existing at the the time of the 1934 NFA and 1968 GCA was nothing more than a league of competition rifle shooters and didn't even have a political wing.

Boats, You're not grasping the difference between fighting it tooth and nail and failing (something I can respect) and voicing support for it! (Something I will not and cannot condone.)

I'd prefer the NRA not write gun control legislation; but if it is going to be written - they are certainly the group I want doing it. Our political system is built around compromise - if you are strong enough that you don't have to compromise, then you are strong enough that politicians will generally avoid your pet issue.

I think that rather than criticize the NRA for how it played the hand it was dealt in the past, we should concentrate on how to play bad hands better in the future and most importantly - stacking the deck in our favor so we don't have to play bad hands.

The NRA is far from perfect but despite its vocal detractors (all of whom know the one true way to RKBA heaven); I still feel that changing the organization as a member is more likely to be a successful strategy than abandoning the NRA to the right-to-hunt with a single-shot shotgun crowd and trying to build a new organization from scratch.

[pytron]

While I agree with some of the comments on "no compromise" from both sides here, I'd like to address something that hasn't been really talked about. Like giving high grades to poor candidates.

It seems to me that the NRA is doing this so they can say "99% of our A-rated candidates were elected". Well that's just dandy, but if the A-rated candidates are antis, can you really call that a "victory"? This is my main beef with the NRA.

-Pytron

[Shooter 2.5]

Pytron-

Did you notice who voted against the gun manufacturers lawsuit protection?

Ron Paul

When the NRA threatened to defund him there was a hue and cry like you never heard before.

Paul said that he didn't think the Federal government should be involved and the NRA said if you don't protect the industry, there won't be any guns to protect.

Can anyone say, Interstate commerce, chilldren? I guess he didn't read that part.

But that's OK, he'll keep cashing checks from that "other" gun group.

[pytron]

You didn't reply to my point, which is that the NRA rating system is highly suspect. I think that is pretty well documented.

I'm not entirely sure what you are trying to say about Ron Paul. That the NRA threatened his rating before he voted against legislation he thought was unconstitutional? Yes, so the NRA will downgrade members who don't vote for their legislation SOMETIMES. However, as pointed out in Nicki's article, there are numerous places where high-rated candidates were also endorsed by the antis. Isn't that strange? Doesn't that strike you as backward?

That's what I'm talking about.

Another example is cases where the NRA could endorse a underdog challenger with a good record, but is silent, or even worse, recommends an anti candidate with a better chance of winning.

I'm just saying that their endorsement practices need to be overhauled. They don't have to endorse only "NO COMPROMISE" candidates or anything wacky. Just be more truthful in endorsements and be willing to go out on a limb rather than pick some anti who is doing better in the polls, just so they can say "99% of our A-rated candidates were elected". Care less about that dumb sound-bite and more about the actual race.

-Pytron

[Tempest]

Ron Paul is THE most pro-gun Congressman in that nest of vipers. He didn't vote against the legislation to screw gun owners, nor did he do it to further his own power. Whether you agree with him or not (I don't, by the way), he did it on constitutional grounds, not because he's anti gun. Meanwhile, the NRA considered dropping him, while keeping conspicuously silent on Bush's promise to sign the AW ban into law. No hypocrisy there?

And yes, I've addressed the NRA's endorsement of less than stellar candidates, including giving the "Defender of Freedom" award to a guy who's very much far from it.

[Wild Bill]

Wow! Walk away from the machine for a while and the debate seems to have heated up even more. Don't y'all just love living in a society where we can debate freely? :)

Now we just need to see if we can agree to disagree... politely at least - if not respectfully. ;)

The NRA is far from perfect but despite its vocal detractors (all of whom know the one true way to RKBA heaven); I still feel that changing the organization as a member is more likely to be a successful strategy than abandoning the NRA to the right-to-hunt with a single-shot shotgun crowd and trying to build a new organization from scratch.

Mr. Roberts, I agree. If you feel you can affect change from within then more power to you sir. I however have no history as a member in the NRA, and choose to exercise my option not to become one at this time. I firmly feel my disposable income is better spent on organizations that I find are more effective at achieving my favored political objectives (GOA, GRSC). As for the road to RKBA heaven ... if you have that secret please do share. I'm just sending my money where I see it doing the most good.

... but I am confident that the NRA agreed with the NFA to the extent that they wanted to tune the bill within the framework of knowing it was going to be passed with or without them. A group gets its say by getting in on the process rather than being shunned as outside of it.

Boats - you are correct. It is better to tune an impending evil from within then being at the mercy of its impact without any say at all. However , even in those heady times, I seriously doubt this was the only option.

