http://www.gunsandammomag.com/dynamic.asp?intSectionID=186&intArticleID=665
By Dave Codrea
An elephant, says the popular bit of folklore, never forgets. This
November, gun owners will be turning in large numbers to Republicans in
the desperate hope that their candidates will, like their mascot, have long
memories. While there is a precedent for expecting some legislative
sympathyóif for no other reason than payback-- Republican sweep will not
ensure the restoration of our right to keep and bear arms.
Get used to it. More gun control is on the way no matter who wins.
To be sure, there are individuals in the party who have shown a
willingness to champion the Second Amendment, and political
consequences be damned. But for every stalwart, dozens of fence-sitters
straddle the rail, wet fingers tentatively pointed upward to catch the
latest direction of the political breeze. Still others are as much the
enemies of our gun rights as the
most left-wing subversives in the "Progressive Caucus."
The sad truth about the gun issue is, generally, that a vote for a
Republican is a vote for a lesser of two evils. This rightly frustrates gun
activists, who wonder why they should support candidates who don’t
support them,
especially ones who have let them down in the past.
So how did we get to this sorry state? How dare they treat us this way?
And why, like some neurotic, desperate lover, do we keep coming back
for more neglect and abuse?
Don’t blame the Republicans. Being political creatures, we shouldn’t be
surprised when they act that way. The fault is ours for not recognizing
this essential truth. With the mixed signals we gun owners have given
them, with the continuous tolerance for compromise they have been
shown, it’s a wonder we have any firearms left at all.
That is astonishing, especially considering there is no such thing as a
unified "gun vote." Can there be a more fractious and fragmented group
in the country, one that finds more reasons to belligerently disagree with
each other than with their presumed opponents?
Let us explore some of these differences, not so much in an attempt to
reconcile them among ourselves as within ourselves. For only by
understanding what the points of contention are, only through a candid
assessment of the tensions alienating gun activists, can we assess what
makes sense to us and then act accordingly. To those who would
discourage such public airings, I would make the case that these things
need to be said, that information is a requisite for decision-making, and
that if we pretend divisions don’t exist among us, we’ll never be able to
address them intelligently.
For a prime example of discord in the ranks, look no further than to the
proverbial 800-pound gorilla of the "gun lobby," the National Rifle
Association. While it’s true that the recent spate of anti-gun hysteria has
caused their membership to swell, it’s also true that some of its more
activist members have profound differences with NRA management. This
is nowhere better illustrated than through ads taken out in board of
director elections, where "Winning Team" proponents urged members not
to vote for candidates disagreeing on how the organization should be
managed, on the stances it should take on legislation, and on the political
endorsements that it makes.
One of the key areas of dissent is a perceived willingness on the part of
NRA management to cede ground in the name of pragmatism. Self-styled
purists consider any form of compromise a betrayal of principle. NRA can
counter that a partial victory is better than defeat.
Does the NRA’s newest focus, "Project Exile," help the organization by
demonstrating how crime can be reduced when you enforce existing
federal gun laws? Or does it weaken the Second Amendment by
legitimizing the concept that there is a constitutional basis for such laws?
Is there?
Is NRA-backed "Instant-Check" an example of demonstrating our
willingness to embrace reasonable gun controls, preventing dangerous
felons from getting their hands on weapons, or is it an unconstitutional
precursor to registration? Why hasn’t the Justice Department destroyed
all transaction records, many several months old, as required by law? How
could an FBI computer glitch result in a national suspension of gun sales,
and therefore your right to purchase or sell firearms, for three full days?
And what about their political ratings? How come the NRA gives a
candidate an "A," and Gun Owners of America gives the same candidate a
"C"? Or vice versa. What’s up with that?
Has the NRA caved in on gun rights, or are its critics just too radical and
naÔve to understand real world hardball politics?
"Look at what the NRA has given up," some may say.
"Look at where we’d be if they hadn’t," others might reply.
Because of this schism, there are growing numbers of gun owners who
look to other groups such as GOA, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms
Ownership or Citizens of America. And while small in comparison to the
3.6-million-member NRA behemoth, many of the activists involved in
these groups have found a presence disproportionate to their size on the
Internet, where much of the serious grass-roots activism takes place.
So who’s right?
That’s for you to decide. The purpose of this article is merely to examine
the issues; if you weren’t aware of these stresses, you are now. It’s your
responsibility to learn why they exist, and to assess the merit of each
side’s positions. And as bewildering as it may appear, of the three
decisions you will potentially need to make after reading this, it is the
easiest.
Which means we need to vote for George W. Bush and the Republicans,
right?
Here, the gap widens. Here, the animosity between gun owners can really
flare, because, unlike what happens in an NRA election, political
representatives can pass laws that all of us will be compelled to live and
deal with.
