NRA Shoots Blanks - Wake Up Gun Owners
Joe Zychik
Over the weekend, a bunch of mealy mouthed bureaucrats came up
with the following piece of cowardly double talk:
"We therefore resolve that the Board of Directors of the National
Rifle Association urge in the strongest terms that the members of
the Association use their collective power of the vote to remove
Mr. Clinton from office and additionally to re-elect and increase
the current Second Amendment majority in the Congress."
What this means is that Nothing but Republican Asswipes (NRA)
does not want to admit that Bob Dole and Newt Gingrich have sold
out gun owners. Instead, Neutered Rationalizations and
Absurdities has taken it's usual unprincipled stand on the
issues. Ask yourself this question: who is No Rifles in America
more concerned about keeping happy, the Republican party? Or gun
owners? If Not Ready for Amendment #2 were really a pro-gun
organization do you think they would let
Bob-guns-kill-so-I'm-going-to-disarm-you-Dole get away with
campaigning for the ban on assault weapons? Wouldn't they demand
that Newt-I'm-about-as-much-a-revolutionary-as-Oprah-is-Gingrich
retract his support for Clinton's proposal that people convicted
of misdemeanor domestic violence lose their right to keep and
bear arms?
If misdemeanor domestic violence becomes the basis of denying a
person their Second Amendment right, next you'll lose your Second
Amendment right for "creating a public nuisance"; "driving under
the influence"; "trespassing"; etc.
The Nationalized Rifle Association needs to keep on good terms
with the Republican party. If the Republicans don't let Tanya
kiss their butt, she can't pull down her big fat paycheck.
Neither can Wayne and the rest of the crowd. Do you really
believe that Tanya, Wayne and the good old Nothing but Republican
Asswipes would endanger their paychecks to protect your gun
rights? Answer: as long as you keep sending them money, they'll
keep taking it.
Right now the greatest impediment to a real pro-gun movement in
this country is the NRA. Yes, the NRA is a far greater obstacle
to gun owners than Charles Schumer, Sarah Brady and Handgun
Control Inc. Fact: most Americans are against gun-grabbers. Fact:
most Americans see Schumer, Brady and HCI as people who are
trying to implement moderate, rational controls on a very deadly
product. Fact: NRA has not challenged Brady, Schumer and HCI's
image because NRA is more concerned with playing politics than
fighting for principles. Not to say that NRA doesn't do
something. But what they do in the area of winning the hearts and
minds of the public is not near as much as they do in the area of
raising money to bribe the politicos with. That's why NRA will
not tell its members that Boob Dolt is a threat to gun-owners.
That's why NRA won't stand up to Gingrich.
The Noodle Rollers of America, like any other bureaucracy, isn't
going to admit it's wrong! They're not going to admit that
they've been wasting your time and money! They've got a big fat
mortgage on a new building to pay off. They can't pay it off
unless they crawl into bed with the Republican party - and sucker
you into supplying the champagne and condoms.
Have you ever spoken to a moderate Republican or a moderate
Democrat about gun rights? What I've found is that
middle-of-the-roaders equate gun rights with the NRA. Most people
don't even know what the Second Amendment stands for. I blame
that lack of knowledge on Not Ready for Amendment#2.
With all the millions of dollars National Republican Assistance
has received, every person in the US should know that the purpose
of the Second Amendment is to enable the citizens in the states
to rise up in armed rebellion and overthrow the federal gov't if
the federal gov't becomes a threat to Liberty. If you don't know
that, read Federalist Paper #29. Constitutional scholars refer to
it as the Insurrection Model.
Whether or not you think the Insurrection Model applies to
today's world is not the issue. The issue is that at least 95% of
the American public doesn't know what the purpose of the Second
Amendment is. It's the responsibility of the NRA to inform each
citizen of why we have the right to keep and bear arms. Has the
NRA done it's job? Hell no! The best it can do is say "Don't vote
for Clinton." If every American understood what the Second
Amendment means; if every American realized the life and death
connection between guns and liberty, Charles Schumer, Sarah Brady
and HCI would be about as relevant as Lyndon La Rouche.
Every penny you give Need Republican Approval advances their
agenda of supporting the political system. The more support the
Republicans get, the closer you get to losing your right to keep
and bear arms.
Send the Nothing but Republican Asswipes a powerful message. One
they will never forget. Vote Libertarian. Tell Not Ready for
Amendment #2 that just as you will not give up your guns, you
will not give up your vote. A vote for Dole is vote for a
gun-grabber. The Nationalized Rifle Association doesn't have the
integrity to admit it. How about you? If you don't teach No
Rights in America and the Republican party that you will not
compromise your Second Amendment rights, who will? Hey, I can
only vote once. Don't leave it up to me and other pro-Liberty
voters to protect your rights. Go into the voting booth and do it
yourself.
Articles in this week's Zychik Chronicle:
*Fascism in Your Water; Capitalism in Your Future: The cause &
end of pollution
*Work Late & Die: What the cops know and you should too
*Not Enough Contempt: Bosnia lies and deceptions
*About His Mother's Combat Boots: He doeth protest too much.
*Guns Kill; Birds Fly; Gun Control Lies: The real bull artists
*We Don't Need No Stinking Icebergs: Bob "Titanic" Dole
*Chris' Corner: A Word From Our Sponsor.
*Life in the Welfare State: From Compassion To Contempt.
*From Welfarese To English: Social Worker Babble Translated
*Gangsters Pay Taxes; You're A Criminal: The Crimes of Socialism
*Perot And The Spirit of '96 : A Tax Revolt Is Brewing,Big Time
*Welfare State Deprives Needy Kids of an Education: Making war on
your grandparents
*Squeaky Wheels: The voice of Liberty is being heard
*Welcome to Bob Dole's Police State: Brought To You By the NRA &
the ACLU
*Letters to the Editor: Lots of fascinating Conflict
*Thoughts For The Day
This week's Chronicle is available in easy to read
format at http://www.free-market.com/zychik
--
To have the Zychik Chronicle sent to you
free, contact: jzy...@pacificnet.net
---
alternate site: http://www.iquest.net/~rjtavel
Patrick Graham
Joe Zychik wrote:
>
> Over the weekend, a bunch of mealy mouthed bureaucrats came up
> with the following piece of cowardly double talk:
>
> "We therefore resolve that the Board of Directors of the National
> Rifle Association urge in the strongest terms that the members of
> the Association use their collective power of the vote to remove
> Mr. Clinton from office and additionally to re-elect and increase
> the current Second Amendment majority in the Congress."
>
> What this means is that Nothing but Republican Asswipes (NRA)
> does not want to admit that Bob Dole and Newt Gingrich have sold
> out gun owners.
I can hear CNN now. "NRA Losing support - anti-gunners gaining support".
How much are you receiving from Handgun Control Incorporated for this??
If you hate us gun owners you should at least have the guts to say so.