So go ahead and judge the NRA through a lens of warped history if it gets you NRA haters through another day on the fringes. I "forgive" them of their past "transgressions" because I have little doubt that the heights of liberal power spasms during the New Deal and The Great Society would have eviscerated the Second Amendment into uselessness by now save for the NRA.

Wow again - now we who have doubts about the effectiveness of the NRA can add "NRA Haters" to the growing list of labels some of you are so readily throwing about. I guess those of us who have differing opinions can now officially call ourselves a "fringe Group"? Cool! Wonder if I can get Oleg to make us a T-shirt. Maybe he can make one that will match my tin foil hat. Nicki you want one too?

Ain't seen so much name calling since grade school boys and girls.

Boats - wake up and find your reading glasses son - nobody has stated a hatred for the NRA. Or is it just that any expression of dissent that diverges from your own automatically gets labeled? Pure childishness well below the intelligence level your posts suggest you possess.

What they should have done in the past is not the issue here. What they are doing now is.

Kudos Mr. Keller. Brief, articulate, and on point. Would that we all had that skill.

Folks it's real simple. Nicki's article brought up some serious deficiencies in the NRA's actions. The article was well researched and written. Some of us happen to think that these issues point to a serious deficiency in the current thinking of the organization.

Why don't we all agree to discuss the issues raised and resist the temptation to slam labels on those we disagree with? Everyone on this board is or at least should be much more astute than that.

[Boats]

I don't depend on the NRA to educate me about my local congressional candidates. Who does?

Howabout this? I'll concede that the NRA needs to fully explore or explain its endorsement process so as not to mislead the politically lazy into supporting someone they might regret, you absolutists can concede that your ahistorical charicature of the NRA as happy warrior for gun control is mostly fantasy and distortion of the political pressures it was facing.

[Wild Bill]

:rolleyes:

Great - now I can add politically lazy, absolutist living in a fantasy to the hat.

Slow down son, I'm running out of room!

[pytron]

I don't depend on the NRA to educate me about my local congressional candidates. Who does?

You may not. But I do, and I bet a lot of NRA members do too.

I take in to account how the NRA rates my candidates, although they don't have the final word, they can quickly narrow the field of candidates to research. When those ratings are misleading, it does a great disservice to the RKBA movement. I think local groups and GOA have been more accurate in their ratings.

I resent being called politically lazy because I choose to use the NRA ratings as a reference. Let's not stray into the realm of personal attacks. Thank you.

-Pytron

[Wild Bill]

I resent being called politically lazy because I choose to use the NRA ratings as a reference. Let's not stray into the realm of personal attacks. Thank you.
pytron - hear hear! Well said!:D

Lots of folks use the ratings as at least a primer. Isn't that what they're for?

[Boats]

Wild Bill, I challenge you to square Tempest's circle of condemnation of the NRA. You seem to agree with Mr. Keller that the past of the NRA doesn't matter, only the present. However, it also seems that certain folks are slamming the NRA's past to condemn them for "more of the same" in the present. Which is it? Particularly I cite this passage from the top post of this thread:

The NRA supported the National Firearms Act of 1934 which taxes and requires registration of such firearms as machine guns, short-barreled rifles and sawed-off shotguns.

It supported the Federal Firearms Act of 1938, which regulates interstate and foreign commerce in firearms and pistol or revolver ammunition. It supported legislation to amend the Federal Firearms Act in regard to handguns when it was introduced as S.1975 in August, 1963. Among its provisions was the requirement that a purchaser submit a notarized statement to the shipper that he was over 18 and not legally disqualified from possessing a handgun.

In 1965, the NRA continued its support of an expansion of the above legislation to include rifles and shotguns, as well as handguns.

Additionally the NRA supported the regulation of the movement of handguns in interstate and foreign commerce by:

· requiring a sworn statement, containing certain information, from the purchaser to the seller for the receipt of a handgun in interstate commerce;

· providing for notification of local police of prospective sales;

· requiring an additional 7-day waiting period by the seller after receipt of acknowledgement of notification to local police;

· prescribing a minimum age of 21 for obtaining a license to sell firearms and increasing the license fees;

· providing for written notification by manufacturer or dealer to carrier that a firearm is being shipped in interstate commerce, and;

· increasing penalties for violation.

All of these facts have been carefully and meticulously documented by KeepAndBearArms.com Founder and Executive Director Angel Shamaya in an article entitled, NRA Supported the National Firearms Act of 1934. This excellent and thorough essay details the NRA’s long history of supporting gun control laws, as documented and admitted by the NRA itself in a March, 1968 issue of American Rifleman. Those of you who have the issue, may want to give it a read. Those of you who haven’t, can access the entire article on the KeepAndBearArms.com website via the above link.