For instance, what’s with G.W. calling for a ban on imported magazines?
How can he and House Speaker Dennis Hastert call for prohibiting citizens
between 18 and 21, lawfully recognized members of the unorganized
militia, from owning a handgun, especially when they can go to war and
die protecting this country?
What’s with his volunteering that "smart guns" are probably the "ultimate
solution" to the problem of violence committed with guns? Aw, c’mon,
Dubbya! Haven’t you ever pointed a remote control at your TV and had
nothing happen?
How many more disappointments will the Republicans hand us, secure
(and smug?) in their knowledge that we have no place else to turn? We
had Bob Dole promise us he would bring up repeal of the Clinton semi-
auto ban in the Senate. He didn’t and his wife supports expanding it.
We had Newt Gingrich promise us no new gun laws would pass the House,
and we got the Lautenberg ex-post-facto gun grab and "Gun-Free
Schools" (a.k.a. "Harris/Klebold Empowerment Zones"). We’ve got Orrin
Hatch, who understands the Second Amendment better than most, and
his gun control-laden "Juvenile Crime Bill," and even old faithful Larry
Craig assenting to mandatory trigger locks.
Poll-driven souls that they are, most GOP politicos actually believe that
supporting gun rights can hurt them. They don’t seem to comprehend
that alienating core constituents will not gain them one vote from their
Democrat opponents, who will always find another reason to tear them
down. Rather than keeping their occasional pro-gun votes quiet, if they
championed self-defense and individual rights, they could attack the other
side as statists who support policies with a demonstrable track record of
misery that includes rape, murder, racist exploitation and genocide.
But don’t hold your breath.
Which leaves us with exactly who in our corner, the Libertarians? Or the
Reform Party (talk about a house divided)? Harry Browne and Pat
Buchanan, candidates who unashamedly support the Second Amendment,
don’t have a snowball’s chance, agree most pundits, and they’ll just take
votes away from the Republicans.
Are you going to vote for one of them?
Some will and have vowed to vote based solely on principle, especially
when the Republican picks against Hillary Clinton and Dianne Feinstein are
confirmed anti-gunners Rick Lazio and Tom Campbell. They’re sick of the
GOP giving countenance to such as these and sick of "elder statesmen"
like Gerald Ford resurrecting Lyndon Johnson’s famous crack about
helmetless football by advising his party to embrace moderation,
all the while forgetting how well such counsel served his own reelection bid.
The frog in the slow-heating pot analogy has been exhausted with these folks.
"Let the Republicans learn," goes their theory, "that they cannot get
elected without our support. We may not be able to win an election for
them on our own, but we can withhold the margin for victory that they’ll
need. If they want that margin, they must vote our way in the legislature.
Or lose until they wise up."
So what are we to do? Continue voting for people who seem to sell us
out every time it’s politically expedient? Is a principled vote really a
wasted one? This is our second choice.
One inescapable conclusion must be realized, and for this, there can be no
serious debate: If Al Gore wins the presidency in November, and if his
fellow Democrats dominate the national elections, we can expect a tidal
wave of anti-gun legislation, executive orders and lawsuits aimed at
destroying private gun ownership. If he has free rein to appoint more
federal and Supreme Court judges to the bench, our chances of
challenging any of these measures through the courts will be doomed.
Egged on by the fourth estate, and having secured the three branches of
government, a Gore administration will effectively block any realistic hope
of gun owners to maintain our Second Amendment rights through
legislative or judicial means. There will be but one check and balance left.
There will be no time left to stall, no more strategic compromises to
make. As a gun owner, you, and no one else, will need to make the
decision to register your firearms or not, to apply for a license to own
them or not, to surrender your banned guns or not; in short, to bow to
undisguised tyranny or not. You, and no one else, will need to determine
the level of disobedience in which you are willing to engage and the
amount of sacrifice you are willing to make to defend your rights and
those of your heirs.
This means you, and the government will, indeed, do "whatever it takes."
Don’t believe it? Maybe you’ll believe the Clinton/Gore Justice
Department, arguing in U.S. v. Emerson "It is well settled" that the
Second Amendment merely grants states the right to form a federally
regulated militia.
Maybe you’ll believe the U.S. Attorney, who argued to the Fifth Circuit
Court of Appeals that the government’s official position presumes its
power to not just regulate, but restrict private gun ownership, authorizing
it to take guns away from the public, and that the Second Amendment
only applies to National Guard members, who may not privately own guns,
but may only bear those arms issued to them.
If the orders are finally drawn demanding your obedience to such edicts
under penalty of law, they won’t come in the form of a fund raising
solicitation asking you to check the box for the option you like best. You
won’t get to vote on them.
Sorry, time’s up. Obey or resist. This will be your third and hardest choice.
Are you prepared to make it?
