Gun-rights groups gang up on NRA

Oatka

New member
They could have used a better heading.

I've got mixed emotions about this. I can see where they're coming from, but now they are on the side of the anti-gun nitwits who don't want to jail criminals.

The antis must be jumping with glee at how we are, once again, fracturing ourselves.
It effectively disembowels the "enforce the laws" counter-ploy to "enact more laws".
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_bresnahan/20000415_xex_gunrights_gr.shtml

Gun-rights groups gang up on NRA
Accuse 2nd-Amendment giant
of aiding gun-control efforts

By David M. Bresnahan
© 2000 WorldNetDaily.com

A coalition of gun-rights organizations is attacking the National Rifle Association over the NRA's support of a program that attempts to hold the line on new gun control legislation by calling for strict enforcement of existing laws.

Citizens of America already has the support of many national pro-gun organizations who have agreed to a declaration of opposition for the NRA's Project Exile.

The NRA, long critical of the Clinton administration for its failure to enforce existing gun laws and constantly battling efforts by gun-control advocates to pass newer and ever-more-restrictive gun laws, has endorsed the adoption of "Project Exile" -- which would require strict, mandatory enforcement of existing laws.

The problem, according to the coalition of gun-rights groups, is that many of the existing laws whose enforcement is promoted by Project Exile are themselves unconstitutional and should never have been passed.

Gun-rights activist Brian Puckett decided to challenge the policy of the NRA by forming the coalition and writing the statement to which member organizations have agreed. The statement calls for the NRA to drop its support of Project Exile and asserts that NRA leaders are actually helping gun-control advocates.

National organizations that have joined the coalition and approved the statement include:
 Larry Pratt, executive director, Gun Owners of America
 Aaron Zelman, executive director, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership
 Steve Silver, president, Lawyers Second Amendment Society
 Nancy Herrington, executive vice president, Women Against Gun Control
 Russ Howard, executive director, Citizens Against Corruption
 Leroy Pyle, president, Paul Revere Network; executive director, Law Enforcement Alliance of America

The statement was also agreed to by many state and local gun-rights organizations and Puckett says others are being asked to come onboard. The statement and a full list of supporters is displayed on the organization's website, while a separate website was created for members of the general public who want to add their name to the list.

Puckett believes many gun owners give automatic support to the NRA's positions without taking the time to educate themselves on the issues. In an effort to inform gun owners, Puckett formed a coalition of gun rights groups and leaders when he created Citizens of America. He describes his supporters as "true pro-Constitution, pro-Second Amendment people and organizations."

Speaking for himself, and not necessarily representing the views of the coalition of gun groups opposing Project Exile, Puckett told WND:

The NRA is a great and powerful tool for upholding the Bill of Rights and it must be directed by men and women with a clear vision of these rights. One should never confuse the NRA or its members with the current leadership, the so-called 'winning team,' which has presided over the most profound and far-reaching losses of our Second Amendment Rights since the 1968 Gun Control Act. The 'winning team's attacks on the enemies of the Bill of Rights have been timid, misdirected, and ineffectual. And now we have their Project Exile -- a complete reversal of position on unconstitutional gun laws. It is an utter betrayal of NRA membership and the organization's proud heritage.

NRA president Charlton Heston spoke about the controversial initiative in a recent speech.

"For years the NRA has demanded that Project Exile be deployed nationwide. Makes sense, huh? The laws are already on the books. Just enforce them. But Bill Clinton won't do it," said Heston in a speech at Yale.

Puckett and his coalition of supporters believe Heston and other NRA leaders are advocating the support of laws that should not be on the books at all. The NRA claims it is all just a matter of strategy. It doesn't want any more laws enacted and has adopted what it considers an undeniably logical position -- require the government to enforce existing laws before making new ones.

Indeed, Heston blames Clinton for enacting laws simply for political gain without any effort to enforce them once they are established.

"Everyone remembers all the press support for his 'desperately needed' semi-auto gun ban that outlawed guns based solely on their appearance. But nobody is reporting that out of thousands of certain offenders, the Clinton administration prosecuted four people in 1997 and four in 1998," said Heston.