Never mind that several of the above are stepping stones to registration of gun owners - which NRA has publicly, repeatedly admitted leads to confiscation. In fact, NRA has raised money to ‘fight against gun registration’ out of one side of their mouth while helping create gun and gun owner registration lists out of the other.

Never mind the absurdity of placing a minimum age on a constitutional right – especially when teenagers can enter the military and use firearms in the defense of our country.

Never mind the pure maliciousness of forcing Americans to wait a week to exercise their constitutional rights!

The issue is: why does an organization which purports to be a major force in defending the right to keep and bear arms actually support infringements on said right?

Let me give you a clue: anytime the government or any other powerful entity speaks of permitting or licensing a right, it should be your wake-up call that said entity does not consider it a right, but rather a privilege – to be approved, licensed and controlled by the government. This is what the NRA supports, according to Wayne LaPierre, “We believe that a lawful, properly-permitted citizen who chooses to carry a concealed firearm not only deserves that right, but is a deterrent to crime. We support the right to carry because it has helped cut crime rates in all 31 states that have adopted it ... with almost no abuse of any kind by the lawful citizens who took the courses, submitted to the background checks, passed the tests and became part of a proud citizens movement that's making America a safer place to live.” (emphasis mine)

Seems the NRA wants to have its cake and eat it too. They want to appear moderate and supportive of “common sense” gun control legislation (cautiously avoiding the fact that the laws they have supported thus far have been an unconstitutional and ineffective farce), but at the same time they would have you believe that they stand in opposition to any attempts to gradually erode your constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Which one is it, NRA? This member would certainly like to know!

Now I think I have made a fairly solid case that things weren't as simplistic as a mere listing of the NRA's "betrayal throughout history" makes it seem. At certain points in history, particular 1934, 1963, 1968, and 1994, there were enormous, almost unimaginable pressures brought to bear against unrestricted gun ownership. Is the seawall that saves you from drowning in a storm surge but allows a hurricane to sweep away your car a total failure and waste of time, effort and money?

Only if you could have killed the storm outright. Otherwise, you have to figure out how to best survive the onslaught.

It is my belief that the first true test of the NRA, as a force for advancing our interests instead of delaying the antis causes, is at hand. The AWB needs to be killed, the NRA will not play games on that, even if the only way to do it is through neglect and giving Bush his electoral pass.

HOWEVER, there is simply not a legislative majority of sufficient strength in this Congress to get into repealing things just yet. Don't get me wrong, I am watching like a hawk that the NRA doesn't play footsie with the antis to help fundraising.

For the first time in my lifetime, the antis are on the ropes. Their traditional advantage in the media is severely eroded. They have been losing elections. They have grown increasingly strident. There are only 400+ Meetup moms networked on the internet despite widespread advertising on the Brady websites and jointogether.org. Many of the meet-up moms are imposters from this board.

So I too am tiring of the NRA being all shield and no sword. It is my belief that if GWB gets a second term and the Republicans can increase their majority in the Senate to kill filibusters, that their true test will come in the next Congress after the AWB is killed. It will be the first time in forever to ask "What next?" To me, that is the leadership crisis they face soon. If 1994 was the highwater mark of gun control, the only place left for the NRA to credibly go is on the attack. Ostensibly, the NRA is at the height of its membership now. The only way to avoid erosion once we have "won" on the AWB, is to start after the rest of the antis pet policies. The most logical next step is gutting the import ban and the 1986 machine gun moratorium. IF that doesn't begin to be the agenda in the latter part of this decade, THEN I will believe they are only in it for the money at the NRA-HQ.

Until then I will give them the benefit of the doubt.

[Shooter 2.5]

Oh, gee Tempest. The NRA doesn't feel like spending their money on someone who doesn't understand Interstate Commerce.

The fun thing is the NRA gets to keep it's money and the GOA can spend their's.

That's a win-win situation if I ever heard of one.

By the way, a politician stops being a pro-gun politician when they stop voting for pro-gun legislature.

[pytron]

Boats, well said!

I too believe that the AWB can be the high-water mark for gun-control (and I sincerely hope it is). The combo of the legislature and the president give us a very good chance for change.

I think we should support the NRA, but at the same time lobby for an overhaul of their rating process. They need to make it more public (like disclosing the candidate's responses) and aim for more accuracy and less "wins". I think members can do this by writing to the "council" and getting involved locally.

