Kates, Nemerov: OUR GREATEST ENEMY - PRO GUN WACKOS

[MikeHaas]

Received today from Howard Nemerov, frequent guest on http://nranews.com/, featured writer at http://calnra.com/, a committed Second Amendment supporter with a wealth of published articles. most recently...
- Gun Control: Is Brady For or Against Workplace Safety?
- Gun Control: Does Biased Research Foster Workplace Danger?
- Howard's blog
...and a good friend.

My own comments about the issue remain available at my site, http://NRAWinningTeam.com/

Mike Haas
NRA Benefactor Member, volunteering as...
Electronic Communications Director, NRA Members' Councils of California
http://NRAMembersCouncils.com/ - aka http://calnra.com/
President, NRA Members' Council of West Contra Costa County
NRA-ILA EVC, CA Congressional District 7
Also...
Webmaster, Fifty Caliber Institute, http://fiftycal.org/
Webmaster for NRA Attorneys in CA., http://tmllp.com/
Webmaster, http://calgunlaws.com/
Owner and Author, http://AmmoGuide.com/
Co-founder, http://E-GovMail.com/
Co-founder, http://ProjectBoreSnake.org/ (PLEASE SUPPORT OUR TROOPS!)
------------------------------------
You may enjoy some of my personal web sites...
------------------------------------
http://NRAWinningTeam.com/
http://PatriotBoxers.com/
http://NRAMembersCouncils.com/lifeclock/


----- Original Message -----
From: "Howard Nemerov" <hnemerovATSIGNnetvista.net>
To: <hnemerovATSIGNnetvista.net>
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2007 12:53 PM
Subject: FW: FROM DON KATES: OUR GREATEST ENEMY - PRO GUN WACKOS

I rarely forward email, but some of you contacted me regarding the recent House vote to change the NICS to include those who have been adjudicated as mentally unstable enough that they should not own firearms. My perusal of the proposed legislation jives with the idea that this bill does indeed add protections to many who may have been abused by the government to restrict their right to keep and bear arms. Don Kates is a respected Second Amendment scholar and an attorney, so his opinion regarding this bill is significant.

Having come to the side of gun rights so recently because of my empirical research approach, I decided to support the NRA because its accomplishments and goals align most closely with my conclusions about what is true. Because of my observations, it is painfully clear to me that, as Don Kates notes, our greatest enemy is not the Schumers and Feinsteins in the world, but gun owners who have fallen for the oldest vices in the book: lust, greed and pride. Like the anti-rights people, even a gun rights organization can justify manipulation of the truth to benefit their short-term goals, whatever those may be. Generally, they are money, members, and more influence so that we must follow their One True Way of interpreting the Second Amendment.

My research corroborates Don Kates regarding the sunset of the Clinton gun ban. Congressional members who rated well with the NRA were most definitely NOT supporting any of renewal or new proposal from Feinstein or McCarthy. The web site still contains the language noted below regarding the "NRA backed renewal of the Clinton Gun Ban in 2004." One history-proven war strategy is divide and conquer. Each and every comment like the one referenced below is ammunition for politicians who actually want to disarm us because they have studied history and wish to repeat it. Organizations that believe that bashing the NRA benefits gun rights deserve to lose membership and influence.

That said, I remain concerned over the size and influence of the government, whether federal, state, or local. When I listen to complaints about government abuse from people ranging across the political spectrum, I always end up asking them: "Doesn't this prove that the government is too large? After all, eventually somebody you don't like is going to grab the reins of power and do what you don't like." They have no contrary response to this. Our democratic republic is based upon debate and plurality. It may not be perfect enough, but as I look around the world, it's the best expression of self-government to date. We will not always agree on how to resolve a specific issue, but might that be a good thing? Lying and manipulating truth, however, does not serve anybody's long term goals except for those who wish to rule over the rest of us.

