It has been my believe, based on the actions of the NRA over the past
years that the NRA is just another group run by the establishment to subvert
the Constitution. This article points in that same direction. If the NRA
was against gun confiscation it would not "cave in" to so many demands by our
now too powerful government. The president of the NRA is an actor, few
actors are conservative (favor a strict interpretation of the Constitution),
most are liberals who want to toss out the Constitution in total. Face it,
most liberals are of a Communist/socialist bent ... their ideas that have
been foisted on us are very clear about that especially in education and
rights of the common man/woman. The Constitution provides rules for
government to follow, yet they are blind to these rules ... the time may come
when a new revolution will be necessary and without guns it would be
impossible to put government in it's proper place. Many do not see this
because they have been blinded/brainwashed by the media on all fronts. Most
people on this list have seen that whatever the media represents is the
opposite of the truth, but the truth shall prevail eventually.
Regards,
Bob Stokes
From:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2000/06-05-2000/vo16no12_nra.htm
The NRA�s Gun Control Schizophrenia
by William F. Jasper
For all its blustery rhetoric about standing firm for the right to
keep and bear arms, the National Rifle Association�s continuing
concessions to gun control exhibit the signs of a split personality.
One might think from the oceans of venom and ink hurled at the
National Rifle Association by President Clinton, Sarah Brady, and the
anti-gun fanatics of the Establishment press that the NRA is the
unwavering, unshakable, and indefatigable champion of the natural
right of all Americans to keep and bear arms. Is not the simple fact
that NRA leaders Charlton Heston and Wayne LaPierre are daily
pilloried and burned in effigy by the disarmament zealots proof
positive that they are the premier defenders of the Second Amendment?
Yes, the NRA is the arch-villain whom gun-banning extremists love to
hate. It is the largest, oldest, wealthiest, most powerful gun-rights
organization on the planet. But is the venerable gun group worthy of
the odium heaped upon it by its enemies? We wish it were. However, as
we shall show, it is getting more and more difficult to look at the
record and rhetoric of the NRA without seeing a chronicle of
piecemeal, strategic surrender. For all its bluster about standing
four-square and forever firm against all infringements on the right of
private citizens to own firearms, the NRA appears to have already
resigned itself to gradual defeat on its most basic issues. Now, it
seems, the organization is completely preoccupied with convincing its
loyal and generous members that its concessions (some might say
betrayals is more accurate) on vital gun rights are victories, not
defeats.
Strange Bedfellows
Who would have thought, for instance, that they would live to see the
day when the NRA would be lining up shoulder to shoulder with its
nemesis, Handgun Control, Inc., to applaud the biggest-ever expansion
of the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF)? Yet that
is what we saw earlier this year, when President Clinton proposed to
double the ranks of ATF inspectors and increase the number of ATF gun
agents by 23 percent. What�s more, the Clinton package called for a
vast new army of federal, state, and local prosecutors to "fight gun
crimes."
The Chicago Tribune, in a January 18th story entitled "Clinton plans
gun-law enforcement push," described the plan thusly: "President
Clinton plans to announce today an initiative that the White House is
calling the biggest gun enforcement push in history, a $280 million
plan to hire 500 new firearms-law enforcers and 1,100 gun-crime
prosecutors." The story went on to report that "representatives of
Handgun Control Inc. and the National Rifle Association both applauded
the idea."
The Tribune story continued:
"We�ve often said that strong enforcement is needed, and one key is
boosting ATF," said Handgun Control President Robert Walker.
Meanwhile, NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre said he backs
the plan, but he was skeptical the administration would follow
through.
"I don�t want to declare victory on this without letting it be known
that we will hold them to it and monitor their performance and report
to the American people," LaPierre said. "It better be more than just a
sound bite, but we�re for it in a big, big, way," he said.
Yes, this is the same ATF whose agents the NRA once described as
"jack-booted government thugs." Has some miraculous transformation
that we do not know about come over the Clinton thugocracy to render
it less hostile to private gun ownership and more solicitous of the
Second Amendment? Have the ATF�s minions turned in their jack-boots
and SWAT regalia for ballet slippers and tutus? Have Bill Clinton or
Janet Reno said or done anything in recent memory to support any
illusion of hope that, with these hundreds of new agents and
prosecutors, the ATF and Department of Justice might go after real
criminals rather than using these new resources to entrap, persecute,
and prosecute gun owners, as they have done in the past?
The NRA leadership apparently thinks so, but they can cite very little
evidence to support such false hopes. Oh, they are very high now on
their new pet project: Project Exile. In full-page newspaper ads last
year, the NRA urged Congress to "Adopt and fund Project Exile
nationally � every violent felon caught with a gun goes to jail for 5
years, period." Under the Exile program, state and local prosecutors
assist and defer to federal prosecutors, who have a more "streamlined"
process and tougher sentencing. And, undoubtedly, they can point to
some genuine victories in taking violent felons off the street, but at
a cost of doing extreme violence to our country�s constitutional
separation of powers.
Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court William Rehnquist has
emphatically warned of the dangers from the recent vast expansions of
"federal jurisdiction over crimes involving drugs and firearms," as
well as taken notice of the perilous trend to "federalize" certain
juvenile crimes. "Unless steps are taken to stop or reverse this
trend," said Justice Rehnquist in his 1998 State of the Judiciary
report, "either the demands placed on the federal judiciary will
eventually outstrip its resources, or the judiciary will become so
large that it will lose its traditional character as a distinctive
judicial form of limited jurisdiction."