You have provided some balance to this debate and I thank you.

-Pytron

PS: BTW, I love the nautical references you've thrown in :D

[Boats]

PS: BTW, I love the nautical references you've thrown in

I was facing a Tempest after all.;)

[Jim March]

Nicki, in response to this piece from your article "Betrayal of Trust":

-----------------------
But my disappointment and disenchantment with the National Rifle Association doesn’t end there. They have repeatedly sold out gun owners by supporting petty tyrants in three-piece suits, who consistently take steps to infringe on our freedoms. In California, the NRA awarded Assemblyman Rod Wright its “Defender of Freedom” Award. This is the same Rod Wright who supported unconstitutional limits on firearms purchases and background checks. This is the same Rod Wright who authored a bill to increase licensing fees from $3 to up to $100. Never mind the absurdity of bilking peaceable citizens of hundreds of dollars for making a constitutionally protected purchase. This champion of “freedom” apparently thinks it’s perfectly acceptable to license and charge Americans for exercising their rights. The NRA’s “Defender of Freedom” in 2001 voted against gun owners 62 percent of the time, according to Gun Owners of California.
------------------------

There are major problems with the NRA all right. But unfortunately your use of sources that just flat-out aren't credible seriously hurts your article.

In the quote above, the sentence "This is the same Rod Wright who authored a bill to increase licensing fees from $3 to up to $100" is such an extreme distortion it's unbelievable.

Here's the facts: AB2022 was written by Wright, and passed in 1998. It was a "CCW cleanup bill" that improved the system in many ways, and set the stage for future legal challenges in wonderfully sneaky ways.

At the time it passed, the state attorney general had written an opinion saying that police chiefs could charge a maximum of $3 for CCW, but sheriffs could charge an *unlimited* amount by asking their Board of Supervisors to pass a "cost recovery ordinance". Some sheriffs were charging hundreds of dollars just for the "investigation into good cause" part of the process - that doesn't include background checks, training, etc.

What Wright did was set a fee CAP of $100 for the local agency fee. He had proposed a smaller one but it got banged around in various committees and ended up at $100. But it's a CAP - the better sheriffs who had already been handling the system on a fair basis didn't have to charge a dime and many still don't.

As sheriffs tend to issue over 98% of all the permits statewide, the number of people affected by raising the cap on police department issuance was extremely small.

That wasn't the only fee that was capped. Another provision flat-out banned any fee that wasn't specified in the CCW penal codes, blocking a hell of a lot of mischief.

Fees were only a small part of the bill. Under AB2022, each agency has to publish a manual describing how they were handling the system, which aids legal challenges when the standards they set are grotesque. The Attorney General's office was required to do recordkeeping that will give us the data on gender bias and Latino discrimination that will let us rip this whole sick system apart in court. We now have proof the state AG's office (and state DOJ) have completely screwed up the requirements in AB2022 and are now going to desperate lengths to cover up the misconduct (see link below).

No, AB2022 didn't fix everything. A bill to put in genuine shall-issue had failed the year before, and people who cared about the CCW issue in this screwed-up state ALL strongly supported AB2022 - myself included. Labelling it a "gun control measure" is just flat-out disgusting. Go ask Gun Owners of California what they actually think of Rod Wright - they'll tell you he's a hero, same as me and any other California activist who's actually *doing* anything rather than whining.

Now, that said, yes the NRA is capable of screwing up:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=19889

...and when they do, it's a doozy.

If Shamaya reported the FACTS behind such screwups honestly, instead of letting his bias take him to insane slander, he'd be a lot more effective.

This memo is also being published at:

(this thread's URL)

(SIDENOTE TO THR MODERATORS: if you think I'm being harsh here, I'm not being anywhere NEAR as harsh on Nicki and Angel as they were on Rod Wright. They outright slandered him, with "scholarship" that would make Michael Bell-Liar blush.)

http://www.equalccw.com/jimandwright.jpg

That's me on the left, with Rod Wright - phtoto taken spring of 2002 at the NRA convention in Reno.

[Tempest]

Gentlemen, look --

My purpose in writing this article was to motivate NRA members to demand change. I am an NRA member. I treasure the people with whom I have worked over there. When I took the assignment of writing this story, I did a hell of a lot of research, and I was thoroughly disappointed. I'm not an NRA "hater," nor do I wear a tinfoil hat. I believe there are a lot of things wrong with the leadership of this organization. I HATED writing this article! LOATHED it. But I felt I had to do it.