Most of the other white man hating queers on this news group have the
guts
to admit where they are comming from. You don't
John Payson
[note followups]
In article <324177...@dixie.com>,
Patrick Graham <pdgr...@holli.com> wrote:
>Joe Zychik wrote:
>>
>> Over the weekend, a bunch of mealy mouthed bureaucrats came up
>> with the following piece of cowardly double talk:
>>
>> "We therefore resolve that the Board of Directors of the National
>> Rifle Association urge in the strongest terms that the members of
>> the Association use their collective power of the vote to remove
>> Mr. Clinton from office and additionally to re-elect and increase
>> the current Second Amendment majority in the Congress."
>>
>> What this means is that Nothing but Republican Asswipes (NRA)
>> does not want to admit that Bob Dole and Newt Gingrich have sold
>> out gun owners.
>
>I can hear CNN now. "NRA Losing support - anti-gunners gaining support".
>How much are you receiving from Handgun Control Incorporated for this??
>
>If you hate us gun owners you should at least have the guts to say so.
>
>Most of the other white man hating queers on this news group have the
>guts to admit where they are comming from. You don't
If you have read any of Joe Zychik's other posts, you would recognize that
he is one of the more strongly PRO-GUN people in this newsgroup. His
discontent with the NRA stems from their willingness to--implicitly--
endorse the at-least-mildly anti-gun Bob Dole despite the fact that:
[1] There exists a pro-gun candidate.
[2] A Bob Dole victory would be the worst possible thing that could happen
this election with respect to keeping the RKBA for the next decade.
The Republicans are increasingly showing signs of becoming just as anti-gun
as the Democrats were in 1992-1994. If gun owners don't wise up and fire
across the Republicans' bow, there's no reason to expect them to improve.
Simply put: the "anti-gun" meme is spreadng like a cancer throughout the
Republican Party; even if it weakens the party this cancer MUST be stopped.
Otherwise, voters will be faced in the year 2000 with two STRONGLY anti-gun
presidential candidates and have nowhere to turn.
The ONLY logical thing for the NRA to do if its objectives are as it claims
is to endorse Harry Browne. If it does this, there will be no doubt once
the election results come in that American firearm owners are not a force to
be trifled with. This will have one of two effects:
[1] It may cause the Republicans to adapt, to try to recover the large voting
bloc that they had alienated by their actions. If this happens, the RKBA
is saved.
[2] If the Republican Party cannot adapt, it will be better to know that soon-
er than later and it will be good if we've already started work on est-
ablishing a replacement.
In addition, if the NRA endorses Harry Browne, it will be impossible for the
major news media to ignore him. One of the NRA's biggest problems for many
years has been the media blackout of their point of view. If the NRA were
to endorse a candidate, the media were to black him out despite the NRA's
endorsement, and the candidate were to win any real portion of the vote then
people would have to recognize that the media is not nearly so unbiased as
it claims.
Is there any problem at all with this logic?
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
supe...@mcs.com | "Je crois que je ne vais jamais voir... | J\_/L
John Payson | Un animal aussi beau qu'un chat." | ( o o )
Harry Thomas
You stupid shit...of course the Board is admitting that Dole sold
us out. Why the hell do you think we're encouraging gun owners
to concentrate on the congressional election? Did you see the
NRA BOD endorse the back-stabbing SOB?
Lieut. Harry Thomas
NRA Board of Directors
(one of those "mealy mouthed bureaucrats")
John Payson
[cc'ed to author]
** MR THOMAS: Be sure to read through to the bottom
In article <51ru7h$6...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>,
Harry Thomas <cs...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
>
>You stupid shit...of course the Board is admitting that Dole sold
>us out. Why the hell do you think we're encouraging gun owners
>to concentrate on the congressional election? Did you see the
>NRA BOD endorse the back-stabbing SOB?
Were you taking to me?
>Lieut. Harry Thomas
>NRA Board of Directors
>(one of those "mealy mouthed bureaucrats")
Perhaps you can explain to me what the following paragraph means:
||We therefore resolve that the Board of Directors of the National Rifle
||Association urge in the strongest terms that the members of the
||Association use their collective power of the vote to remove
||Mr. Clinton from office and additionally to re-elect and increase the
||current Second Amendment majority in the Congress.
By my reading, this is saying that NRA members should cast their vote
in whatever way is most likely to oust Clinton, no matter who that puts
in office in his stead or what that person stands for. While you do
not endorse Dole in the above paragraph, the clear implication is that
you are telling people to vote for him despite your non-endorsement.
Forgive my tone here, but WHAT THE #$@$&^ KIND OF @#@$^% STATEMENT IS
THAT!? While the 1996 elections present some tough challenges, they
could also represent some unique opportunities for freedom but you
blew it.
The current situation has reached a critical point: not only do the Demo-
crats want to nix the Second Amendment, but there is a growing tendency
within the Republican Party to go along with it. If the Republican Party
gets the message that this is acceptable, then in the 1998 elections and
beyond you will probably find a growing number of races in which neither
party puts forth pro-gun candidates. There are two possible ways out of
this trap:
[1] Strengthen the RKBA forces' role within the Republican Party, even if
this means weakening the party.
[2] Work to expand the election menu to include other parties and ideas.
Given that there really isn't much difference between Clinton and Dole
(both strongly supported both the Assault Weapons Ban and the Brady Law)
and that Dole's non-RKBA-related attacks on freedom would likely inspire
a Democrat backlash were he elected, there's not really any reason to
favor Dole over Clinton. Rather than treat this as a liability, however,
the NRA could have treated as an opportunity.
Had the NRA endorsed a third-party candidate (I would have preferred
Browne, but even a blanket calling to vote third-party would have suff-
iced) this would have served both the [1] and [2] functions above. It
would be very difficult for the major media to totally ignore a presi-
dential candidate whom the NRA endorsed, and a truly-pro-gun candidate
such as Browne would add a much-needed voice to the political dialogue.
Further, since voters would be able to truly vote their concience in
this election (since the Clinton/Dole race really doesn't matter, and
it's probably better for pro-gun Republicans if Dole goes down in flames
anyway) an NRA third-party endorsement would probably show a much bigger
spike in the election results than would be possible in any election
where it really mattered which of the major candidates won.
In addition, if the NRA were to endorse the Libertarian candidate Harry
Browne, it would have helped to dispell the common perception that the
NRA is anti-freedom on all issues except the RKBA. I know and have
talked to a number of people who vote Democrat because they can't stand
some of the Republicans' attacks on freedom even though they personally
support the RKBA. By endorsing a Libertarian candidate, the NRA would
be better able to gain the support of such people; otherwise, if the NRA
is willing to sell out others' rights (e.g. by supporting anti-freedom
Republicans) it should not be surprised when they "return the favor".