"It's surreal. Mr. Clinton stands in the Rose Garden with his 10 prop-cops, lip-biting in pained support of some new law. The press does its best to get it passed. It becomes law. Then everybody forgets about it. And Americans buy it over and over and over again," said Heston.

"Maybe you think a politician's lies can't hurt you. But let me tell you, armed felons can. Passing laws is what keeps politicians' careers alive. Enforcing laws is what keeps you alive. But nobody's getting arrested, nobody's going to jail, it's all a giant scam," said the NRA president.

Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America and one of Puckett's biggest supporters, told WorldNetDaily it's wrong to enforce laws that should not have been passed. He went so far as to claim that "most if not all existing gun laws are unconstitutional."

"American firearm owners and supporters of the Bill of Rights have invested countless millions of dollars and man-hours to prevent these same laws from ever being passed.

Clear-thinking Americans continue to work tirelessly to repeal them," said Puckett (in his statement signed by Pratt and the other gun rights supporters).

The coalition was also critical of federal law enforcement agencies and the use of technical violations of the law to harass innocent people.

"There is no connection between supporting the Bill of Rights and supporting federal laws that are un-American. Moreover, the agencies that enforce such laws slaughtered over 80 people in Waco, shot to death a young boy and his mother at Ruby Ridge and continually commit brutal acts against citizens under the guise of 'gun control.' The 'legal' excuse behind the Waco massacre was the unproved suspicion of 'illegal' machine-gun possession. The 'legal' excuse behind the Ruby Ridge killings was a shotgun that may have been a quarter inch too short. Both are examples of 'zero tolerance,'" said the group in its statement.

The NRA has spoken out strongly in support of the enforcement of federal laws regarding the illegal possession of firearms by juveniles.

"Armed gangbangers should be afraid of getting caught. But, in the past two years, the President's Justice Department has prosecuted only 11 juveniles anywhere in the country for illegal possession of handguns," said LaPierre in a recent speech. But, according to Puckett and his group of supporters, despite LaPierre's good intentions there will be many problems for innocent gun owners if laws are strictly enforced.

"This could be your 15-year-old boy to whom you have given a .22 revolver to go shoot cans at a rural dump or out at the country home of a friend. You, yourself, can be criminally prosecuted for giving him the gun," explained Puckett about his concern of enforcement of existing laws.

The NRA does not want any minors to possess a firearm of any kind unless supervised by an adult at all times. LaPierre said adults must be held accountable for minors who gain access to firearms.

"So we support mandatory penalties for juvenile criminals caught carrying guns. But out of the thousands of these armed, teen thugs, we believe the Clinton Justice Department should have prosecuted more than just 3 in 1997 and 8 in 1998. That's not zero tolerance," said LaPierre.

Puckett said such a policy will make a young boy a felon if he is left alone with a rifle while out hunting with his father and the father will also become a criminal.

Most states require a concealed carry permit for those who wish to have a firearm with them in public. This is another area where the NRA and the coalition differ in opinion.

"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. The truth is, very few actually choose to carry a gun -- but the bad guys don't know which few they are," explained LaPierre.

"So much for the Second Amendment. A right that requires getting a permit to exercise isn't a right, its a privilege granted by the government and revocable by the government," criticized Puckett.

The group has also called for the repeal of "all laws which infringe upon the right of Americans to freely carry arms in defense of self, family, and country."

David M. Bresnahan is an investigative journalist for WorldNetDaily.com


------------------
The New World Order has a Third Reich odor.
 
I just wish they could frame it as disagreement instead of attacking the people in charge. I foresee heels digging in and we'll all wish they'd done it the smart way, sooner or later.
On the other hand, I'm glad not everyone is publicly in love with Project Exile.
 
I also have mixed feelings about this. I strongly encourage locking up criminals using firearms in the commission of a violent felony. No question, this is a great idea, which attempts to reverse too many years of liberal jurispredence ("he came from a bad environment, it's not his fault").

My problem is that I fear it will be misused by a government that has shown itself to be abusive and that has created felony offenses that have no business being considered felonies. Before it is over, citizens merely exercising gun rights in the face of illegal anti-gun laws will end up being ruined by this program.


