http://www.sierratimes.com/03/05/01/carlworden.htm
Is It The NRA vs. The GOA In Texas All Over Again?
By Carl F. Worden
Here we go again! This time, the NRA is threatening to pull its support of the most constitutionally aggressive representative we have in Congress, Ron Paul. Why? Because Representative Ron Paul insisted on maintaining state’s rights under Article X of the Bill of Rights, by opposing federal legislation to thwart all litigation against firearms makers for simply manufacturing guns that might be used to kill people.
Now, most gun owners would rejoice at that legislation, and I thought it was a great idea too, until I was reminded it is just another federal violation of Article X. Talk about mixed feelings!! I have them too, but unless and until we learn to support and defend the Constitution in ALL cases, whether we like them or not, we are just going to continue down the same road of defiling that legally binding document.
Representative Paul has proven time and time again that he will not compromise constitutional principle for any reason, and he happens to be the strongest supporter of Second Amendment individual guns rights we have in the Congress.
The NRA is engaging in “Situation Ethicsâ€, whereby they support the idea that the ends justify the means if it happens to be something the NRA supports. It doesn’t matter to the NRA if the legislation is unconstitutional on its face, so long as it gets them where they want to go.
Nothing in the Constitution gives the federal government the authority to tell a state or a citizen what kind of remedy by litigation they may pursue in state or federal court, and Article X of the Bill of Rights specifically bars the federal government from seizing authority in any area not specifically given the federal government by the Constitution. Any questions? Read it for yourself.
Let’s take this a step further: If the federal government can pass legislation barring state, city and individual lawsuits against gun manufacturers for manufacturing guns, they can pass legislation barring the same kind of lawsuits against cigarette manufacturers. They can pass similar legislation barring lawsuits against any industry, from pharmaceutical companies to automobile manufacturers. Representative Paul recognized that, and therefore voted his conscience by opposing the legislation, and the NRA had a cow.
Gun Owners of America, the second largest gun rights group, strongly supports Representative Paul, regardless of his position on this legislation, because its Director, Larry Pratt, appreciates Representative Paul’s uncompromising stance on constitutional ethics, whether it be Second Amendment rights, or Tenth Amendment restrictions.
Do any of you happen to remember a dirt-bag by the name of Representative Jack Brooks of Texas? Hmm? Most of us gun owners do. He is the man who sat as House chairman of the Crime Conference Committee in 1994, the committee considering whether to pass the 1994 “Crime Bill†that included the infamous federal Assault Weapon Ban and a restriction on gun magazines holding more than ten rounds. Brooks was also Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. Brooks was a Democrat, who usually supported most gun rights legislation, but in this case Jack Brooks allowed the Crime Bill out of his committee to be voted on, and it was subsequently passed into legislation that just happens to come up for renewal under our current president, George W. Bush.
Through a spokesman, our darling “pro-gun†Christian president has recently stated his support for renewing the federal Assault Weapon Ban if and when it glides across his desk. If I’m right, GW will be a one-term president just like his father for that transgression. Remember, “Read my lips…�
Anyway, we would not have the federal Assault Weapon Ban were it not for turncoat Representative Jack Brooks. And by the way, it turns out our Miss Brooks took a virtual bribe: The crime bill included ten million dollars to Lamar University, which coincidentally, was in Jack Brook's district. What a shock. Brooks had been in continuous office a total of 42 years, but his luck was about to change.
As a result of Brook’s betrayal, a Republican challenger by the name of Steve Stockman decided to run against Brooks. Gun Owners of America staunchly backed Stockman against Brooks. Stockman was aggressively pro-Second Amendment, and asked the support of the NRA as well.
Incredibly, the NRA placed its support behind Jack Brooks. Here was a man who had almost single handedly allowed the federal Assault Weapon Ban to pass into law, yet the NRA backed Brooks for no other reason than the usually pro-gun Brooks had a better chance of winning! I swear I’m not making this up.
As it turned out, Steve Stockman defeated the 42-year incumbent for his seat in 1994, and to those of us who remember it well, the NRA had egg all over its face. 1994 turned out to be the year the Democrats lost their power in Congress, and former President Bill Clinton admitted that the passage of the federal Assault Weapon Ban was the sole reason.
I haven’t been a member of the NRA ever since the Jack Brooks debacle. When that shameful act played out, I completely lost confidence in the management of the NRA and lent my full support to Gun Owners of America (GOA) and Jews For The Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO).
It looks like the NRA is about to make the same stupid mistake all over again. It is perpetually wrong and foolhardy to believe the ends justify the means, and only the most immoral subscribe to situation ethics. Perhaps this will be a most well deserved nail in the NRA’s coffin. Assuming the average member is as outraged as me, it will probably result in yet another substantial loss of NRA members.