** MR THOMAS PLEASE NOTE
If you have any argument with the above, please make it. I have tried
to be as clear and direct as possible. At the moment, I am very strongly
considering terminating my NRA membership (I just started my second year);
had I not noticed from your post that you're on the Board of Directors my
card would be in tomorrow's mail. As it is, I will give you a chance to
explain yourself; be sure, though, to consider the following:
[1] If you are not implying by your statement by your statement that NRA
members vote for Dole (in which case it's an endorsement whether you
call it that or not) what do you mean?
[2] If your statement is intended to support Dole, why do you do so with
no reference to the man or his actions? As it is now, your statement
sends the message "It doesn't matter what you say or do--if you're
not Clinton we'll support you". As such it cannot possibly help the
NRA gain the respect of those in Congress.
[3] Why do you think Dole would be less dangerous than Clinton. Remember
his role in the Assault Weapons Ban and Brady Law. Also consider that
he'd have Congress on his side and that if the Republicans pass any
significant anti-personal-freedom legislation (which would be extreme-
ly likely) there will be a backlash of pro-freedom (but anti-RKBA)
Democrats.
[4] Why does the NRA not endorse Browne? I have listed a number of rea-
sons above why it would be good for the NRA to do so, and could prob-
ably list a dozen more.
Personally, I suspect that your non-endorsement of Browne stems from a
case of Clinton-o-phobia induced by Brady's dog-and-pony show at the DNC.
They probably know that if the Libertarians ever really take center stage
they'll be in big trouble. Clinton doesn't have to worry about Dole tell-
ing all the world what the "Assault Weapons Ban" really does and does not
cover; Browne, on the other hand, would spill the beans. Dole's not going
to hammer in the fact that the Brady Law hasn't stopped 100,000 felons and
most likely hasn't even stopped 100; Browne would. By making you paranoid
about Clinton, Sarah Brady et al have deterred you from taking the ration-
al actions that THEY fear.
I have sent this message to Mr. Thomas and to the talk.politics.guns news-
group; while I doubt that Mr. Thomas or the Directors can convince me that
they deserve my continued support, they should in all fairness have the
chance to do so. I hope they take it.
Julia R. Cochrane
cs...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Harry Thomas) writes:
>You stupid shit...of course the Board is admitting that Dole sold
>us out. Why the hell do you think we're encouraging gun owners
>to concentrate on the congressional election? Did you see the
>NRA BOD endorse the back-stabbing SOB?
>Lieut. Harry Thomas
>NRA Board of Directors
>(one of those "mealy mouthed bureaucrats")
Calm down. A lot of other NRA members are out here, and we're
happy with the job you're doing. I have to admit that I don't
mind at all that GOA exists, too, but I'm happy with the job
you're doing.
I figure I'll be voting for Browne for President and Republicans
for Congress and the Senate.
Wouldn't it be great if we could somehow pick up enough votes
in both houses to impeach the SOB?
Hell, I can dream, can't I? :-)
Julie
--
Julie Cochrane * * *
I'm Just Wild About Harry! --- Browne in '96
* * *
John Walker
In article <51s019$q...@Jupiter.Mcs.Net> supe...@MCS.COM (John Payson) writes:
>[note followups]
>
[snip, snip]
>[2] A Bob Dole victory would be the worst possible thing that could happen
> this election with respect to keeping the RKBA for the next decade.
>
WHAT CLOSET HAVE YOU BEEN LOCKED UP IN FOR THE LAST FOUR YEARS??
HAVE YOU SO QUICKLY FORGOTTEN THE CLINTON DOG & PONY SHOWS WHERE HE
SIGNED THE BRADY BILL AND "ASSAULT WEAPON" BAN??
When compaired to Clinton, Dole looks tame.
Remember we went throught this same sort of crap with the last
presidential election. Many people wanted to punish Bush because he
banned the import of ugly black guns. So to punish Bush they voted
for Perot, the Libertarian candidate or even for Clinton. WHO HAS
BEEN GETTING PUNISHED SINCE??
We have a president that rules by Executive Order. We have a
president who instructs his AG to find a way of getting around the
constitution in order to accomplish his goals.
If you want to punish Bob Dole for "flip-flopping" on the ugly gun ban
repeal, remember who will get elected as a result. . .BILL CLINTON.
>The Republicans are increasingly showing signs of becoming just as anti-gun
>as the Democrats were in 1992-1994.
>
The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is a non-partisan issue. note that
more congressional Democrats voted in support of the repeal of the
Clinton Gun Ban than did Republican who voted against the repeal.
In either party the place to make sure that your PRO-RKBA people get
elected is in the primary elections. There are Anti-RKBA people in
each party and those Anti-RKBA incumbents keep winning their primary
elections.
Gun owners need to become more vocal in their primary elections.
>The ONLY logical thing for the NRA to do if its objectives are as it claims
>is to endorse Harry Browne.
>
This is a presidential election. Logic has nothing to do with it. It
is all about winning, nothing else.
With all due respects to Harry Browne, the man hasn't got the
resources neccessary to win the presidential elections. If he had a
$100 Million warchest, maybe, but whether we like it or not either
Clinton or Dole is going to win . Take your pick.
All for now.
John W.
John Walker
In article <51tctc$6...@Jupiter.Mcs.Net> supe...@MCS.COM (John Payson) writes:
>[cc'ed to author]
>
[snip, snip]
>in office in his stead or what that person stands for. While you do
>not endorse Dole in the above paragraph, the clear implication is that
>you are telling people to vote for him despite your non-endorsement.
>
Whether you like it or not, either Clinton or Dole will win. Browne
doesn't have the resources to win the election. Given the choice
between Clinton & Dole, who will you vote for?
>Forgive my tone here, but WHAT THE #$@$&^ KIND OF @#@$^% STATEMENT IS
>THAT!? While the 1996 elections present some tough challenges, they
>could also represent some unique opportunities for freedom but you
>blew it.
>
This is Bushlip. The presidential election is all about winning. You
don't get points for symbolic moves.
>The current situation has reached a critical point: not only do the Demo-
>crats want to nix the Second Amendment, but there is a growing tendency
>within the Republican Party to go along with it.
>
Not neccesarily true. the RKBA is a non partisan issue. Remember
there were more Democrats supporting the repeal of the clinton gun ban
than republicans opposing the repeal.
>[1] Strengthen the RKBA forces' role within the Republican Party, even if
> this means weakening the party.
>
This is something that needs to be done within both party structures.
People need to get out and vote in the primary elections and get
active with your local Democrat and Republican party apparatus.
[snip, snip much idealogical BS]
If you're not happy with the actions of the NRA BOD, run for it.
---------
Ernie Pullin
Ernie Pullin
cs...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Harry Thomas) writes:
>>You stupid shit...of course the Board is admitting that Dole sold
>>us out. Why the hell do you think we're encouraging gun owners
>>to concentrate on the congressional election? Did you see the
>>NRA BOD endorse the back-stabbing SOB?
>>Lieut. Harry Thomas
>>NRA Board of Directors
>>(one of those "mealy mouthed bureaucrats")
(Had to piggy-back 'cause I didn't get the original if this looks a
little funny.).