------------------

The ultimate purpose of gun control is to render people incapable of the ultimate form of protest and resistance to tyranny.
 
Neal Knox Report

House GOP Outfoxes Clinton

By Neal Knox

WASHINGTON, D.C. (April 11) -- This afternoon Republican House leaders neatly stepped out a public relations and political trap set by President Bill Clinton.

On the eve of the Columbine anniversary and the day before Clinton was to be in Denver campaigning for a state gun law initiative, Republicans deflected Clinton's bashing for "sitting on gun control" by passing a bill encouraging states to punish violent criminals.

The bill, H.R. 4051, brought Republicans together because, though named "Project Exile," it did not expand the Federal government's powers, or violate the Tenth Amendment, as does the NRA-backed Richmond, Va., "Project Exile" which provides Federal enforcement of local crimes.

Today's bill passed 358-60. It provides $100 million in enforcement grants to states with laws mandating a 5-year sentence for using a gun in a crime of violence or major drug trafficking offense, and/or for possession of a firearm after conviction of a violent or major drug crime. Six states presently have such laws.

It passed because most anti-gunners didn't dare vote against punishing violent gun wielding criminals. The 60 voting against the bill were all F-rated Democrats -- except for solidly pro-gun Ron Paul (R-Tex.) and Mark Sanford (R-S.C.).

H.R. 4501, introduced March 22 by Chairman Bill McCollum (R-Fla.) and the subject of hearings in his Crime Subcommittee just last week, was rushed to the floor under "suspension of the rules" -- a procedure normally used only for non-controversial legislation since it requires a two-thirds vote for passage.

Democrats were gnashing their teeth because "suspension" bills are unamendable--denying them the opportunity to grandstand on amendments which would have added the Senate-passed gun provisions of the Juvenile Justice bill or the President's "ENFORCE" bill.

Judiciary Committee Ranking Democrat John Conyers (D-Mich.) feigned shock and mistreatment for not being allowed to introduce those amendments--though he has been in Congress 37 years and certainly knows the rules.

He could only complain that neither the Crime Subcommittee nor the Judiciary Committee had a "markup" where he could have offered anti-gun amendments.

H.R. 4051 grew out of last month's war of words between NRA E.V.P. Wayne LaPierre and President Clinton.

On the March 15 CBS Evening News LaPierre said Clinton "has the power by enforcing existing Federal gun laws to make neighborhoods all over the country safe." Such attacks stung Clinton (and stunned gunowners who dispute the notion that Federal gun laws can produce "safe neighborhoods").

The news media chortled when Clinton challenged NRA and pro-gun Republicans to support his "ENFORCE" bill, which would add 600 agents, fund 1,000 Federal gun law prosecutors and add new gun laws. If NRA really wanted 100% enforcement of Federal gun laws, Clinton said, provide the resources to do it.

McCollum's bill sidestepped the trap.

I have no problem with the provisions of H.R. 4051 (although mandatory sentences should be reserved for committing a crime with a gun) but I seriously doubt that the bill will ever become law because Democrats are already promising to load it up with so many

anti-gun amendments that it will never come to a final vote.

Late today, Democrats attempted to strike back with another non-binding "motion to instruct" conferees on the Juvenile Justice bill--which haven't set a meeting. The actual motion, by Conyers, sounded innocuous--and passed 406-22--but the anti-gun crowd vented their spleen for well over an hour.

Also this afternoon, the House gave final approval to the Senate-amended Forfeiture Reform Act. The Senate watered down the House-passed bill at the urging of law enforcement groups, but it should save some unjustifiably seized guns.

---

In my previous column, I quoted Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), sponsor of the Senate-passed gun show bill, as saying his bill was intended "to shut down gun shows." My quote came from a transcript prepared by the Federal Document Clearing House. Sen. Lautenberg's tape showed he said "shut down gun show loopholes."

Considering the provisions of his gun show bill, FDCH had it right. Lautenberg did not say it, but his bill would "shut down gun shows." Not because of the 24-hour vs. three working days difference the press talks about, but because of the definition of "gun show" and the impossible-to-meet requirements on gun show promoters, vendors and buyers.