Howard Nemerov


-----Original Message-----
From: Dan G.
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2007 2:01 PM
To: KATES EMAIL GROUP
Subject: FROM DON KATES: OUR GREATEST ENEMY - PRO GUN WACKOS

I am in receipt of the following which is definitely NOT worth your consideration:

"Call NRA/ILA headquarters at 800-392-8683. Politely and firmly inform them that you do not appreciate them working with the likes of Schumer and McCarthy to shred the Bill of Rights. The only way this gun control bill will lose momentum is if NRA leadership feels the heat from gun owners and realizes that gun control isn't acceptable. Putting pressure on the NRA was how we got them to withdraw their support for renewal of the hated Clinton Gun Ban in 2004. It can work again if gun owners realize their donations are being used to fund passage of a federal gun control bill supported by Sarah Brady."

Mike McHugh
President
Virginia Gun Owners Coalition
www.vgoc.org

==========================================================

Upon reading this I immediately called the head of a rival (to the NRA) pro-gun group who has no reason to falsely defend the NRA. He confirmed my memory that the NRA vehemently opposed the 2004 renewal of the 1994 Clinton (more correctly Feinstein) gun ban.

The fact that the NRA is supporting the current proposed federal "gun control" law (which includes new rights for gun owners) suggests that this is a helpful law. The fact that opponents of the law have to resort to falsehood to oppose it is equally revealing.

-Don Kates

###

 

[geekWithA.45]

Sounds about right to me. Absolutists, being one dimensional, are pretty easy to manipulate.

 

[lamazza]

Sounds like GOA is getting what NRA would have gotten from me on the next renewal.

 

[Tim James]

Putting pressure on the NRA was how we got them to withdraw their support for renewal of the hated Clinton Gun Ban in 2004.

Oh my Lord, they didn't seriously support this, did they? Someone tell me this is a kook conspiracy theory, because on the whole I'm doing just fine with the NRA right now.

[EDIT] Okay I'm an idiot and didn't read the first email (which is the reply ). Chalk it up to a very busy, super long, and confusing post

 

[ArmedBear]

Sounds right, Mike.

GOA and their ilk are busy doing two things:

1. Undermining support for the group that actually DOES lobby successfully for us. BTW "lobby" is not a dirty word. If you want influence in US politics today, you need to lobby for your interests.

2. Discrediting gun rights advocates as fringe wackos.

 

[Daniel T]

Sounds like GOA is getting what NRA would have gotten from me on the next renewal.

So, you like giving money to liars?

 

[Tim James]

Now that I've bothered to read the entire post, I have to disagree with Nemerov. I don't see how an extremist pro-gun group is our "greatest enemy." (If this was hyperbole, I'll accept that and you can stop me now.)

Each and every comment like the one referenced below is ammunition for politicians who actually want to disarm us because they have studied history and wish to repeat it.

I don't see how any anti-gun groups can use the message from the second (first ) email to harm gun rights. It won't help them to point out that some gun owners dislike NRA's compromises because they're admitting that groups exist who oppose their anti-gun agenda even more vehemently. I guess it might help them rally the troops and improve morale if they display in-fighting in the gun community, but that is just in the noise. I also imagine that NRA's membership is an order of magnitude greater than the people in extermist pro-gun groups who despise NRA. There is a potential danger for them to turn into "our greatest enemy," but it's not even close right now.

From the quote above, it almost sounds like Nemerov is mistaking these groups with the true stereotypical wackos like white supremacists who definitely could hurt the cause if they are associated too closely with the gun rights movement. I still think they would be less of an enemy than the usual suspects in Congress.

The only other way to explain this bizarre overreaction to a legitimate small-scale issue is maybe a mistaken tunnel-vision perspective in NRA where they think that they are on the verge of winning the gun rights battle if only their pro-gun detractors would pipe down.

 

[KLDimond]

One has to decry the use of falsehood, especially gross, intentional falsehood, like that claimed in the "call the NRA" message above. It truly is counterproductive. Such tactics may work for Gun Control Inc folks, but somehow, when you're defending the truth, you have to be ten times as truthful than the folks pushing a lie. ("No good deed goes unpunished"?)