Justice Rehnquist went on to wisely note:
The pressure in Congress to appear responsive to every highly
publicized societal ill or sensational crime needs to be balanced with
an inquiry into whether states are doing an adequate job in these
particular areas and, ultimately, whether we want most of our legal
relationships decided at the national rather than local level. Federal
courts were not created to adjudicate local crimes, no matter how
sensational or heinous the crimes may be. State courts do, can, and
should handle such problems.
These concerns have been echoed recently by the National Sheriffs
Association, the National District Attorneys Association, and the
American Bar Association, all of which have decried the continued
encroachment of the federal government on state and local
jurisdictions. People who treasure the freedom that flows from
assiduously maintaining our constitutional checks and balances and
separation of powers will not see a solution to our problems of crime
and violence in calling on Washington to � as the NRA says � "just
enforce the laws already on the books." Many of those federal laws are
already unconstitutional and should be repealed, not enforced.
Even if the Clinton/Reno Justice Department could be held to going
after only violent criminals (surely a vain hope), expanding federal
police and prosecuting resources and authority will come back to
ensnare us in many ways. Nevertheless, in his May 27, 1999 testimony
before the House Judiciary Committee�s Subcommittee on Crime, NRA
Executive Director Wayne R. LaPierre reiterated the group�s
endorsement of this federalizing trend. While rightly and forcefully
condemning the draconian, full-speed-ahead gun control proposals
tendered by the notoriously anti-gun Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ),
LaPierre offered as an alternative a reduced-speed package headed in
the same direction. Said the NRA exec:
� "We think it�s reasonable to provide mandatory instant criminal
background checks for every sale at every gun show. No loopholes
anywhere for anyone."
� "We think it�s reasonable to prevent all juveniles convicted of
violent 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�s 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."
Each of the NRA�s "reasonable" endorsements constitutes support for
federal usurpation of power and an expansion of the federal police
state. Let�s just look at its endorsement of "full enforcement of
federal firearms laws by the federal government." That stance puts the
NRA in the position of accepting the false claims of the gun control
lobby that Congress may constitutionally infringe on gun rights. It
also lends credence to the notion that the anti-gun laws Congress
already has passed, if fully enforced, could curb firearm-related
criminal activity without eviscerating the Second Amendment. Ergo, if
enforcement of existing federal legislation helps reduce crime, why
not enact more to further reduce, or eliminate, crime?
Consistently Inconsistent
The NRA assures its members in no uncertain terms that it is dead-set
against firearms registration, rightly pointing out that, in country
after country, registration lists have been used by governments to
seize the means of defense against tyranny. In fact, it says gun
registration is "inherently evil." In a position statement entitled
"Licensing and Registration," posted on its website on April 9th, the
NRA�s Institute for Legislative Action states that, for gun owners,
"perhaps only one other word in the English language so boils their
blood as the word �registration,� and that word is �confiscation.� Gun
owners fiercely believe those words are ominously related."
Indeed they are. Which is what makes the NRA�s insistent support for
the National Instant Check System (NICS) so incredible and so
dangerous. The "instant check" system provides the basis and the means
for a national, computerized firearms registration database.
The 1993 Brady law authorized a temporary five-day waiting period,
applicable only to handgun purchases, for five years, to be superseded
after November 30, 1998 by an "instant check" system that would cover
rifles and shotguns as well. The chief proponent of the "instant
check" compromise was the NRA, which has resolutely defended it ever
since. During the heat of battle over the Brady bill, NRA lobbyists,
rather than standing firm in opposition to the measure, became more
concerned about modifications that would "improve" it and make it
acceptable. USA Today for October 26, 1993 quoted NRA spokesman James
Baker as saying, "We already support 65 percent of the Brady bill,
because it moves to an instant check, which is what we want."
Now, in its "Licensing and Registration" statement, the NRA tells its
members: "Enactment of the Brady Act, for example, establishes the
principle of a national gun licensing system. Once a lenient national
handgun licensing system is established, the licensing system can
gradually be tightened, and police, as they have done in Great
Britain, can begin inventing their own conditions to put on licenses."
Why didn�t NRA leaders recognize this danger before, when it was
supporting the instant-background-check provision in Brady, against
the protests of many of its most experienced members, as well as
against the advice of many other gun groups?
And why does the NRA leadership continue to support the NICS when
their own research and experience shows it to be faulty, costly, and
abusive? On March 9th, the NRA posted on its website a harsh critique
entitled, "GAO Finds Fault With FBI�s NICS Operation," which points
out that "the FBI�s �Instant Check� often isn�t �instant� for honest
citizens." The federal Government Accounting Office report, notes the
NRA, "shows that the system failed to provide �instant� checks 28% of
the time, adversely affecting the rights of nearly 1.2 million
law-abiding citizens. Nearly one-quarter of the citizens who appealed
had their denials reversed. Those wrongful denials, GAO reports, were
caused by FBI examiner error in 42% of the cases."
A more serious problem with the NICS is to be found in the NRA�s own
pending lawsuit against the Justice Department, for making the NICS
into precisely what its opponents warned it would become: a national
registration system. Under directives from Attorney General Reno, the
FBI has been maintaining the records of people who have applied to
purchase firearms. The NICS was sold as a system that would provide an
"instant check" to assure that the applicant did not have a criminal
record. But, we were assured, there would be no permanent record made
of applications, which would constitute a form of registration. Guess
what? The Reno DOJ/FBI illegally insists on making those "instant"
checks into permanent records. That should come as no surprise. What
doesn�t compute is the NRA leadership�s continued support for this
proven threat to rights it claims to cherish and defend.
� Copyright 1994-2000 American Opinion Publishing Incorporated
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths,
misdirections
and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with major and
minor
effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said,
CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
<A HREF="http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