---

To begin receiving Neal Knox's bi-monthly newsletter, send a contribution in any amount to The Firearms Coalition, 7771 Sudley Rd. No. 44, Manassas, Va. 20109. For late news, call 1-900-225-3006 (89 cents per minute) or visit http://www.NealKnox.com (free). You can read an up-to-date version of the Knox Report at www.shotgunnews.com


------------------
Joe's Second Amendment Message Board
 
I really don't like the idea of our side bickering in public. I also have very few problems with the provisions of the '68 gun control act. If someone wants to enlighten me, feel free.

As for Project Exile, it has been good PR for us. I know that the potential for abuse exists, so I have to ask: does anyone know of a law-abiding gun owner who was charged under Exile for something we would think was wrong?

Thanks,

Dick
 
GCA 68 was evil. It imposed the entire substructure for what we have to deal with today. Stealth registration for instance. It also vastly increased the powers of BATF.

With the exception of class three weapons, prior to GCA 68, among other things, you could actually order weapons by mail w/o federal background checks.

GCA 68 made trade in and more greviously development of class three weapons impossible for Americans. American companies are no longer allowed to develop new automatic weapons. John Browning would not be allowed to develop the BAR today.

For an excellent overview of the history of gun control in the US, read Unintended Consequences by John Ross.
 
Monkeyleg,

This is actually a matter of principle. The NRA is advocating an unconsitutional breach of the role of the states in law enforcement.

How in the world can that be in our interest? Remember the Second Amendment? Remember the Constitution?

It is perfectly legitimate for the NRA to push for the punishment of criminals if that's what they want to do. But make sure to do it on the state level, not the federal level.

The NRA otherwise is just a bunch of hypocrites. We think that the Feds should follow the constitution with respect to the 2nd amendment but if it is just about punishing those who carry guns to schools, then #$*@! the Constitution?!
 
These laws, going back to the "Tommy Gun" legislation were passed one at a time. Short of pure revolution, they will only be repealled one at a time. We have a Public Relations and Advertising Emergency that will not be met by arguing, at this time, that all the existing (tho' unconstitutional) gun laws MUST be abolished. The enemy loves to have us devour our good friends because they are not perfect. Family stays together, despite their differences.
 
This is all part of the clinton plan. "We" say we want the existing laws enforced. But do we really want enforcement of a bunch of unconstitutional anti gun laws enforced by bill clinton's JBT's????
The only thing that "we" should demand is a return to the uninfringed right to keep and bear arms.
This is the only thing that will work. Everything else is weeing in the wind.

------------------
Better days to be,

Ed
 
This tendency to rip into the NRA publicly HAS TO STOP.

It's absolutely crazy. GOA has been consistently the worst offender; this is the first time I've heard of the JPFO involved in similar, although this latest is actually mild compared to some of the earlier GOA "updates" I've seen.

Here's what's really going on: right now, under this President and Congress, we cannot advance (read: roll BACK gun control) with Fed legislation. Everything we're going at the Fed level is a "stall game". Last year's stillbirth of the "Juvenile Justice Bill" despite Columbine and a media witchhunt was a masterful example of NRA maneuvering.

Half the time, the NRA does such Byzantine back-room deals and arm-bending that *nobody* knows what the hell they're doing. That's good because they drive Fienswine, Schumer and the rest utterly nuts, but BAD because GOA and the others have no clue what the big picture is and are all too ready to scream "TRAITOR" when a small part of a larger picture looks bad.

That's what's going on here.

To be fair, the GOA in particular is an "Internet era" org and is VERY good at gathering large amounts of activity via constant bulletins that flash across mailing lists and forums like this nationwide in a heartbeat. I wish the NRA had as close a contact with the "Internet activists". The NRA still tends to rely on "major players" like Heston, LaPierre and such hobnobbing with major political figures. That technique is necessary, but so is the GOA-style "mass pressure by armies of peons" :) approach.

If the NRA could trust GOA not to publicly rip into 'em at random, they could fill GOA leadership in on the REAL gameplan is an let them organize their "masses" as appropriate.

As is, this cannot happen and it's our single biggest problem. Well...OK, second, GORE is in first :).

Jim
 
I'm going to place this before all of you as I am the only one I know who will say it aloud.