[This message has been edited by dZ (edited October 24, 2000).]
By Dave Codrea
An elephant, says the popular bit of folklore, never forgets. This
November, gun owners will be turning in large numbers to Republicans in
the desperate hope that their candidates will, like their mascot, have long
memories. While there is a precedent for expecting some legislative
sympathyóif for no other reason than payback-- Republican sweep will not
ensure the restoration of our right to keep and bear arms.
Get used to it. More gun control is on the way no matter who wins.
To be sure, there are individuals in the party who have shown a
willingness to champion the Second Amendment, and political
consequences be damned. But for every stalwart, dozens of fence-sitters
straddle the rail, wet fingers tentatively pointed upward to catch the
latest direction of the political breeze. Still others are as much the
enemies of our gun rights as the
most left-wing subversives in the "Progressive Caucus."
The sad truth about the gun issue is, generally, that a vote for a
Republican is a vote for a lesser of two evils. This rightly frustrates gun
activists, who wonder why they should support candidates who don’t
support them,
especially ones who have let them down in the past.
So how did we get to this sorry state? How dare they treat us this way?
And why, like some neurotic, desperate lover, do we keep coming back
for more neglect and abuse?
Don’t blame the Republicans. Being political creatures, we shouldn’t be
surprised when they act that way. The fault is ours for not recognizing
this essential truth. With the mixed signals we gun owners have given
them, with the continuous tolerance for compromise they have been
shown, it’s a wonder we have any firearms left at all.
That is astonishing, especially considering there is no such thing as a
unified "gun vote." Can there be a more fractious and fragmented group
in the country, one that finds more reasons to belligerently disagree with
each other than with their presumed opponents?
Let us explore some of these differences, not so much in an attempt to
reconcile them among ourselves as within ourselves. For only by
understanding what the points of contention are, only through a candid
assessment of the tensions alienating gun activists, can we assess what
makes sense to us and then act accordingly. To those who would
discourage such public airings, I would make the case that these things
need to be said, that information is a requisite for decision-making, and
that if we pretend divisions don’t exist among us, we’ll never be able to
address them intelligently.
For a prime example of discord in the ranks, look no further than to the
proverbial 800-pound gorilla of the "gun lobby," the National Rifle
Association. While it’s true that the recent spate of anti-gun hysteria has
caused their membership to swell, it’s also true that some of its more
activist members have profound differences with NRA management. This
is nowhere better illustrated than through ads taken out in board of
director elections, where "Winning Team" proponents urged members not
to vote for candidates disagreeing on how the organization should be
managed, on the stances it should take on legislation, and on the political
endorsements that it makes.
One of the key areas of dissent is a perceived willingness on the part of
NRA management to cede ground in the name of pragmatism. Self-styled
purists consider any form of compromise a betrayal of principle. NRA can
counter that a partial victory is better than defeat.
Does the NRA’s newest focus, "Project Exile," help the organization by
demonstrating how crime can be reduced when you enforce existing
federal gun laws? Or does it weaken the Second Amendment by
legitimizing the concept that there is a constitutional basis for such laws?
Is there?
Is NRA-backed "Instant-Check" an example of demonstrating our
willingness to embrace reasonable gun controls, preventing dangerous
felons from getting their hands on weapons, or is it an unconstitutional
precursor to registration? Why hasn’t the Justice Department destroyed
all transaction records, many several months old, as required by law? How
could an FBI computer glitch result in a national suspension of gun sales,
and therefore your right to purchase or sell firearms, for three full days?
And what about their political ratings? How come the NRA gives a
candidate an "A," and Gun Owners of America gives the same candidate a
"C"? Or vice versa. What’s up with that?
Has the NRA caved in on gun rights, or are its critics just too radical and
naÔve to understand real world hardball politics?
"Look at what the NRA has given up," some may say.
"Look at where we’d be if they hadn’t," others might reply.
Because of this schism, there are growing numbers of gun owners who
look to other groups such as GOA, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms
Ownership or Citizens of America. And while small in comparison to the
3.6-million-member NRA behemoth, many of the activists involved in
these groups have found a presence disproportionate to their size on the
Internet, where much of the serious grass-roots activism takes place.
So who’s right?
That’s for you to decide. The purpose of this article is merely to examine
the issues; if you weren’t aware of these stresses, you are now. It’s your
responsibility to learn why they exist, and to assess the merit of each
side’s positions. And as bewildering as it may appear, of the three
decisions you will potentially need to make after reading this, it is the
easiest.
Which means we need to vote for George W. Bush and the Republicans,
right?
Here, the gap widens. Here, the animosity between gun owners can really
flare, because, unlike what happens in an NRA election, political
representatives can pass laws that all of us will be compelled to live and
deal with.
For instance, what’s with G.W. calling for a ban on imported magazines?