You're doing as good a job as anyone could expect, Harry. I haven't
got any complaints with the BOD. You're doing all within your power
and more.
Most of us that are NRA memers think so, too.
John Payson
In article <51ursq$4...@lurch.isi.edu>,
John Walker <jwa...@lurch.isi.edu> wrote:
>In article <51tctc$6...@Jupiter.Mcs.Net> supe...@MCS.COM (John Payson) writes:
>>[cc'ed to author]
>>
> [snip, snip]
>
>>not endorse Dole in the above paragraph, the clear implication is that
>>you are telling people to vote for him despite your non-endorsement.
>
>doesn't have the resources to win the election. Given the choice
>between Clinton & Dole, who will you vote for?
Clinton and Dole are both anti-gun. I expect, however, that Clinton
would probably not be in a position to actually do much damage, hard
as he might try (witness the last 2 years); I cannot say the same for
Dole.
As a result, I'd vote for Clinton over Dole, though I'd prefer not to
vote at all were those the only choices. Since I can vote for Browne,
however, I will do so.
>>Forgive my tone here, but WHAT THE #$@$&^ KIND OF @#@$^% STATEMENT IS
>>THAT!? While the 1996 elections present some tough challenges, they
>>could also represent some unique opportunities for freedom but you
>>blew it.
>>
>This is Bushlip. The presidential election is all about winning. You
>don't get points for symbolic moves.
FACT: We're going to have an anti-gun President. There's no way we'll
win this race.
FACT: We have a good chance of surviving the next four years anyway.
Therefore, the issues become:
(1) Ensuring that no anti-gun bills get through Congress.
(2) Ensuring that we have good choices in 2000.
While keeping a Republican majority in Congress will help with (1), it's not
sufficient; we need to ensure that those Republicans solidly support the
RKBA and _THAT_ is what sending messages, symbolism, etc. is all about. As
for (2), a Dole victory will severely hamber the likelihood of good candidates
appearing in 2000. Voting for Browne will both send a message to the Repub-
licans that they need to appoint better candidates, and will increase the
chance that there may be a viable choice NEXT election.
>>The current situation has reached a critical point: not only do the Demo-
>>crats want to nix the Second Amendment, but there is a growing tendency
>>within the Republican Party to go along with it.
>>
>Not neccesarily true. the RKBA is a non partisan issue. Remember
>there were more Democrats supporting the repeal of the clinton gun ban
>than republicans opposing the repeal.
That statistic suggests that Republican support for the RKBA may be stronger
than Democrat opposition. That vote, however, was largely symbolic anyway
since the Democrats knew the bill was not going to become law.
>>[1] Strengthen the RKBA forces' role within the Republican Party, even if
>> this means weakening the party.
>>
>This is something that needs to be done within both party structures.
>People need to get out and vote in the primary elections and get
>active with your local Democrat and Republican party apparatus.
True, but if we don't punish a candidate who changes stripes after he's
won the primaries, you can expect that in future all candidates will
support the RKBA before the primaries but many would be willing to change
stripes afterwards since they can get away with it.
>[snip, snip much idealogical BS]
I've reread what I wrote and still consider my strategic judgements sound.
Perhaps you'd care to argue point-by-point?
>If you're not happy with the actions of the NRA BOD, run for it.
Perhaps I should. Does the three-year membership requirement apply for
candidacy, or only for voting?
John Payson
In article <51urh4$5...@acmey.gatech.edu>,
Julia R. Cochrane <jb...@prism.gatech.edu> wrote:
>cs...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Harry Thomas) writes:
>
>
>>You stupid shit...of course the Board is admitting that Dole sold
>>us out. Why the hell do you think we're encouraging gun owners
>>to concentrate on the congressional election? Did you see the
>>NRA BOD endorse the back-stabbing SOB?
>
>happy with the job you're doing. I have to admit that I don't
>mind at all that GOA exists, too, but I'm happy with the job
>you're doing.
>
>I figure I'll be voting for Browne for President and Republicans
>for Congress and the Senate.
Perhaps I overreacted to the NRA's statement; I can certainly accept that
the tone of my previous post (sibling to Julie's) was a little overheated.
Nonetheless, I continue to believe that the NRA made a major miscalculation
and I would still like the hear their reasons for their endorsement of Dole
over Browne, and their reasons for endorsing Dole without admitting such.
It is apparent that they think Dole is less dangerous than Clinton. I'll
admit that he's far less vocal, but as for 'less dangerous' I'm afraid I
just don't see it. I continue to believe that Clinton put on his latest
dog-and-pony show to scare gun owners away from Browne; perhaps someone may
convince me otherwise.
On the other hand, I can appreciate that the NRA Board of Directors is only
human; given that they're trying to make hard decisions I can appreciate
that they don't deserve overly hot flamage. They're decent people I'm sure,
and I should give them credit for that. I am still worried that the NRA by
offering its quasi-endorsement of Dole may have just shot all gun owners
majorly in the foot, but perhaps future events will prove me wrong.
Dale Harper
In <51v0hm$a...@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com> ern...@ix.netcom.com (Ernie
Pullin) writes:
>
>
>
>cs...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Harry Thomas) writes:
>
>
>>>You stupid shit...of course the Board is admitting that Dole sold
>>>us out. Why the hell do you think we're encouraging gun owners
>>>to concentrate on the congressional election? Did you see the
>>>NRA BOD endorse the back-stabbing SOB?
>
>>>NRA Board of Directors
>>>(one of those "mealy mouthed bureaucrats")
>
> (Had to piggy-back 'cause I didn't get the original if this looks
a
>little funny.).
>
> You're doing as good a job as anyone could expect, Harry. I
haven't
>got any complaints with the BOD. You're doing all within your power
>and more.
>
> Most of us that are NRA memers think so, too.
I just re-upped for three more years. Keep it going Harry, you've got
my support. Neil Knox was the best thing to happen to the NRA, his
board is a good board.
Harry Thomas
I have to admit I'm leaning towards Browne myself.
It always ticks me off to hear some peabrain sitting on the sidelines
accusing the NRA of not doing enough. The NRA BOD works its collective
ass off trying to protect gun rights. Some members of the board do so
at great personal sacrifice. My own superiors in the Cincinnati Police
Division stalked me so savagely (including an assassination attempt)
that I was forced to take early retirement.
Lt. Harry Thomas
NRA Board of Directors
Harry Thomas
Sir, I thank you. A post like yours makes all the abuse worth it.
We'll keep lugging away.
Lt. H.T.
John Payson
In article <5215t5$j...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>,
Harry Thomas <cs...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
>It always ticks me off to hear some peabrain sitting on the sidelines
>accusing the NRA of not doing enough. The NRA BOD works its collective
>ass off trying to protect gun rights. Some members of the board do so
>at great personal sacrifice. My own superiors in the Cincinnati Police
>Division stalked me so savagely (including an assassination attempt)
>that I was forced to take early retirement.