What we have with Exile and other laws of its ilk are laws that seek to federalize all crime. Yes, purportedly they seek to overwhelm the feds by filling up their prisons using their own silly laws to do it. But here's the rub:

Laws that seek to disarm those who have committed a crime, the mentaly disabled, and children are laws that were passed with a simple majority of Congress that negates the supreme Law of the Land. "What the f--- are you talking about Peel?", you ask.

All the way through the nineteenth century, a criminal getting out of prison would be issued his property. That property included the rig that he was wearing at the time he was taken into custody. He strapped on his guns and he walked out a free man. Not so today. Not since 1968.

It was in 1968 that the GCA68 was passed and started to qualify who was "worthy" of firearm ownership and thus "worthy" of self defense. These people had their Second Amendment right negated by a simple majority of Congress. There was no Constitutional Amendment. There was no declaration of removal of citizenship of those so declared. They just lost their right based on a 50%+1 vote of 535 persons.

If these people truly are not citizens, they should be devoid of all of the protections afforded by the Constitution and Bill of Rights -- but they are not. In fact, the Supreme Court has ruled that the only thing required of those protections is to have both feet firmly planted on American soil. Citizenship is not a requirement.

So what do we have, partial citizens? Those so deemed are still required to pay taxes but are denied the right to life through self defense. Those so deemed are totally dependent on the state for their protection but the Supreme Court has ruled that there is no moral duty of the state to protect any citizen -- or partial citizen. So, also, have they ruled that the state has no responsibility for the failure of providing protection to any citizen -- or partial citizen. These people are cannon fodder for the criminal element and the authorities can, by court decree, stand idly by and even watch if they wish.

"But what about the right to vote, Peel? felons can't vote. Doesn't that blow your whole premise?"

No. The Congress when they wrote, and the states ratified, the Fifteenth Amendment included a caveat -- a caveat that first reared its ugly head with the Thirteenth Amendment. Section 2 of the Fifteenth Amendment states "The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation." And they have. They have excluded those they deem "unworthy" of voting by "appropriate legislation". In other words, the right to vote is a conferred right, not a natural right like the Second Amendment. Unfortunately, the Second Amendment is, daily, becoming more and more of a conferred right.

What all of these laws come down to is Prior restraint -- and more of them are being added all of the time. Prior restraint laws essentially are laws against breaking the law. A good example of this would be the Lautenberg Act.

Since shoving your wife or girlfriend is a gateway crime to murder, we must exclude those who would do such a thing from owning firearms. Of course thay can still own knives, hatchets, automobiles and other devices of destruction. They may also assault anyone they wish who is not their wife or girlfriend with impunity as they will not lose their firearms rights.

Zero tolerance at schools is another good example of prior restraint. If it could possibly be used as -- or conceived of as being -- a weapon, it is a weapon.

These laws have been passed with the kudos of all; never realizing that those so celebrating might be the next ones to come under their force.

Here is what I envision as the next major prior restraint law to be passed. If a felon resides in a residence, no firearms may be located in said residence. This means that if you are a felon, and your wife is not, she will be disallowed the purchase, ownership, and use of firearms simply because she married you.

Imagine, if you will, laws written that restrain a person's rights by simple association. "You're nuts, Peel", you say, "the Congress doesn't have that power and a law like that would be shot down as unconstitutional".

How many laws reside on our books now that are blatantly unconstitutional; but stand for the lack of a challenge? The Congress passes laws every day that they know would be shot down but they pass them anyway. If there is no one willing to put up the $50,000 necessary just to start the process the law, by standing unchallenged, must be Constitutional.

Even in the face of a challenge, the laws are written that any portion not shot down remains in full force and effect. Witness the Brady Act. The unchallenged portion stands to this day.

Think about it.

------------------
Gun Control: The proposition that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her own panty hose, is more acceptable than allowing that same woman to defend herself with a firearm.


[This message has been edited by jimpeel (edited April 15, 2000).]
 
While the NRA is far from perfect, the GOA strongly opposed the TX CHL bill in a fit of
fanatic lunacy.

They would have deprived me, my friends and many law abiding citizen of the opportunity to legally carry. I have no use for them.
 