If I read the signature right, the bad e-mail comes from the Virginia Gun Owners Coalition. I'm not in Virginia, but I've watched VCDL from afar, and have never heard of VGOC. What's their deal?

Folks, the BS in the world--the black propaganda and propagandistic "black ops" going on today--leave me wondering if this VGOC isn't an org created specifically to discredit gun owners (same as that "hunters and shooters association" created by another anti-gun group--what's their name??--is out there fooling gun owners into thinking they're pro-gun).

I'm not asserting that VGOC is such a group, but we live in Three Days of the Condor times, where it's almost impossible to tell who is friend and who is just wearing friend's clothing.

On the other hand, perhaps VGOC is a long-time, generally good org. Does anyone know? Does anyone know if that's where the screwy message originated?

Now, juxtaposing that against GOA, there is little comparison, even if GOA is wrong on the matter. I've never had reason to believe that GOA lies. Everyone is wrong from time to time, and from what I understand, NRA was pretty wrong on NFA and GCA, so let's not get too uppity about it if GOA is factually wrong on this one. But I don't think they are...

NRA tries to be a pretty big tent, and that's pretty hard to do. They've extended the wings too far for a long time. Our government--and especially the laws--are so treacherously complex that I don't trust incrementalism, or "tweaks" on most existing law, especially when we have Schumer and Feinstein drooling at every possibility to demand that we "turn them all in."

Thus, I don't like NRA's involvement with NICs reform. And when that plays against the backdrop of a history of compromise and giveaways pertaining to our rights, it's just too much.

Nevertheless, yes, pro-gun folks shouldn't resort to such lows.

 

[bogie]

Thing is, we pretty much all agree that SOME people shouldn't have guns. Those are the people who flunk NICS checks.

We also agree that NICS is flawed - the system just doesn't always work all that well.

Personally, if someone is dangerous, to themselves or others, I don't want them getting a boomstick.

 

[jselvy]

Personally, if someone is dangerous, to themselves or others, I don't want them getting a boomstick.

I don't want them wandering around loose in society. If they can be allowed out without adult supervision then they have a right to defend themselves, unless you personally are willing to stand 24 hour watch over them to ensure their safety.

Jefferson

 

[obxned]

Keeping firearms out of the hands of mentally unstable people is a good idea. So is keeping them from owning or driving cars. Nobody seem to wants these folks to give up their driving privilege in spite of the use of cars in suicide and mass murder, but it is okay to let someone say who must lose their right to keep firearms.

This will all turn out to be a horrible, horrible mess for perfectly competent citizens and do nothing about the psychos of the world.

 

[JLStorm]

I have said it so many times that this is getting old, but the fact is that the NRA has become a major political lobbying force. Politicians fear the NRA, because of its size, and numbers alone are what makes the difference. The NRA knows how to play the game. Grassroots organizations are great and they may make you feel warm and fuzzy, but in the political circle they mean nothing. you think politicians are afraid of the GOA or the SAF? The fact is that they are afraid of the NRA because of our shear numbers and the fact that they know the NRA can play with the big dogs in the political game because they know how to make friends and how to strike fear in their enemies. The NRA will get a lot of political markers to be cashed in later from this, and the politicians who can now say they worked with the NRA will want to continue the relationship if possible for favorable voter turnout. The NRA wont forget about those markers, and when it comes time to cash them in this law is one more thing they can reference to the liberals on how much they care for the common good of all; again; they have to play the game to score a win.

We NEED the NRA, and giving your dollars to another organization instead of the NRA will do nothing but make you feel better until you realize no one is on capital hill representing your interests with enough political clout to make anyone give a damn.

 

[jselvy]

until you realize no one is on capital hill representing your interests

I had already figured this one out for myself. It doesn't matter who you vote for weasel R is identical to weasel D, and the one men that is willing to stand against this is "unelectable"
I've just about had enough.

