Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 6/3/2003 11:40:32 PM EDT
Please read the ENTIRE article, not just the excerpt posted here. [url=www.armedfemalesofamerica.com/takingaim/betrayal_trust.htm]How the NRA Bargains Away Our Second Amendment[/url] By Nicki Fellenzer Nicki is a US Army veteran, who spent nearly four years in Frankfurt, Germany on active duty at the American Forces Network. She is a former radio DJ and news anchor and a Featured Writer and Newslinks Director for Keepandbeararms.com. She is also a contributing editor to the National Rifle Association's newest monthly magazine, Women's Outlook and writes occasionally for the Libertarian Party. She resides in Virginia with her family. We are also proud to have Nicki as regular contributor to Armed Females of America. Excerpt from the article: "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 ass-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.” “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.” “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.” 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.” 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.” ”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.” 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."
Link Posted: 6/3/2003 11:47:41 PM EDT
Even the NRA recognizes that some guns have no place in the civilian population. cynic
Link Posted: 6/3/2003 11:56:46 PM EDT
Link Posted: 6/4/2003 12:01:55 AM EDT
It's too long and makes my eyes hurt.
Link Posted: 6/4/2003 12:16:00 AM EDT
OE get back there and read the article. This is all well and good Imbroglio; however, all you're doing is presenting problems, not solutions. You have a solution to this imbroglio, Imbrolgio? I'd love to hear it.
Link Posted: 6/4/2003 12:19:36 AM EDT
The NRA may not be perfect, but what other organization has stood up for our rights to keep and bear arms? Had it not been for their efforts over the years we all probably wouldn't even be allowed to have a cap pistol right now. -Charging Handle
Link Posted: 6/4/2003 12:33:53 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/4/2003 12:35:34 AM EDT by DoubleFeed]
Link Posted: 6/4/2003 12:41:08 AM EDT
I don't know, maybe anything short of a complete overhaul, it can't be fixed. The one thing that I do know is that the members who resort to the old "well, why don't you fix it?" or rationalize by saying "at least they let ME keep MY guns", passively ENDORSE the back stabbings that are going on by the NRA. They won't do shit.
Link Posted: 6/4/2003 12:44:21 AM EDT
Charging_Handle, Don't get us started on the dangers of cap guns. Our good friend Piccolo doesn't like to talk about this, but his blindness was caused by a hunting accident involving a defective cap gun. cynic
Link Posted: 6/4/2003 12:44:23 AM EDT
Originally Posted By DoubleFeed: Agreed with Riley. How do we end this? [b]Charging Handle[/b], go read the article.
View Quote
Uhh, Join the GOA? Write our congresscritters? Make sure our "friends" vote?
Link Posted: 6/4/2003 12:50:08 AM EDT
Link Posted: 6/4/2003 12:55:54 AM EDT
Link Posted: 6/4/2003 1:05:31 AM EDT
NRA lost me when they supported the CARA act. [url]http://www.sierratimes.com/archive/files/sep/09/lankford.htm[/url] [b]"all goodmen stand by the self evident truths as enumerated in our sacred US Constitution. I do. We salute you for your courageous teaching approach! God & goodmen knows how much we desperately need more of that! stay on course goodsir!! we are with ya!! Plz join the NRA & help upgrade from within, Its the only way!! Freedom is manifested in the private ownership of land. CARA sux & so does all confiscatory policy. I will fight it with you. Godbless, Godspeed." Ted Nugent[/b] Aviator
Link Posted: 6/4/2003 1:27:06 AM EDT
To those who think the NRA is the end all "pro-gun" group, explain why there have been so many other gun rights groups popping up within the last few years using the words NO COMPROMISE? Ask the members (if they still are members) in kalifornia what the NRA did for them in 1989 and in 1992. The only time I remember the NRA lifting a finger to stop state gun control legislation was in 1997 when Washington state Initiative 676 would have effectively banned all handgun possession within the state. It was reported that the NRA spent $6mill campaigning against the law. They probably spent $6000 on "fighting" the kalifornia assault weapon ban by SENDING OUT FUND RAISING LETTERS SAYING "DON'T LET THIS HAPPEN TO YOU". It is my experience that the staunchest defenders of the NRA are already in "gun friendly" states, gun hobbyists, or are only interested in the NRAs assistance in keeping republicans in office.
Link Posted: 6/4/2003 2:54:18 AM EDT
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.”
View Quote
I can't see this scenario being true, It would be political suicide for the NRA. Aren't we, the defenders of the 2nd the staunchest supporters of the NRA? We and they know that they cannot justify their existance by defending the right to on own high end upland bird guns. It may be happening right in front of me, And a legit scenario worth watching out for but I insist this play would be an overnight implosion of the NRA.
Link Posted: 6/4/2003 3:44:24 AM EDT
Originally Posted By DoubleFeed:
Originally Posted By kay9:
Originally Posted By DoubleFeed: Agreed with Riley. How do we end this? [b]Charging Handle[/b], go read the article.
View Quote
Uhh, Join the GOA? Write our congresscritters? Make sure our "friends" vote?
View Quote
Already a GOA member. I preach the progun word wherever I go. The only thing I am unconvinced of the effectiveness of is writing to Congresscritters. The article profiles how the NRA writes gun control laws. How is my letter to somebody who just says "yea or nay" going to help? Oh - one more thing - we've seen a considerable ramp-up of progun letter writing efforts in the last few years. Have we seen a commensurate ramp up in Congresscritter staff - the ones who read incoming mail? Or do they still throw away unread mail from voters?
View Quote
since the beginning of the year i've written 7 letters to kohl and feingold the fricken bastards have yet to reply to a single one my "representatives"
Link Posted: 6/4/2003 5:53:32 PM EDT
Hey, imbroglio, are you the same imbroglio as on totse.com?
Link Posted: 6/4/2003 6:05:29 PM EDT
[Imbroglio]Obviously the answer is to donate more to the NRA. If they were a more powerful, well-funded lobbying group, they wouldn't need to compromise like this.[/Imbroglio] J.
Link Posted: 6/4/2003 6:11:09 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Imbroglio: Please read the ENTIRE article, not just the excerpt posted here. [url=www.armedfemalesofamerica.com/takingaim/betrayal_trust.htm]How the NRA Bargains Away Our Second Amendment[/url]
View Quote
I don't need to read any more. [img]http://tomsquotes.amhosting.net/movies/blues/james.jpg[/img]
Link Posted: 6/4/2003 6:13:52 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Aviator: NRA lost me when they supported the CARA act. NRA also lost me 'bout 6 years ago. It seemed to me that all they wanted was my hard earned money. AB [url]http://www.sierratimes.com/archive/files/sep/09/lankford.htm[/url] [b]"all goodmen stand by the self evident truths as enumerated in our sacred US Constitution. I do. We salute you for your courageous teaching approach! God & goodmen knows how much we desperately need more of that! stay on course goodsir!! we are with ya!! Plz join the NRA & help upgrade from within, Its the only way!! Freedom is manifested in the private ownership of land. CARA sux & so does all confiscatory policy. I will fight it with you. Godbless, Godspeed." Ted Nugent[/b] Aviator
View Quote
Top Top