Perhaps you assume from my tone in my other post that I don't care about
your sacrifices or those of other board members. That really isn't so:
I do appreciate your efforts, and the fact that the current board is 10
times better than the previous one (which went on to found the American
Firearms Association).
It is perhaps more because of this than in spite of it that I am deeply
troubled by what I see as having been a strategic blunder of the highest
magnitude. Perhaps I'm just some "peabrain sitting on the sidelines" but
my sense of the political winds--be it right or wrong--suggests that:
[1] An awful lot of NRA members are _NOT_ going to vote for Dole, regardless
of what the NRA says.
[2] If the NRA endorses Dole (directly or not) and he loses this bodes ill
for the future of the Second Amendment.
[3] If the NRA endorses Dole and he wins, I still believe this would be bad
for the Second Amendment because:
a - Dole has never supported the Second Amendment and in fact helped
the Brady Law and Assault Weapons Ban make it through the Senate.
b - It's much easier for pro-RKBA Republicans to stand up to a Democrat
president than a Republican one.
c - A Dole presidency would likley inspire a Democrat backlash.
d - If Dole is president, there won't be any pro-gun candidates for
the presidency in the year 2000.
While I appreciate that all the prestige and respect the NRA has managed to
regain over the last several years has required a lot of blood, sweat, and
tears on the part of you and the other members of the Board, that still does
not change the fact that you're staking it all on a futile and unimportant
tactical situation while ignoring a much more promising and significant stra-
tegic one.
If you have any argument with anything I've said, please make it. Don't just
ad-hominem me.
-- Some Peabrain on the Sidelines --
John Payson
In article <51ur28$4...@lurch.isi.edu>,
John Walker <jwa...@lurch.isi.edu> wrote:
>In article <51s019$q...@Jupiter.Mcs.Net> supe...@MCS.COM (John Payson) writes:
>>[note followups]
>>
> [snip, snip]
>
>>[2] A Bob Dole victory would be the worst possible thing that could happen
>> this election with respect to keeping the RKBA for the next decade.
>>
>
>WHAT CLOSET HAVE YOU BEEN LOCKED UP IN FOR THE LAST FOUR YEARS??
>
>HAVE YOU SO QUICKLY FORGOTTEN THE CLINTON DOG & PONY SHOWS WHERE HE
>SIGNED THE BRADY BILL AND "ASSAULT WEAPON" BAN??
HAVE YOU FORGOTTEN THAT DOLE SUPPORTED BOTH OF THOSE ATTROCITIES? [see, I
can shout too]
1. Name ONE piece of gun control legislation Clinton passed which Dole did
not support.
2. Name ONE piece of gun control which Clinton has proposed to which Dole
has raised significant objection.
Dole's less noisy now when he's not in power, but that doesn't mean he'd be
any less bad if he came into power.
Rockerboy
John Walker wrote:
>
> In article <51tctc$6...@Jupiter.Mcs.Net> supe...@MCS.COM (John Payson) writes:
> >[cc'ed to author]
> >
> [snip, snip]
>
> >not endorse Dole in the above paragraph, the clear implication is that
> >you are telling people to vote for him despite your non-endorsement.
> >
>
> doesn't have the resources to win the election. Given the choice
> between Clinton & Dole, who will you vote for?
Oh, Gawd, spare me this bullshit. Browne would _have_ the wherewithal
to win if the NRA would support him. That's how politicians _get_
resources: people who agree with them contribute. This is a tired saw
that you foaming at the mouth
Republicans-no-matter-how-hard-they-screw-me have been harping and
ranting on for months. I suppose you thought it was original, but wake
up; it's stale, and it's been refuted a hundred times in the last month.
The NRA has definitiely lost the memberships I and my wife were poised
to purchase. Why? Because my issue is _guns_, not gays or drugs. And
I by god want someone who supports my issue, not some tin god with
delusions of grandeur who plans on using the military to force us to
live up to his ideals. NRA should wise up: there is a burgeoning
number of people fed up with the two parties as they exist, and a large
number are signing on with the Libertarians anyway. Dole has screwed
the NRA, so what do you have to lose, hmm?
How the hell are we supposed to respect the NRA when it chooses to
knucle under and lick the boot of an enemy rather than to stand and
lead? That's no the solution to anything: its just plain cowardice.
> >Forgive my tone here, but WHAT THE #$@$&^ KIND OF @#@$^% STATEMENT IS
> >THAT!? While the 1996 elections present some tough challenges, they
> >could also represent some unique opportunities for freedom but you
> >blew it.
> >
> This is Bushlip. The presidential election is all about winning. You
> don't get points for symbolic moves.
Yeah! My candidate won! Too bad he's pissing on me, though. That's
the bottom line, pal.
> >[1] Strengthen the RKBA forces' role within the Republican Party, even if
> > this means weakening the party.
> >
> This is something that needs to be done within both party structures.
> People need to get out and vote in the primary elections and get
> active with your local Democrat and Republican party apparatus.
>
> [snip, snip much idealogical BS]
>
> If you're not happy with the actions of the NRA BOD, run for it.
By this rationale, you should run for on the Democratic ticket. Sounds
stupid when viewed in that light, doesn't it?
--
Sometimes what you say is going to get right in the faces of the
powerful people who really run this world, but you don't care....
It's your place to chellenge authority.
Rockerboy (roc...@best.com)
Rockerboy
Harry Thomas wrote:
>
> I have to admit I'm leaning towards Browne myself.
Why, then, Mr. Thomas, is the NRA unwilling simply to endorse Browne?
He represents everything the NRA stands for, and all he needs is someone
like the NRA to back him to get his message out. Seems that if the NRA
believed that the majority of people truly believed in the NRA's goals,
they would be working hammer and tongs to help spread the word that a
candidate exists who will implement those goals.
> It always ticks me off to hear some peabrain sitting on the sidelines
> accusing the NRA of not doing enough. The NRA BOD works its collective
> ass off trying to protect gun rights. Some members of the board do so
> at great personal sacrifice. My own superiors in the Cincinnati Police
> Division stalked me so savagely (including an assassination attempt)
> that I was forced to take early retirement.
I don't intend to belittle your contributions or personal sacrifices.
The fact remains, however, that in failing to endorse a candidate who
embraces the values of the NRA, the leadership of the NRA does a
disservice to their members. If the leadership believes a vote for Dole
is beneficial, they should be unequivocal about it, and at least attempt
to point out a target in the hopes their membership will follow. Since
this isn't the case, it appears, then all the resolution appears to be
is a throwing up of hands in defeat. The NRA cannot reasonably expect
its members to ally themselves and form a solid voting block without
pointing to a specific candidate. Many people believe Browne is the
only candidate that will suffice. Why in the world not tip the NRA's
collective hat toward the only candidate inclined to implements the
organization's goals? Some of us are waiting to join the ranks of the
NRA precisely because we embrace gun rights, but cannot abide the
religous elements of the Republicans. Now, with Dole having already
spit in your face, is the time to seek new allies who believe in the
same things you do. My wife and I are only two. But I do not believe
for a moment that we are the only two.