Do they take lessons to garner this high level of stupidity, or what?
Is It The NRA vs. The GOA In Texas All Over Again?
By Carl F. Worden
Here we go again! This time, the NRA is threatening to pull its support of the most constitutionally aggressive representative we have in Congress, Ron Paul. Why? Because Representative Ron Paul insisted on maintaining state’s rights under Article X of the Bill of Rights, by opposing federal legislation to thwart all litigation against firearms makers for simply manufacturing guns that might be used to kill people.
Now, most gun owners would rejoice at that legislation, and I thought it was a great idea too, until I was reminded it is just another federal violation of Article X. Talk about mixed feelings!! I have them too, but unless and until we learn to support and defend the Constitution in ALL cases, whether we like them or not, we are just going to continue down the same road of defiling that legally binding document.
Representative Paul has proven time and time again that he will not compromise constitutional principle for any reason, and he happens to be the strongest supporter of Second Amendment individual guns rights we have in the Congress.
The NRA is engaging in “Situation Ethicsâ€, whereby they support the idea that the ends justify the means if it happens to be something the NRA supports. It doesn’t matter to the NRA if the legislation is unconstitutional on its face, so long as it gets them where they want to go.
Nothing in the Constitution gives the federal government the authority to tell a state or a citizen what kind of remedy by litigation they may pursue in state or federal court, and Article X of the Bill of Rights specifically bars the federal government from seizing authority in any area not specifically given the federal government by the Constitution. Any questions? Read it for yourself.
Let’s take this a step further: If the federal government can pass legislation barring state, city and individual lawsuits against gun manufacturers for manufacturing guns, they can pass legislation barring the same kind of lawsuits against cigarette manufacturers. They can pass similar legislation barring lawsuits against any industry, from pharmaceutical companies to automobile manufacturers. Representative Paul recognized that, and therefore voted his conscience by opposing the legislation, and the NRA had a cow.
Gun Owners of America, the second largest gun rights group, strongly supports Representative Paul, regardless of his position on this legislation, because its Director, Larry Pratt, appreciates Representative Paul’s uncompromising stance on constitutional ethics, whether it be Second Amendment rights, or Tenth Amendment restrictions.
Do any of you happen to remember a dirt-bag by the name of Representative Jack Brooks of Texas? Hmm? Most of us gun owners do. He is the man who sat as House chairman of the Crime Conference Committee in 1994, the committee considering whether to pass the 1994 “Crime Bill†that included the infamous federal Assault Weapon Ban and a restriction on gun magazines holding more than ten rounds. Brooks was also Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. Brooks was a Democrat, who usually supported most gun rights legislation, but in this case Jack Brooks allowed the Crime Bill out of his committee to be voted on, and it was subsequently passed into legislation that just happens to come up for renewal under our current president, George W. Bush.
Through a spokesman, our darling “pro-gun†Christian president has recently stated his support for renewing the federal Assault Weapon Ban if and when it glides across his desk. If I’m right, GW will be a one-term president just like his father for that transgression. Remember, “Read my lips…�
Anyway, we would not have the federal Assault Weapon Ban were it not for turncoat Representative Jack Brooks. And by the way, it turns out our Miss Brooks took a virtual bribe: The crime bill included ten million dollars to Lamar University, which coincidentally, was in Jack Brook's district. What a shock. Brooks had been in continuous office a total of 42 years, but his luck was about to change.
As a result of Brook’s betrayal, a Republican challenger by the name of Steve Stockman decided to run against Brooks. Gun Owners of America staunchly backed Stockman against Brooks. Stockman was aggressively pro-Second Amendment, and asked the support of the NRA as well.
Incredibly, the NRA placed its support behind Jack Brooks. Here was a man who had almost single handedly allowed the federal Assault Weapon Ban to pass into law, yet the NRA backed Brooks for no other reason than the usually pro-gun Brooks had a better chance of winning! I swear I’m not making this up.
As it turned out, Steve Stockman defeated the 42-year incumbent for his seat in 1994, and to those of us who remember it well, the NRA had egg all over its face. 1994 turned out to be the year the Democrats lost their power in Congress, and former President Bill Clinton admitted that the passage of the federal Assault Weapon Ban was the sole reason.
I haven’t been a member of the NRA ever since the Jack Brooks debacle. When that shameful act played out, I completely lost confidence in the management of the NRA and lent my full support to Gun Owners of America (GOA) and Jews For The Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO).
It looks like the NRA is about to make the same stupid mistake all over again. It is perpetually wrong and foolhardy to believe the ends justify the means, and only the most immoral subscribe to situation ethics. Perhaps this will be a most well deserved nail in the NRA’s coffin. Assuming the average member is as outraged as me, it will probably result in yet another substantial loss of NRA members.
Do they take lessons to garner this high level of stupidity, or what?