How can he and House Speaker Dennis Hastert call for prohibiting citizens
between 18 and 21, lawfully recognized members of the unorganized
militia, from owning a handgun, especially when they can go to war and
die protecting this country?
What’s with his volunteering that "smart guns" are probably the "ultimate
solution" to the problem of violence committed with guns? Aw, c’mon,
Dubbya! Haven’t you ever pointed a remote control at your TV and had
nothing happen?
How many more disappointments will the Republicans hand us, secure
(and smug?) in their knowledge that we have no place else to turn? We
had Bob Dole promise us he would bring up repeal of the Clinton semi-
auto ban in the Senate. He didn’t and his wife supports expanding it.
We had Newt Gingrich promise us no new gun laws would pass the House,
and we got the Lautenberg ex-post-facto gun grab and "Gun-Free
Schools" (a.k.a. "Harris/Klebold Empowerment Zones"). We’ve got Orrin
Hatch, who understands the Second Amendment better than most, and
his gun control-laden "Juvenile Crime Bill," and even old faithful Larry
Craig assenting to mandatory trigger locks.
Poll-driven souls that they are, most GOP politicos actually believe that
supporting gun rights can hurt them. They don’t seem to comprehend
that alienating core constituents will not gain them one vote from their
Democrat opponents, who will always find another reason to tear them
down. Rather than keeping their occasional pro-gun votes quiet, if they
championed self-defense and individual rights, they could attack the other
side as statists who support policies with a demonstrable track record of
misery that includes rape, murder, racist exploitation and genocide.
But don’t hold your breath.
Which leaves us with exactly who in our corner, the Libertarians? Or the
Reform Party (talk about a house divided)? Harry Browne and Pat
Buchanan, candidates who unashamedly support the Second Amendment,
don’t have a snowball’s chance, agree most pundits, and they’ll just take
votes away from the Republicans.
Are you going to vote for one of them?
Some will and have vowed to vote based solely on principle, especially
when the Republican picks against Hillary Clinton and Dianne Feinstein are
confirmed anti-gunners Rick Lazio and Tom Campbell. They’re sick of the
GOP giving countenance to such as these and sick of "elder statesmen"
like Gerald Ford resurrecting Lyndon Johnson’s famous crack about
helmetless football by advising his party to embrace moderation,
all the while forgetting how well such counsel served his own reelection bid.
The frog in the slow-heating pot analogy has been exhausted with these folks.
"Let the Republicans learn," goes their theory, "that they cannot get
elected without our support. We may not be able to win an election for
them on our own, but we can withhold the margin for victory that they’ll
need. If they want that margin, they must vote our way in the legislature.
Or lose until they wise up."
So what are we to do? Continue voting for people who seem to sell us
out every time it’s politically expedient? Is a principled vote really a
wasted one? This is our second choice.
One inescapable conclusion must be realized, and for this, there can be no
serious debate: If Al Gore wins the presidency in November, and if his
fellow Democrats dominate the national elections, we can expect a tidal
wave of anti-gun legislation, executive orders and lawsuits aimed at
destroying private gun ownership. If he has free rein to appoint more
federal and Supreme Court judges to the bench, our chances of
challenging any of these measures through the courts will be doomed.
Egged on by the fourth estate, and having secured the three branches of
government, a Gore administration will effectively block any realistic hope
of gun owners to maintain our Second Amendment rights through
legislative or judicial means. There will be but one check and balance left.
There will be no time left to stall, no more strategic compromises to
make. As a gun owner, you, and no one else, will need to make the
decision to register your firearms or not, to apply for a license to own
them or not, to surrender your banned guns or not; in short, to bow to
undisguised tyranny or not. You, and no one else, will need to determine
the level of disobedience in which you are willing to engage and the
amount of sacrifice you are willing to make to defend your rights and
those of your heirs.
This means you, and the government will, indeed, do "whatever it takes."
Don’t believe it? Maybe you’ll believe the Clinton/Gore Justice
Department, arguing in U.S. v. Emerson "It is well settled" that the
Second Amendment merely grants states the right to form a federally
regulated militia.
Maybe you’ll believe the U.S. Attorney, who argued to the Fifth Circuit
Court of Appeals that the government’s official position presumes its
power to not just regulate, but restrict private gun ownership, authorizing
it to take guns away from the public, and that the Second Amendment
only applies to National Guard members, who may not privately own guns,
but may only bear those arms issued to them.
If the orders are finally drawn demanding your obedience to such edicts
under penalty of law, they won’t come in the form of a fund raising
solicitation asking you to check the box for the option you like best. You
won’t get to vote on them.
Sorry, time’s up. Obey or resist. This will be your third and hardest choice.
Are you prepared to make it?
[This message has been edited by dZ (edited October 24, 2000).]