J.D. Baldwin
In article <51ru7h$6...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>, Harry Thomas
<cs...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
>You stupid shit...of course the Board is admitting that Dole sold
>us out. Why the hell do you think we're encouraging gun owners
>to concentrate on the congressional election? Did you see the
>NRA BOD endorse the back-stabbing SOB?
I didn't see a formal endorsement, but I almost choked on my breakfast
cereal this morning when I read a column in "American Rifleman" that
explicitly laid out the "facts" that:
1) Clinton must be removed from office; and
2) A vote for Dole is the only effective way to ensure that.
So you basically endorse Dole but don't even have the guts to come out
and do it explicitly. Whom do you think you're fooling? Why doesn't
Harry Browne even get a *mention* in AR? Has the NRA gone so far into
the Republicans' pockets that the BOD won't even *consider* the
possibility that a Dole defeat, ascribed in part to his abandonment by
gun owners, would have the effect of concentrating the minds of the
GOP on this issue next time around?
I don't expect a Browne endorsement (though, as I read the NRA's
principles, that's the only logical course of action), but it would be
nice if the *blackout* on him were lifted just a shade. The way AR
treats this true believer in the Second Amendment, I might as well be
reading "Newsweek."
You got the important part right, though: keeping the Congress is the
#1 priority. Losing both houses to the gun-grabbers would be a major
disaster.
--
From the catapult of J.D. Baldwin |+| "If anyone disagrees with anything I
_,_ Finger bal...@netcom.com |+| say, I am quite prepared not only to
_|70|___:::)=}- for PGP public |+| retract it, but also to deny under
\ / key information. |+| oath that I ever said it." --T. Lehrer
***~~~~-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Nice Guy
In article <51vlct$l...@Mars.mcs.com>, supe...@MCS.COM (John Payson) wrote:
>
>Perhaps I overreacted to the NRA's statement; I can certainly accept that
>the tone of my previous post (sibling to Julie's) was a little overheated.
>Nonetheless, I continue to believe that the NRA made a major miscalculation
>and I would still like the hear their reasons for their endorsement of Dole
>over Browne, and their reasons for endorsing Dole without admitting such.
Because they are not fools. In 92 the Liberation party candidate only
got .3% of the vote, Brown doesn't have chance of even being noticed.
Dole may not be a supporter of RKBA but at least more gun control is not
one of his campaign pledges.
>It is apparent that they think Dole is less dangerous than Clinton. I'll
>admit that he's far less vocal, but as for 'less dangerous' I'm afraid I
>just don't see it. I continue to believe that Clinton put on his latest
>dog-and-pony show to scare gun owners away from Browne; perhaps someone may
>convince me otherwise.
You dream, Clinton could care less about Loser Browne and the
Losertarians, in 92 they only got .3% of the vote, almost all from
the right.
I have been aware of the Libertarians since I read their platform in
the early 70s. I found it interesting, but in the last 20+ years they
have had little impact. If their concepts had any likelihood of
acceptance the Libertarian Party members would have had more influence
if they had been active at the grassroots level of the major parties
rather that going their own ways.
>On the other hand, I can appreciate that the NRA Board of Directors is only
>human; given that they're trying to make hard decisions I can appreciate
>that they don't deserve overly hot flamage. They're decent people I'm sure,
>and I should give them credit for that. I am still worried that the NRA by
>offering its quasi-endorsement of Dole may have just shot all gun owners
>majorly in the foot, but perhaps future events will prove me wrong.
--
Rod Anderson aka Mr. Nice Guy o o
rcan...@nyx.cs.du.edu _/\-\__/* \\__/\___
(*) o (*) * o
The wind doesn't blow, it sucks Lightning P-38 DeFelice
John Payson
In article <jRYRysnz...@nyx.net>, Mr. Nice Guy <rcan...@nyx.net> wrote:
>In article <51vlct$l...@Mars.mcs.com>, supe...@MCS.COM (John Payson) wrote:
>>
>>Perhaps I overreacted to the NRA's statement; I can certainly accept that
>>the tone of my previous post (sibling to Julie's) was a little overheated.
>>Nonetheless, I continue to believe that the NRA made a major miscalculation
>>and I would still like the hear their reasons for their endorsement of Dole
>>over Browne, and their reasons for endorsing Dole without admitting such.
>
>Because they are not fools. In 92 the Liberation party candidate only
>got .3% of the vote, Brown doesn't have chance of even being noticed.
>Dole may not be a supporter of RKBA but at least more gun control is not
>one of his campaign pledges.
Since Dole doesn't really say what he'll do with regard to the Second
Amendment, perhaps we need to look at his record:
1993: After the Republican Party kills the Brady Bill in the Senate and
most of the Senators go home for the holidays, Dole revives the
Brady Bill so that it can go on to become law.
1994: Dole filibuster-proofs the Assault Weapons Ban, derailing a planned
filibuster which would have stalled the legislation.
1995: Dole promises to repeal the Assault Weapons Ban
1996: Dole reneges on that promise.
Is there anything else of note in Dole's Second Amendment record? I see
nothing in there which suggests he's any better than Clinton. Sure he's
not dumb enough to promise gun control, but why do you think he'd not
push it once elected? Remember: Clinton has fought us, but never betray-
ed us; Dole has betrayed us--thrice. Given that, I'd much rather support
an enemy than a traitor; fortunately, I need do neither--Harry Browne
for President '96.
>>It is apparent that they think Dole is less dangerous than Clinton. I'll
>>admit that he's far less vocal, but as for 'less dangerous' I'm afraid I
>>just don't see it. I continue to believe that Clinton put on his latest
>>dog-and-pony show to scare gun owners away from Browne; perhaps someone may
>>convince me otherwise.
>
>You dream, Clinton could care less about Loser Browne and the
>Losertarians, in 92 they only got .3% of the vote, almost all from
>the right.
Clinton doesn't fear Browne at the ballot box; he fears them in the debates
and political dialogue. Unlike Dole who can't argue against gun control
without exposing his past malfeasance on the subject, Browne would have no
such problem. The same applies to Social Security, the War on Drugs, and
many other bipartisan scams. Clinton may be slick, but if he were put up
against Browne he'd soon meet his match.
>I have been aware of the Libertarians since I read their platform in
>the early 70s. I found it interesting, but in the last 20+ years they
>have had little impact. If their concepts had any likelihood of
>acceptance the Libertarian Party members would have had more influence
>if they had been active at the grassroots level of the major parties
>rather that going their own ways.
The trouble is that under the current political system, there's no way
to hold people to their campaign promises and it's often been observed
that many Republicans "campaign like Libertarians and govern like Demo-
crats". Further, gaining influence in either party generally requires
that you be willing to sell out other people's rights; any group which
does so, however, quickly becomes--like it or not--part of the problem
rather than the solution.