Jim Peel:

In theory, you're 100% correct.

That and $.50 will get you a bad cup of coffee.

Remember, there are ONLY two goals at the Fed level possible right now: get rid of Gore in November, and stalling all Fed gun control.

Supporting "Project Exile" accomplishes BOTH goals. It embarasses Clinton which reflects negatively on Gore and it helps derail further Fed gun control laws.

It's bad long-term strategy and yes, eventually we'll need to deal with that. But it's excellent short-term tactics.

Bush will be able to put three to five new Supremes in before Emerson hits. Bush Supreme court nominees are more likely to declare the 2nd an individual right.

THEN we can proceed to kick major a$$. Until then, at least under the current regime we STALL. Project Exile is a great stall game.

------------

I hadn't heard GOA actively was against TX's shall-issue. Considering that TX had NO CCW system whatsoever, that would be complete utter lunacy if true.

Jim
 
"I really don't like the idea of our side bickering in public."

Yes, far better to allow the NRA to go down a path we think is dangerous...all without comment from the membership. Not.

"I also have very few problems with the provisions of the '68 gun control act."

The very act which erected the scaffolding for the current laws? The Form 4473 which the BATF illegally transcribes to collect a database of lawful gun owners. The import restriction on firearms which increased the cost to us. The law which banned mail-order sales? The law which allowed BATF to thin the number of firearms dealers? And...so...much...more...

"If someone wants to enlighten me, feel free."

I feel less free.

"As for Project Exile, it has been good PR for us."

Social Security was good PR as well. But there is a constitutional standard to mind.

"does anyone know of a law-abiding gun owner who was charged under Exile for something we would think was wrong?"

You could have asked that same question about RICO forfeiture 25 years ago. It takes time for the wolf to take the prey.

Two months ago a BATF agent and a US Attorney visited our group (Arizona Firearms Safety Coalition) to enlist our help in publisizing "Arizona Exile." We were interested at first. Then, however, we began asking questions. I asked these initially friendly and jovial feds if they could guarantee that they would not soon be prosecuting people like me who might have the wrong pistol grip on my FAL. I was met by stony silence.

After they left, one of the members of the Arizona Rifle and Pistol Association, among other groups, Terry Allison, told the group how the BATF has used the GCA '68 to harass FFLs into shutting down (or other ominous things) for failing print out the full MIDDLE name on Form 4473. He could have talked about these abuses all day long. You should have seen the faces on the anti-gunners among our group. "Couldn't they just give him a warning?"

Well, yeah, they could. And they might. Or they might not.

"Supporting "Project Exile" accomplishes BOTH goals. It embarasses Clinton which reflects
negatively on Gore..."

Like always, even when initially resistant, Clinton adopts those things he thinks has become politically digestable even if he may disagree with it. He adopts Project Gulag as his own.

Remember what Clinton said during his (what was it?) State of the Union Address... "The NRA wants us to enforce existing gun laws? Okay, but we will enforce ALL gun laws."

Is my AR-15 legal?

Rick
Resist Project Gulag
Boycott Slick & Weasel

------------------
"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American." Tench Coxe 2/20/1788
 
Well, consider me now enlightened. I hadn't thought about GCA68 in those terms. But how we'll ever get a repeal of any of those provisions is beyond me. It would be like trying to rebuild your house in the midst of a housefire. Maybe someday the housefire will be over, but in the meantime we need to put out the fires that are starting in every room. If the NRA is best at back-room lobbying in Washington, and GOA and other groups are better at grassroots, then we'll have to join all of them. In the meantime, this internecine warfare has to end.

Dick
 
Jim March has the best take of any on this topic. If we don't get Dubya in and make sure the supremes are more likely to be on our side, then GCA68 will be minor. If gore, emphasize lower case, is elected, then all you guys who want armed struggle will have plenty of that. I'm almost 60 and I've seen combat ... don't want no more. Best get busy and make sure Bush gets elected. For God's sake, don't not vote or vote for some independent wacko. RTKB
 
I think the worst thing that GCA68 did was bring in the 'sporting use' clause about firearms. That sunk us bigtime.