Jefferson

 

[JLStorm]

I had already figured this one out for myself. It doesn't matter who you vote for weasel R is identical to weasel D, and the one men that is willing to stand against this is "unelectable"
I've just about had enough.

I think we all feel the same way, but thats why we have long running organizations like the NRA to represent our interests as a whole, both the insane gun owners like myself and the casual hunters out there. No matter how great a politician is (I know its rare), they have a limited number of years they can effectively represent our interests, which is why long term lobbying efforts make the difference.

Now, I also donate to the SAF and GOA and JPFO in the hopes that they too will be large enough to get noticed on capital hill, but that day is far off and even in the even that it comes I will still support the NRA because grass roots organizations do not get nearly as much political support as those that understand how the political game is run and agree to play the game. Those are the ones that politicians can back without as much fear, and that is what we need, especially right now in the more liberal environment that has come upon us in congress and perhaps soon in the white house.

 

[bensdad]

If they can be allowed out without adult supervision then they have a right to defend themselves,

+1

This will all turn out to be a horrible, horrible mess for perfectly competent citizens and do nothing about the psychos of the world.

+1

 

[Boats]

The GOA is Larry Pratt's grand scheme to stay off the dole.

Someone please name one of his actual, as opposed to imagined, legislative or legal accomplishments that doesn't piggy back or "me too" off of the efforts of others.

 

[jaholder1971]

I'm a proud NRA member, but I'm also a realist. Yes, NRA is a big dog in Washington. However Washington is a cesspool and people who work in cesspools tend to get dirty.

GOA and SAF are zero compromise organizations. They believe that 2A and RKBA is an absolute and shouldn't be chiseled away for political points. NRA and NRA/ILA is full of political wheeler dealers who are keen to scratch others' backs to further their agenda.

I've seen a number of large organizations that have humble beginnings of being the unified voice of a special interest bastardize into a large group with money doing whatever they can to make more money and more members at the members' expense. AARP, American Radio Relay League and NRA are 3 good examples.

The NRA has made hundreds of millions in fundraising for RKBA yet haven't even tried to bring an RKBA case before the Supremes. Why? There are those who would argue that, if successful, the NRA and NRA/ILA will have lost their cash cow for donations and be back to promoting rifle and pistol practice as they were originally organized for and really haven't done since 1968.

The NRA Winning Team? Wasn't this the group organized to counter Neal Knox's recommended nomination slate for Board of Directors after he successfully sued the NRA to force them to obey their own bylaws? No Thanks!

 

[KLDimond]

I chuckle a little at the idea that NRA is a political wheeler-dealer. In the era of Republican Congress and Republican President--supposed NRA workables--NRA really didn't come out swinging, nor did the Republicans in general. It was pathetic to watch.

Oh, sure, some things happened. And NRA was part of some and took credit for those and others.

Someone asked what GOA has done that wasn't a piggyback on someone else's work, but NRA has a lot of that, too. Not so bad, but it does get a little sickening (from both orgs) to hear them beat their chests about how "they" did it. (one of my favorite things about GOA is their radio program "Live Fire"--usually shockingly informative.)

NRA nearly torpedoed Parker v DC (or whatever the name exactly was). I'm not going to pretend to know why, but their actions were the frenzied work of someone that didn't want it to happen. And I don't buy that they were worried about it actually getting to the Supremes and being ruled on badly. There was something else afoot. Maybe a chit NRA had to play, returning a favor.. I don't know, but it was ... weird.

NRA is big, but it doesn't swing that ax very well, in my opinion.

 

[TimboKhan]

ArmedBear, lobby is only a dirty word when the lobbyists succeed in something directly opposing my position, I have found.