JS
In article <baldwinD...@netcom.com>, bal...@netcom.com (J.D.
Baldwin) wrote:
( I normally agree with Mr. Baldwin's posts, but I have to respectfully
disagree with him here.)
> I didn't see a formal endorsement, but I almost choked on my breakfast
> cereal this morning when I read a column in "American Rifleman" that
> explicitly laid out the "facts" that:
>
> 1) Clinton must be removed from office; and
>
> 2) A vote for Dole is the only effective way to ensure that.
This is painful, but it unfortunately happens to be the truth.
> So you basically endorse Dole but don't even have the guts to come out
> and do it explicitly. Whom do you think you're fooling? Why doesn't
> Harry Browne even get a *mention* in AR? Has the NRA gone so far into
> the Republicans' pockets that the BOD won't even *consider* the
> possibility that a Dole defeat, ascribed in part to his abandonment by
> gun owners, would have the effect of concentrating the minds of the
> GOP on this issue next time around?
Who would do the ascribing? Not the liberal media, who, in fact, will
blame GOP -support- for gun owners as the cause of their defeat. And by
the time "the next time" comes around, what new damage will Clinton have
done to the Bill of Rights? Time is running out.
> I don't expect a Browne endorsement (though, as I read the NRA's
> principles, that's the only logical course of action), but it would be
> nice if the *blackout* on him were lifted just a shade. The way AR
> treats this true believer in the Second Amendment, I might as well be
> reading "Newsweek."
Browne and the Libertarians can't win. This is a fact. There are many
reasons why they can't win; the primary reason is that a political party
that advocates or can even be easily linked with drug legalization cannot
ever be a significant political force in this country. Do I approve of
this? No, I'd like to see drug legalization. But that doesn't matter. The
rest of the country regards drug legalization with a mixture of outrage
and horror. Nothing appears likely to change this attitude in the
foreseeable future. Add to this the fact that the Libertarians openly
threaten the vast array of handouts that most of the country is now
dependent on in one form or another - and most particularily the middle
class is dependent on - and you have a hopeless situation. Are the
Libertarians right? Of course they are. Does that matter politically? Of
course it doesn't. t
The Libertarians think that if they just had the NRA's endorsement, or if
they could just get in the debates, or if people could just hear what they
had to say, they'd have a chance. But the fact is, the more most people
hear about libertarian ideas, the more those ideas frighten them.
Preparing people's minds for a libertarian society is going to take a
long, long time - a lot of education and slow, slow incremental progress.
The instrument of slow incremental progress is the Republican Party, which
is a coalition of libertarians, conservatives, national-security advocates
and the religious, among others. Since any one of these groups is a
minority, they have to band together to have any political effect at all.
And the NRA has to be part of that coalition. It may be right not to
endorse Dole, but it can't give up on the idea of beating Clinton.
> You got the important part right, though: keeping the Congress is the
> #1 priority. Losing both houses to the gun-grabbers would be a major
> disaster.
A Dole electoral disaster - a Clinton landslide - could easily destroy the
Republican Congress if Republican voters stay home. Clinton with a
Democratic Congress would be an absolute disaster - in fact, it could
precipitate a social and political crisis that might lead to unimaginable
consquences. Dole is imperfect, flawed, tainted. But a Dole presidency
might buy a few more years time - a few more years of peace at least. Can
we throw those few years away so easily?
JS
John Payson
In article <johnz-24099...@lennon-c23.aa.net>, JS <jo...@aa.net> wrote:
>In article <baldwinD...@netcom.com>, bal...@netcom.com (J.D.
>Baldwin) wrote:
>
>( I normally agree with Mr. Baldwin's posts, but I have to respectfully
>disagree with him here.)
>
>> I didn't see a formal endorsement, but I almost choked on my breakfast
>> cereal this morning when I read a column in "American Rifleman" that
>> explicitly laid out the "facts" that:
>>
>> 1) Clinton must be removed from office; and
>>
>> 2) A vote for Dole is the only effective way to ensure that.
>
>This is painful, but it unfortunately happens to be the truth.
#2 may be true, but I've seen no evidence for #1. Excluding recent events
(which were probably precipitated by the NRA's announcement) there has been
no sign of anything bad from the current Congress; further, the combination
of Clinton plus Republican Congress--in addition to being agreeable to us--
is also sufficiently agreeable to enough people that it could likely persist
for another four years just fine.
By its backhanded Dole endorsement, however, the NRA has just turned itself
into a political non-entity. Like it or not, even the people who "support"
them in Congress mostly do so not out of principle but out of fear that if
they backstab the NRA the NRA will reciprocate. With its recent Resolution,
however, the NRA has just demonstrated that it will support even traitors
if their enemies look nasty enough. As a result, the NRA has just done
something even HCI couldn't do: it caused a pro-gun Senate to practically
evaporate. In short: we're in deep doo doo...
To see what's going on, imagine the NRA as a workers' union and the poli-
ticians as management. Any worker strike will hurt the workers just as
much--if not more--than the management. Nonetheless, strikes are an ess-
ential part of employee/worker interaction. Even though a strike is a
sign that other dialogue has failed, any effective union must be able to
create a credible strike threat. The current Dole situation called for
an NRA members' strike. What "management" was offering was so pitiful--
scarecely better than nothing, if not worse--that a strike would actually
cost very little. But by refusing to strike the NRA has just invited
"management" to waltz right over it. By the look of things in Congress,
the invitation has been accepted.
>> So you basically endorse Dole but don't even have the guts to come out
>> and do it explicitly. Whom do you think you're fooling? Why doesn't
>> Harry Browne even get a *mention* in AR? Has the NRA gone so far into
>> the Republicans' pockets that the BOD won't even *consider* the
>> possibility that a Dole defeat, ascribed in part to his abandonment by
>> gun owners, would have the effect of concentrating the minds of the
>> GOP on this issue next time around?
>
>Who would do the ascribing? Not the liberal media, who, in fact, will
>blame GOP -support- for gun owners as the cause of their defeat. And by
>the time "the next time" comes around, what new damage will Clinton have
>done to the Bill of Rights? Time is running out.
If the NRA tells its members to do everything possible to smash the anti-
gun candidate Bob Dole, then it can hardly be said that Dole's support for
gun owners was the cause of his defeat (though in fairness I wouldn't be
surprised if the media said that anyway).
>> I don't expect a Browne endorsement (though, as I read the NRA's
>> principles, that's the only logical course of action), but it would be
>> nice if the *blackout* on him were lifted just a shade. The way AR
>> treats this true believer in the Second Amendment, I might as well be
>> reading "Newsweek."