I gave a historical perspective of the NRA's historical support of gun control partially to simply outline their history, and also to point out the transparent hypocrisy of their claiming to oppose gradual erosion of our rights, while supporting gun control laws. That just isn't true. It wasn't to decontextualize them. Their current leadership needs a kick in the ???. They openly state they support background checks. They openly state and promote Project Exile. If those aren't erosions of our constitutional rights, I don't know what is!

Boats - you cannot refute anything I've written, because it's all true. You can make excuses for it. You can give me lots of reasons why they did what they did. I'm sure there are lots of good political reasons. But the bottom line is that claiming you oppose any gradual erosion of RKBA, while supporting a background check for that basic human right makes that proclamation a lie.

[Tempest]

Jim - using Gun Owners of California ratings is wrong? According to them, his record ain't that hot when it comes to voting with gun owners. How is that slanderous? I happen to believe licensing a human right is outright wrong - whether it's setting a cap on it or not. Additionally, Angel didn't write the source I cited, so please don't condemn him for something he didn't do.

[antsi]

It is really a waste for pro-gun groups and their members to spend all this time sniping at each other. It isn't helping.

The NRA is not the most ideologically pure gun rights organization out there, correct. But they ("we" - I am a member) are the largest and most powerful.

If there are other gun rights groups that are a more perfect fit with your ideals, by all means, support them.

But I would suggest that you support the NRA as well - or, at least, don't spend half your time fighting the organization that is only 80% on your side instead of 100%. The more time we spend fighting each other, the more it benefits the anti's.

- hypothetical example -

Let's say the NRA is backing a shall-issue CCW law here in my state. The law contains provisions that the applicant must complete a training course, pass a criminal background check, and pay an annual fee.

I'd be thrilled to see such a law passed in my state, BTW.

If it were proposed here, I'd hope that all the gun owners and gun rights groups would get together and back that law.

What I would hate to see happen, is some "alternative" gun rights group, criticize the law and fight against it on the grounds that the annual fee, the training requirement, etc., are unnecessary and unconstutional and represent an evilly-motivated compromise with Sarah Brady.

Yes, the case could be made: we have a constitutional right to bear arms. We shouldn't have to go through all that rigamarole to exercise our rights. Ideally, no such CCW law would be even necessary because it's covered by the Second Ammendment.

But, still, I think it would be misguided and counterproductive to fight against an "imperfect," "suboptimal," "compromise" CCW law in my state. Any CCW law at all would be a step in the right direction and I would support it.

If, after the law was passed, an "alternative" gun rights group then started agitating to lower the fees, eliminate the training requirement, etc., I'd support them as well.

------- end of hypothetical example ------------

The point I am trying to make is, don't let's help the anti's by fighting against ourselves and splitting into a million tiny, ineffective, infighting splinter groups.

Should we support the gun rights group which most perfectly embodies our ideals? YES

Should we support the most powerful gun rights group on the planet, even if they are not perfect? YES

[Boats]

Nicki--

I wasn't trying to "refute" anything you wrote. I do question why you feel the need to spin the fact that the NRA has written gun control legislation in the past, is made all the more sinister because the modern leadership claims they have opposed gun control legislation. In a sense, it is a semantics debate. Watering down bad legislation that will probably pass if nobody does anything can be described as effective opposition when the undiluted result would have been far worse.

The Second Amendment at crucial points over the last 70 years was going to be violated whether the NRA wanted it to be or not. I attribute to them a sincere desire to head off the worst the antis had to offer rather than to ascribe to them some cabalistic plot to keep themselves in business all this time by "assisting" in the drafting of legislation that they'd later oppose. Have they or have they not been accused of being the strange bedfellows of the antis?

I can understand the distaste for compromise that many people here harbor. What I don't understand is the lack of introspection into why non-compromise features a different set of dangers than compromise and one is not inherently preferable over the other. Non-compromise creates implacable enemies who will not give respite until they show ultimate success. As I tried to point out, when the politically less sophisticated NRA back in the day only had about 100 or so reliable conservatives from either side of the aisle to work with during gun ownership crises, rigiditiy was never going to work. No one has taken up my challenge to assert what the NRA should've done when they "screwed us big time" in the past. I wonder why that is?

Has compromise become a part of the NRA's institutional memory and tool box? Afraid so. Does it necessarily follow that they always compromise then? I don't think so. Everyone seemingly forgets how the NRA used the appearance of compromise on the "gunshow loophole" battle post Columbine to poison the bill so badly that the antis didn't want to pass it. The NRA gave the sheeple out there the perception that it was the antis who wanted too much because they wouldn't compromise. That is never a good place to be for groups that require the appearance of success once in awhile. Part of the ongoing weakness of anti groups recently is increasingly the perception that they can't win.

