1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

NRA: Pro Second or Government Lapdogs? by M. Gaddy

Discussion in 'Legal' started by rick_reno, Jun 13, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. rick_reno

    rick_reno member

    Dec 25, 2002
    This is an old one, I did a search and didn't find it (did THR exist in '01?) so here it is.


    NRA: Pro Second or Government Lapdogs?
    Michael Gaddy 06.26.01

    Has the association that so many of us have placed our confidence, not to mention our money in over the past years sold us out? Have they aggressively defended our right to keep and bear arms? Or could it be they willingly submit to the usurpation of our rights? The facts must be examined before we continue to allow this organization to be a voice of gun owners in America.
    I firmly believe in the adage that one cannot compromise with someone whose goal is your destruction. As I look back at the legislation presented by our socialist leaning government of the past thirty-five years I find that all too often the NRA has supported the infringement of our right to "keep and bear arms".

    First of all is the 1968 gun control act. As we all know this came about due to the knee jerk reaction of our politicians to the assassinations of the Kennedy's and Martin Luther King Jr. How many are there among us who actually believe the truth has actually seen the light of day on any of these murders? But that is a subject for another place and time. The NRA supported this piece of legislation because they "feared more draconian measures". WHAT PART OF INFRINGED DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND? For my view the Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, jfpo.org, present a compelling argument that this piece of onerous legislation was taken almost word for word from the Nazi Weapons Law of 1938. The direct connection with a US Senator is certainly possible.

    Now let us move to that piece of legislation known as the "Brady Bill". There are many who do not agree that the NRA supported this piece of tyranny, but the facts speak for themselves. In a statement on October 26, 1993 NRA spokesman James Baker said. "We already support 65 percent of the Brady Bill, because it moves to an instant check, which is what we want." WHAT PART OF INFRINGED DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND?

    Now, the ultimate hypocrisy is the NRA's support for the National Instant Check System, (NICS). The NRA has gone to great lengths to connect the link between registration and confiscation, yet they actively support the very legislation that has led us to the first step in the process, registration of all gun owners. Who believes for a moment that the government is actually destroying the records of all gun transactions as they promised? In fact the NRA has itself sued the US Justice Department for doing exactly what we all feared, establishing a database of gun owners.

    How can the NRA justify its claim as the "foremost defender of second amendment rights" in light of the statements of their Executive Director Wayne LaPierre? "We think it reasonable to provide mandatory instant criminal background checks for every sale at every gun show. No loopholes anywhere for anyone. We think it reasonable to prevent all juveniles convicted of felonies from owning guns for life. We think it's reasonable to provide full funding for the National Instant Check System so it operates efficiently and instantly. We think it reasonable to support the federal Gun-Free School Zones Act. We think it's reasonable to expect full enforcement of federal firearms laws by the federal government." Mr. LaPierre; WHAT PART OF INFRINGEMENT DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND? Why does the NRA continue to support enforcement and prosecution of federal gun control laws that are unconstitutional?

    As another slap in the face to true supporters of the second amendment the NRA has now affiliated itself with none other than the following in their support of the newest federal infringement, Project Exile; Handgun Control Inc, which recently changed it's name to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, Senators Schumer, Boxer, Fienstein and Hatch. Let's examine the distinguished company the NRA has sided with in its role as "foremost defender of second amendment rights." Sarah Brady has said the Brady Bill was the "first step towards our goal of total confiscation." Charles Schumer not only supports total confiscation but was the chief supporter of the murderous FBI in both the Ruby Ridge and Waco investigations. Senators Boxer and Feinstein have never met an unconstitutional law they would not support. Could anyone forget Senator Hatch referring to the murderer of defenseless Vicky Weaver as a "hero" during these hearings? To really show the public how concerned they were with the acts of their alphabet agencies, the Congress awarded the FBI and BATF increased budgets after the hearings on Waco and Ruby Ridge.

    Project Exile which the NRA supports without reservation would provide the BATF with money for an additional 500 agents and funds for 1,100 gun crime prosecutors. The Chicago Tribune reports, "Both Handgun Control Inc. and the NRA applauded this idea." Obviously the NRA has changed their view of these "jack-booted government thugs." This unconstitutional legislation will take all gun related cases out of the hands of states and remand them to the federal courts. This makes us all more comfortable, right?

    The time for compromise with the State and its lackeys has passed. When I think of the NRA and its continued support of those who are the sworn enemies of our freedoms I am reminded of the words of General Baya; "Once is an incident, twice is a coincidence and three times an enemy action." Any entity that would support the actions of my enemy is indeed my enemy. During the past 35 years what has the NRA accomplished with its approach to this issue? Our second amendment has been trampled on. We must beg the state for permission to protect ourselves. Our citizens are murdered in their homes. Children and adults residing in their church have been murdered and burned. (Don't even use the government's terminology for Mt. Carmel. That was not a compound.) Our Congress rewards these acts with more money to continue their heinous acts and refuses to prosecute those who commit these crimes. Can we not draw the connection between the governments ruling that federal agents committing crimes while in the performance of their duties are not to be held accountable for their acts? Can anyone say Nuremburg?

    It is time for the NRA to pick sides. They cannot have it both ways. They must realize that it is not about hunting. It is not about lobbying the whores in Congress. It is about taking the message to the American People and aggressively attacking the lies of the people and groups they now find themselves aligned with. As my Grandfather said on several occasions, "If you ain't fer me, yer agin me!" It's time to take the aggressive tack of the Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership and the Gun Owners of America.

