Nra Betrayal Of Trust *important*

Status
Not open for further replies.

KMKeller

Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2002
Messages
1,632
Location
NC
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.â€

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.â€

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-esqueâ€[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!â€

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 stats 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.
 
NRA Betrayal Of Trust: Part 2

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.â€

“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.â€

“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.â€

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.â€

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.â€

â€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.â€

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.â€

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.â€

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.â€

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.â€

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.â€

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
 
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.
 
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:
 
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?
 
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.
 
Oh, PS.

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 ;) )
 
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

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.â€


CATO Attorneys to NRA: Butt out! 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?
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?"
 
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.
 
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:
 
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.
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top