Oh yeah, the Founders enumerated a God-Given right to Sporting Goods. NOT!!!

------------------
Thane (NRA GOA JPFO SAF CAN)
MD C.A.N.OP
tbellomo@home.com
http://homes.acmecity.com/thematrix/digital/237/cansite/can.html
www.members.home.net/tbellomo/tbellomo/index.htm
"As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression.
In both instances there is a twilight when everything remains
seemingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all
must be most aware of change in the air - however slight -
lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness."
--Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas
 
“While the NRA is far from perfect, the GOA strongly opposed the TX CHL bill
in a fit of fanatic lunacy.”

Glenn,
While we frequently disagree on methods, I’ve always believed we had the
same goal - the complete restoration of our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

In the past, you’ve had the intellectual and journalistic integrity to leave
room for two or more sides of the story. For that reason (among others) I
find your “fanatic lunacy” comment to be, at best, misguided.

I did not completely agree with GOA in their opposition to our CHL law;
however, their point was that CHL laws are unconstitutional and change a
Right into a privilege to be granted, not granted, rescinded, revoked, or
repealed at the will of those whom you and I *should* be calling fanatic
lunatics. GOA said you already *have* the right to carry, concealed or open
as *you* wish. They hardly wanted to deprive us of those Rights - as you
know. You may disagree with their methods but I hope you can not disagree
with the goal I thought we all shared.

You have shown a willingness, no, an *eagerness* to trade and compromise
Rights in order to achieve your personal view of other “more important”
Rights. Your method seems to be thus:

HCI demands $10. We compromise and give them $8 and brag about the $2
we “won”. Then we compromise time and time again until our $10 is gone
anyway while we brag about our fictional victories.

Increasing numbers of believers in our Constitution and our Rights believe we
should become more “fanatical”.

When HCI demands $10 we should immediately demand $20 from them.
Then, we will let *them* compromise when we take $15.

In the past, our “victories” have been mostly reducing our consistent losses.
It is not fanatic lunacy to say, “Enough!”

Compromise has brought us to the brink of losing the nearly the entire Bill of
Rights. As was pointed out on another TFL thread, the only Amendment (of
the first ten) not violated regularly is the Third Amendment. All nine of the
other Bill of Rights continue to be violated with increasing frequency - as is
the Constitution.

The consistent defeatist path of appeasement has not worked. To believe
that it *will* work may not be lunacy - but it is a view that can not be
supported historically. It is not fanatic lunacy to fear registration of gun
owners as was done with our CHL.

Disagreement with appeasement is neither fanaticism nor lunacy, ok?


------------------
Either you believe in the Second Amendment or you don't.
Stick it to 'em! RKBA!
 
How will these laws get repealed? Well, realistically, they probably won't. *Probably* we're going to lose. Aside from the U.S., what country can you point to that has beat back the gun control movement, that ISN'T tiny, and surrounded by enemies, to the point where national survival depends on every man being armed to the teeth?

But IF these laws are going to get repealed, the way it's going to happen is by legal scholars being persuaded over to our side, to the point where the law schools start teaching the Second amendment as a right, and judges coming from those law schools eventually dominate the bench.

In other words, our fight in the legislature wins us time, but it's our fight on the constitutional front which wins us the war, if it's going to be won at all. But how can we win people over to a view of the Constitution our own leadership opposes? GOA is right, even the gun control movement has noted the hypocrisy of the NRA demanding the enforcement of laws we used to blast as unconstitutional.

The Constitution hasn't changed. The NRA "merely" has come to be controlled by people who don't support the 2nd amendment. And I mean that! Not in it's full glory. Not consistantly applied. They've made their peace with much of the gun control that's already on the books, and wouldn't want it repealed even if they thought it was possible.

In fact, the only reason they took the hardline recently was the board elections. Bet they're all sweetness and light once THOSE are over!

At least that's my opinion.

As for public bickering, bring it on! The NRA's biggest problem right now is that it's run like a totalitarian police state. Heck, Pravda was more open to competing points of view than the Rifleman! And what has happened to most of the totalitarian states? They collapsed from within, that's what!

------------------
Sic semper tyrannis!
 
Back
Top