    If the NRA really seeks to be the "foremost defender of the second amendment" they must tell the American People that gun control is not about controlling guns, it's about controlling people. The origins of gun control are based in racism. The first gun control measures in this country were designed to keep guns out of the hands of blacks. It is hard to be free if you don't have the means to protect yourself and your family! Tell the people that gun control is the first step to genocide. Tell them the police have no obligation to protect us. Tell them we have the constitutional right to carry without big brother's permission. Tell them that we have the right to own any weapon we choose. How else could we defend ourselves against the might of a tyrannical government? Instead of lobbying an elected official who would sell his soul for a chance to bed his intern, invest your money and might in informing the people of the Nazi connection to the 1968 gun control act. Tell them less than 1% of "assault weapons" are used in crimes. Tell them an armed society is a free society. But most importantly tell them it is not the gun in the hands of a freeman the autocrat fears but the spirit of the man or woman who possesses it

    The NRA as it exists today offers no protection for gun owners. They are there to tell us when we have lost. They will continue to proceed with this sellout, waiting for their large pensions, just hoping that the final blow of confiscation doesn't happen on their watch! Real Americans deserve better.
  2. Joey2

    Joey2 member

    Apr 18, 2004
    Yes, I fully agree with this article. I quit the NRA with the 1968 gun control act.

    It floored me when the then NRA president said "we can live with this".

    I sent them a blistering letter along with my membership card. The bastards never even responded !.

    I am a life member of the GOA and am keeping a close watch on them.

    Lie to me once, shame on you. Lie to me twice, shame on me.
  3. twoblink

    twoblink Member

    Dec 22, 2002
    Houston, Texas
    I don't know what the NRA membership fee is now; $60 or whatever..

    But long time ago, I did the math and here's what it looks like:

    Assuming $60 for membership:

    $60 x 1 NRA membership = Not too much + a magazine.


    Taking a newbie female shooting;

    500 rounds of CCI Stinger .22LR ($9) x 2 = $18
    Outdoor range fee ($10) x 2 = $20
    2 Scoops of Häagen-Dazs ($5) x 2 = $10
    Uncle Sam stealing your money as tax = $2
    (BTW, one of my conditions had always been, you shoot them, you clean them, and you buy dinner... So dinner is free and so is the gun cleanin' :evil: )

    So... For $60, I can be throw my money away..
    OR.. I can make a woman into a gun lover for life...

    Not a difficult choice...

    And remember, you get 1 female like guns, and she will bring 10 of her friends next time you go to the range...

    Does it actually work?? Works like a charm, every time!!
  4. Art Eatman

    Art Eatman Administrator Staff Member

    Dec 22, 2002
    Terlingua, TX; Thomasville,GA
    Ever notice how there will be a newspaper article on some subject, and the tail end includes commentary from "the other side", particularly if this other side is idiotic? It's obligatory to give space to an opposing view in order to have "fairness". It doen't matter if the fairness-bunch has no credibility.

    Congress operates that way. There's nearly always a sop to the opposition.

    Politics is the art of the possible.

    Through some forty years of gun-confiscation efforts, the House and often the Senate were controlled by the Democrats. Were it not for the arm-twisting by the NRA, only the Lord knows how bad off we would be--although I have a pretty good idea.

    Given the locus of power, and the national emotions in 1968, I'd have to say that, "Yeah, we can live with it." was a wry comment in the vein of, "It could have been a helluva lot worse."

    Had Dodd, et al, gotten what they wanted, we'd have full-house registration of all firearms. No handguns, except possibly by special permit. Licensing of gun owners before purchase or possession.

    You can fast-forward in time to other efforts resisted by the NRA: No para-military rifles. No full-auto at all. Possibly no semi-auto. Licensing of those who hand-load. Permits to buy powder/primers, with possible limits on quantity and frequency.

    Politics is the art of the possible. One of the reasons the NRA doesn't engage in name-calling after a loss is that we know we have to go back and deal again with these same people. You don't make any more enemies than absolutely necessary.

    So I send money to the NRA-ILA. And to GOA and CCRKBA and TSRA. And try to take folks shooting.

    You can judge a group by its enemies: If Feinstein, et all, hate the NRA, can it be all bad?

  5. Treylis

    Treylis Member

    Dec 14, 2003
    Tempe, Arizona
    Stuff like that is the reason why I'm not a member of the NRA.

    There can be no compromise between opposite principles. We want total gun freedom, they want a total gun ban. It's that simple, folks. Any compromise is an utter failure on our part.

    "If you're not a little bit uncomfortable with your position, it isn't radical enough. How can you be too principled? Take the most extreme position you can--you're claiming territory you won't have to fight for later, mostly against your 'allies'."
    --L. Neil Smith
  6. rick_reno

    rick_reno member

    Dec 25, 2002
    I've was a member of the NRA for almost 20 years, around 1999 I dropped out. I'd gotten tired of paying them to negotiate my gun rights away. A valid question to ask is where would the NRA be if there were no onerous gun laws? It's clearly in their best interest to have some issue they can be fighthing on our behalf.
    I recently signed back up. I was waiting to see what they were going to do with the AWB, and it's clear to me they're doing the right thing. I also decided the way to change the NRA into the organization into what I want -one that has a clear concept of a line in the sand and more importantly knows where that line is - is to be a member. Not being a member isn't going to make the NRA better. Do I trust them? No - I absolutely don't trust La Pierre and his cronies to do the right thing, but I think I can make a difference in what they do from the inside better than I ever could from the outside.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page