Why is that? Because even if all of us "in the know" understand that the NRA is far from relentless, they have that image of uncompromising "extremism" and gargantuan financial power among our ignorant opponents. I'll take that for what it's worth over screaming in the wilderness because it worth alot.

Unflinching fanaticism is great for a shock troop, but a bad trait in a general.

[Jim March]

Tempest: you're right - it was Codrea that slammed Rod Wright.

Damn. My apologies, somewhat. Angel *published* it :(.

The article:

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=3550

It's gonna take me a while, but I'm going to sort out just what those bills were that Wright voted for.

The first time I saw Wright was in '97, when as a member of the Assembly Safety Committee he was a STRONG proponent of a full-tilt shall-issue bill.

But of course, by some standards that makes him a "traitor" :rolleyes:.

[Wild Bill]

No one has taken up my challenge to assert what the NRA should've done when they "screwed us big time" in the past. I wonder why that is?

Perhaps because it's off point. The past only serves as an indictor of a likely future outcome should the trend continue.

It is that possibility that has me worried. Despite all the labels thrown about on this thread, nobody seems to be backing a "no compromise ever" stand. All I'm saying is that compromise should only be the last tactic chosen - and then only if absolutely necessary.

Things are rarely as simplisic as they appear - especially in politics. A seawall is indeed better than standing naked against the oncoming surge. But given that this is an organization (like any other with it's own flaws) that has a history of compromise (politically justified or not), don't you agree that they deserve close scrutiny rather than blind faith?

As for ineffective, infighting splinter groups - where did that come from? GOA has a record that's at least as unblemished and as successful as the NRA. GRSC here is the most effective state level group I've ever had the pleasure of being associated with. Neither are ineffective, infighting, or splinters of anything.

You know I find it funny. We chide the other side for blindly following whatever their leaders spew, and yet so many have such an equally blind devotion to the NRA. Flame away gang, but if you can't examine ourselves in an effort to overcome the mistakes we've made and become more effective then we're toast anyway.

[Wild Bill]

Do excuse the atrocious spelling and grammatical errors in the above. Didn't use the checker. Oops. My apologies.

[spartacus2002]

We can all dance around the issues, but the key is this:

if you are an NRA member, and you don't like what the NRA is doing, don't quit: Instead, make yourself heard! It is YOUR NRA!

If everyone who was upset quit, all you would have left would be a small group who all feel the same way on the issues, and they will believe they are correct because hey, they all agree!

Remember this: The NRA has a lot of internal interest groups. The benchrest shooters despise the service rifle shooters, the service rifle shooters ignore the duck-hunters, and the duck-hunters absolutely hate the assault-rifle lovers, etc., etc. Each internal interest group, or constituency if you prefer, has to make itself heard in order to have its seat at the table.

Let's talk about Gary Gorski. I wrote NRA-ILA's chief counsel, asking exactly what they were doing to help Gorski. I got a two page hem-haw letter back, which basically sniffed and said it wasn't the right case ,wasn't the right forum, wasn't the right plaintiff. I appreciated the answer, but you could see the disdain towards assault-rifle owners.

Guess what the duck and deer hunters will be telling their kids one day: First they came for the assault rifle owners, but I didn't speak up because I wasn't a crazed militia nut. Then they came for the handgun owners, but I didn't speak up because I wasn't a thug or hoodlum. Then they came for the ....you can fill in the rest. But when they came for my shotgun, there was no one left to speak up for me.

[Smurfslayer]

For those of you that have stated that they agreed with Nicki, who among you have contacted the NRA-ILA to tell them ?

For those among you who think the NRA-ILA is doing a fine job, have you contacted them to tell them?

One of the items mentioned in Nicki's article was the hotly contested 52nd district republican contest here in VA between "moderate" republican Jack Rollison ; NRA a- I think... got the NRA ILA endorsement over NRA member Jeff Frederick the challenger. Rollison openly opposes allowing law abiding citizens carrying a concealed firearm to be permitted anywhere that alcohol is served. He also supports local restrictions on firearms carrying by law abiding citizens. Frederick strongly supports removing restrictions on law abiding citizens here in the Commonwealth, Rollison favors them, but the NRA ILA wants their incumbent reelected :scrutiny:

FWIW, I think taking a total, 100% no compromise stance is self defeating, because the only way to get legislation passed is to allow for some compromise. But I don't think we should ever compromise with the likes of traitors like Schumer, Fineswine, Klinton, etc...