Pro-gun wackos are, in my opinion, more dangerous than anti's. My reasoning is simple: No one is going to interview an intelligent pro-gun person when they can get some nutjob to yammer on instead. The media in this country is by and large our enemy, and our enemy knows that wacky pro-gun guy is going to do more damage than bleeding-heart anti-gun guy. It's not about converting us: It's about educating and changing the minds of the bulk of America that rides the fence.

 

[Cork]

I took the NRA sticker off my truck. I have been giving to the NRA Legal fund but became upset over the bill and will not give any more this year. My family has had terrible experiences with the mental health crowd. The VA labels Vets with post stress to pay for addiction treatment, thousands are in treatment today with this on their file. If they live a sober and honest life I do not want them barred from obtaining a firearm. I am not a Vet. Nobody in my family is effected. Yet I cannot trust a agressive BAFTE under a liberal president down the road.
Agree with the posts on a divided house will fall. I got to get over my anger and not resign from the NRA as the other groups do not have the power to influence the representatives.
I wish congress would remember serial killers are murdering many times the number of us over one time mass murderers. Serial killers normally have a sexual motive and do not use firearms, yet our brains and being armed is our protection against both.

 

[EVIL5LITER]

The amount of uneducated or illiterate people in this thread is staggering.

The only thing this bill did was clarify the law. People who were labeled mentally defective were already banned from owning guns. This just makes way for all of the states (not just some of them) to add that list to the NICS.

Say what you want about the NRA, but the GOA has never gotten a damned thing done except for collect dues and cry about the sky falling. Zero. Zilch.

I am still amazed that in this day and age people do not understand how Washington works.

You can pout and cry all you want and stamp your feet and throw a temper tantrum, and just like a four year old in a toy store, you aren't going to get anything done. That is the GOA and people who feel the NRA isn't tough enough.

This stuff takes YEARS to get done. If you think the GOA is so much better than the NRA, wait and see what happens when the GOA gets big enough to actually be noticed on Capital Hill. They'll be labeled a radical right wing agency on the same level as the KKK and Nazi party so fast it'll make your head spin.

 

[cracked butt]

I never saw any value in the GOA. To me they seem like a miniature poodle that nips at the ankles of the big dog in the neighborhood, the NRA.

We had a similar group in Wisconsin knowd as Wisconsin Gun Owners- they severly undermined the effort to get CCW passed in Wisconsin. Not only that, but they spent a lot of money in a campaign to remove a legislator from office who had spent most of his career trying to get pro-gun measures passed and led the fight for CCW. Their supposed mission was that they wouldn't settle for anythign less than Vermont-Style CCW, and would fight against anything less.

 

[Tim James]

I never saw any value in the GOA.

To keep the balance of the NRA from swinging too far toward political lap dog willing to give away too many rights. They also are the biggest pro-gun group to actually advocate the repeal of onerous gun legislation instead of sticking to the "status quo."

Both groups serve a legitimate purpose, which is why I support both. Likening this to the pecking order of animals is ignorant.

(Aside: here is another example where only two choices exist: extremist liberty group and incremental statist group. Why can't a reasonable incremental liberty group appear for any issue in America these days?)

 

[cracked butt]

They also are the biggest pro-gun group to actually advocate the repeal of onerous gun legislation instead of sticking to the "status quo."

Umm ok, how much legislation has the GOA repealed so far? Results mean more to me than grandstanding.

Likening this to the pecking order of animals is ignorant.

Not really. All I ever see of the GOA is criticism of other groups, most anti-gun, but also a lot of it directed toward the NRA.

 

[Cork]

After reading all the posts I put a new NRA sticker on my truck and even added a few bucks to a Brownells and Midway order today. I still think the NRA is misleading it's members about this not being anything new but they are the only vocie that counts. The agencies in implementing laws have much flexibility and are constantly changing enforcement so we can be sure more people will be on the NCIS not allowed to buy a firearm list. Maybe some will even be dangerous?
Regardless it is a waste of effort as criminals who rely on weapons for their 'vocations' and sicko behaviors will not be impacted.
Cork