Someone previously mentioned the good news was that the NRA was the 800# gorilla. The bad news is, he wants to make nicey nice with your wife...

No one group represents all of my interests, including the NRA. I carry a AAA card - great for when you need a tow, not great when they come out in support of banning radar detectors :rolleyes:

The NRA-ILA has compromised and endorsed questionable candidates. Very seldom do they publicly justify their questionable choices leaving us to debate in forums like this one. I think if they came out & said "look, candidate b doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell...candidate a has some positive traits as an upright walking mammal, so we're backing him this time around"... maybe that would help a bit. Nevertheless, Nicki's right in that we've allowed the public servants to intrude too far, and it's time to slap them in to time out.

[Boats]

After re-reading this entire thread, I don't think the "two sides" are all that far apart.

I like my shield even though when it takes hard hits it sometimes pops me in the head and leaves a pain in my arm--but hey, I'll live to fight. Other people curse the shield because it failed and they were harmed even as it stopped the attack from being lethal.

Whatever. I think both of our sides are wondering where in the hell our offensive weapons went to in the melee while we were bracing the shield and gritting our teeth. Some have been quicker to bring their daggers to bear and stab back where they can. I am waiting to find and wield the warhammer with some brutal finality.

Meet you at the last anti.:evil:

[Wild Bill]

We have a winner folks!

Boats, we may be aproaching the battle in different squads. We may attack from different directions. We may use differing tactics and weaponry. But it's damn good that all of us are fighting the same battle.

Race ya to the last one standing!:neener:

[Kingcreek]

Nicki-Tempest,
I'll vote for you when you run for NRA board of directors.

[Esky]

Thanks Tempest (Nicki) for your hard work on this article. It was a real eye-opener for me.

And my apologies- I started another thread here ( http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=25356 ) after I read your article in Armed Females of America. Then FPrice kindly pointed out THIS thread, so I redirected people back here. Sorry for the confusion, I must have forgot to hit the "refresh" or something.

Anyway, your well-written article (not too long for me, and thanks for all the links!) greatly distubed me, since I'd like to think that NRA is fighting the same fight as I am: in favor of 2nd Amendment rights. Now, thanks to your diligence, I have facts at my disposal; now I can write to the NRA and point out what seems to me the "error of their ways" and see what they have to say about it. If they get enough pressure from rank & file members, as Nicki points out in her article, then things WILL change, so here I fully agree with Spartacus2002.

Anyone living in Kalifornia will know that it's real easy to lose everything by gradual erosion- like right now we're fighting to stop: a $0.10/round tax, banning of .50 Cal rifles/pistols, banning even MORE handguns, banning of 'certain types' of ammo, etc, etc. We've already been deprived of 'assault weapons' far beyond the Federal limitations, and all we can hope for now is that eventually the Supreme Court will restore our rights to KABA by rendering the Kali laws null & void.

Compromise is fine, if you're talking about minor lets-all-be-friends things, sure I'll split the last piece of cake with ya, but when it comes to fundamental rights...?

NO. Can't do it. Patrick Henry didn't say "Give me liberty or let's make a deal we can both live with."

But I live in the real world too, and Boats has some very good points. What really bothers me, though, is that far too much legislation seems to have been suggested by the NRA, and these suggestions are a long, long way from "...shall not be infringed."

Esky
who's lived long enough in Australia to make Kali seem good

[Jim March]

I did a little digging into GOC's voting record tallies for Rod Wright, trying to understand why the "percentage" was so low.

In the legislative year that started in '99 and ended in Y2k, Wright voted "yes" on the following bills in bold, which can be looked up at:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/bilinfo.html - set the "year" to 1999/2000. I'd give you a link to each bill's records, but it's a CGI database (sigh).

AB106 - Passed: "must sell trigger lock with gun". Wright voted "for it" both at Assembly Safety and the assembly floor. One complex bit: the bill was subject to a ton of various amendments where it varied from "minor annoyance" to "really seriously painful". The version that finally passed was basically an annoyance; it seems likely Wright helped steer it in that direction.

AB106c Committee vote for above. See comments there.

AB200 - Failed. But it is NOT a gun bill. In it's original form, the title is "An act to amend Section 1359 of the Health and Safety Code, and to add Sections 1622.1, 1626.1, 1631.1, and 1749.03 to the Insurance Code, relating to life agents." Wright wrote it. Then it later got gutted and turned into something about school budget reform - again, not a damned thing gun related? How in hell did THIS get counted as a "gun rights strike against Wright"!?

AB491/491c - Passed. This was Jack Scott's attempt to declare all concealed carry by non-permitholders felons. It got jacked around at various committees, and at one point in committee Wright voted for it - but that was when an amendment was added seriously limiting it's scope. (In final form, it only applies if you're packing a gun not registered to you - not good, but at least you CAN avoid a felony rap if you're packing.) Wright did NOT vote for it on the first floor vote, only voting "yes" after it had been further gutted in senate committees.

Let me comment on what seems to have happened here: Wright has been critical to NRA defensive efforts because he had Gray Davis' ear as he was one of the first legicritters to back Davis. (That may sound bad, but Davis is NOT actually ideologically anti-gun, he's just a pure political animal...GOPer Dan Lungren was far worse than Davis!) Essentially, when the NRA needed to pass a message to Davis, it went through Wright. So once this bill was sufficiently "gelded", it was tossed to the grabbers as a bone and to keep his credibility among Dems, yes, Wright voted for this silly turd - AFTER it was mostly neutered.

AB988 - Originally an attempted ban on home FFLs but failed and was gutted - got turned into something about beach maintenance for the city of Malibu! Apparantly, Wright DID vote for it while it was a "gun bill", but God only knows what role he had in killing it as a gun thing. It's impossible to judge him on this one.

AB1142/1142c - Well this is interesting - got vetoed! It started as a bill to set a criminal penalty for a parent whose kid takes the pet family gun to school. Sigh. Got hacked around six ways from Sunday, and then Davis killed it. And yes, Wright voted for it at times. But remember what I said about gunnies having a channel to Davis? Yup. Odds are good that you can thank Wright for the veto! Wright voted for it at one committee, but voted against the final form.

SB29 - some crapola regarding gun sales paperwork, more or less the same story as AB1142 above - vetoed after getting kicked all over the capitol building like a hackie sack. Again: a veto probably had a LOT to do with Wright.

SB130 - Passed - it's another "must sell trigger lock with gun" bill. It was passed after getting limited from it's initial slightly nastier state. Looks to me like another case of "it was gonna pass anyways, might as well let Rod cache some Demo points".

The bills Wright voted AGAINST were the worst of the worst:

SB15 and SB23 were the "junk gun" and "assault weapons" bills.

AB202 was the one gun a month thing

Upshot:

This is one case where you can't judge the guy purely by his voting record. With the two vetos, we can see weird sneaky behind-the-scenes stuff going on that Wright almost certainly had a hand in completely separate from his paper voting record. In other cases, the "fix was in" and the bills were going to pass regardless.

In other words, this is what a desperate last-ditch defensive stand looks like. Criticizing this is about like court-marshalling a rifle platoon for giving way under fire against a whole tank division.

What's not reflected:

I've personally seen Wright fight like a demon on crack for our rights.

[alan]

Boats:

You wrote in part, the following in one post: "So just how many times is this lamentation going to be republished here? I swear I read half of this long-winded essay in a previous thread a couple months ago. "

Re your question, a couple of points, if I may. Not being aware that the material had already been posted, under the heading of thought provoking reading at the link, I put it up yesterday, a few lines and a link to the longer text.

As to the rest of it, given what was said, I do not think that this material can be to widely distributed. I've been a life member of the NRA since 1973, I was an anual and five year member prior to that, and on more than one occasion, I have wondered and asked, without response, what it was that wound NRA up at the beginning of each day?

[Boats]

I have wondered and asked, without response, what it was that wound NRA up at the beginning of each day?

So lacking a formal response, one should simply run around with whatever ahistorical deductive guess tickles one's fancy as the most "true" motive behind the NRA?

Despite lame protestations to the contrary, some folks in this thread have indeed ripped the NRA from out of history, and the actual political situations it faced, in order to play the Monday morning quarterback blessed with the perfect vision of the implacable zealot.:rolleyes:

I am not arguing the NRA is perfect because it is far from it. I share the belief that the NRA's candidate endorsement policies need retooling and better exposition as to the rationale behind them. It should quit wasting so much money on direct mailing for solicitiations everytime an anti twitches in front of a liberal news camera. For God's sake, we all know the players and the game being played with our rights in Congress.

It is a fanciful leap of imagination from those legitimate criticisms to the position that the NRA exists, in part, to betray gun owners by happily passing gun control legislation and then raising funds by railing against the laws they passed.:rolleyes:

Like I have said before to the RKBA ankle biters, (non-NRA, GOA, JPFO, and SAF groups), show me something positive and then you'll get my ear and maybe my wallet. Hot air, recriminations, and "me-too-ism" is hardly the way to make many friends and influence lots of people when one is shilling for donors in a competitive environment.