>
>Browne and the Libertarians can't win. This is a fact. There are many
>reasons why they can't win; the primary reason is that a political party
>that advocates or can even be easily linked with drug legalization cannot
>ever be a significant political force in this country. Do I approve of
>this? No, I'd like to see drug legalization. But that doesn't matter. The
>rest of the country regards drug legalization with a mixture of outrage
>and horror. Nothing appears likely to change this attitude in the
>foreseeable future. Add to this the fact that the Libertarians openly
>threaten the vast array of handouts that most of the country is now
>dependent on in one form or another - and most particularily the middle
>class is dependent on - and you have a hopeless situation. Are the
>Libertarians right? Of course they are. Does that matter politically? Of
>course it doesn't.
As long as people are willing to listen to "lesser of two evils" arguments,
nothing will change. But you must realize something: although the media does
not like to talk about it, support for drug legalization is picking up steam.
Probably nobody in 1930 thought prohibition would end soon, but in 1933 it
did.
More significantly, if the Libertarians were allowed a presence in the
debates and political dialogue of this country, they would put both the
Republicans and the Democrats in a position of having to defend policies
that neither of them wants to touch. At the moment both the Republicans
and the Democrats have their hands so dirty that they can't ask each other
any really hard question because doing so would expose their own failings.
Browne would have no such limitations.
>The Libertarians think that if they just had the NRA's endorsement, or if
>they could just get in the debates, or if people could just hear what they
>had to say, they'd have a chance. But the fact is, the more most people
>hear about libertarian ideas, the more those ideas frighten them.
>Preparing people's minds for a libertarian society is going to take a
>long, long time - a lot of education and slow, slow incremental progress.
It's not going to happen in this election, true. But if Browne were to get
a significant level of support (even 5-10%) it would allow the Libertarians
to go into the race next year without having to spend all their efforts
just getting on the ballots. Most likely once this happened the Republicans
would realize they needed to start seriously courting the Liberarians; if
they did not, the Libertarians could easily pose a threat to them in 2000
or 2004.
>The instrument of slow incremental progress is the Republican Party, which
>is a coalition of libertarians, conservatives, national-security advocates
>and the religious, among others. Since any one of these groups is a
>minority, they have to band together to have any political effect at all.
>And the NRA has to be part of that coalition. It may be right not to
>endorse Dole, but it can't give up on the idea of beating Clinton.
The Republican Party "camaigns like Libertarians, but governs like Democrats".
Without some outside threat they'll never improve. Whether the Libertarian
Party displaced the Republicans or merely posed enough of a threat that the
Republicans have to start GOVERNING like Libertarians, we would win. But by
supporting the anti-freedom faction among them we are setting ourselves up
for a slow, inch-by-inch defeat.
>
>> You got the important part right, though: keeping the Congress is the
>> #1 priority. Losing both houses to the gun-grabbers would be a major
>> disaster.
>
>A Dole electoral disaster - a Clinton landslide - could easily destroy the
>Republican Congress if Republican voters stay home. Clinton with a
>Democratic Congress would be an absolute disaster - in fact, it could
>precipitate a social and political crisis that might lead to unimaginable
>consquences. Dole is imperfect, flawed, tainted. But a Dole presidency
>might buy a few more years time - a few more years of peace at least. Can
>we throw those few years away so easily?
>
>JS
J.D. Baldwin
In article <johnz-24099...@lennon-c23.aa.net>, JS
<jo...@aa.net> wrote:
>( I normally agree with Mr. Baldwin's posts, but I have to respectfully
>disagree with him here.)
Well, thanks for the kind aside, but I think you've somewhat misread
the main thrust of my beef with the NRA.
I don't have a serious problem with their left-handed endorsement of
Dole. (I'm left-handed, so don't bother writing about my pejorative
use of that adjective.) I definitely would have had a problem with an
outright, formal endorsement.
I would be absolutely thrilled if they'd endorse Browne, but I realize
that that is quite a leap to make, and there is a sound tactical
argument to be made against it. I don't happen to agree with that
argument, but it's not an unreasonable one.
What I DO strongly object to is the total BLACKOUT the NRA
publications are imposing on any mention of Harry Browne and the LP.
The existence of the LP and Browne's candidacy are unquestionably of
high interest to a substantial portion of the NRA membership, and it
would be nice to see him--or the LP in general--profiled in "American
Rifleman" once in a while.
>> I didn't see a formal endorsement, but I almost choked on my breakfast
>> cereal this morning when I read a column in "American Rifleman" that
>> explicitly laid out the "facts" that:
>>
>> 1) Clinton must be removed from office; and
>>
>> 2) A vote for Dole is the only effective way to ensure that.
>
>This is painful, but it unfortunately happens to be the truth.
Election dynamics are a little more complicated than that. Consider
two scenarios:
SCENARIO #1: GUN OWNERS VOTE FOR DOLE
1996: Dole loses, Clinton wins. GOP retains control of at least one
house of Congress.
1998: Congress goes completely Democratic (this is simply a fact of
life in politics--the White House incumbent's party loses seats
in the mid-term).
1999: Democratic Congress passes Brady II, and worse. Dole might
sign it, might not, depending on the political wind at the
moment and the status of other deals he's trying to cut with
the Dem leadership.
2000: GOP establishment looks at potential candidates' positions on
the issues. When the subject of gun rights comes up, the
attitude is, "Hey, we proved in 1996 that those people have no-
where to go but the GOP. It doesn't matter *what* the candidate's
record on gun rights is, we've got that vote locked up."
SCENARIO #2: GUN OWNERS VOTE FOR BROWNE
1996: Dole loses, Clinton wins. GOP retains control of at least one
house of Congress.
1998: Congress goes more heavily GOP. No anti-gun legislation is
passed, and Clinton never gets the opportunity to do any
damage on this score.
2000: GOP establishment looks at potential candidates' positions on
the issues. When the subject of gun rights comes up, the
attitude is, "Hey, we'd better support someone with a solid
gun rights record--we assumed the gun nuts had nowhere to go
back in 1996 and it turned a loss into a disaster. That issue
could very well make the margin of difference this time around."
Now, tell me, please: in what way is Scenario #1 superior to Scenario
#2?
>> So you basically endorse Dole but don't even have the guts to come out
>> and do it explicitly. Whom do you think you're fooling? Why doesn't
>> Harry Browne even get a *mention* in AR? Has the NRA gone so far into
>> the Republicans' pockets that the BOD won't even *consider* the
>> possibility that a Dole defeat, ascribed in part to his abandonment by
>> gun owners, would have the effect of concentrating the minds of the
>> GOP on this issue next time around?
>
>Who would do the ascribing? Not the liberal media, who, in fact, will
>blame GOP -support- for gun owners as the cause of their defeat. And by
>the time "the next time" comes around, what new damage will Clinton have
>done to the Bill of Rights? Time is running out.
The media is going to publish this line regardless of what happens.
Parties and candidates, however, employ people (and pay them damn
well) just for the purpose of ferreting out voter blocs and their
motivations in this respect. I promise you that the election of GOP
Senator Coverdell in Georgia--directly attributable to the LP
candidacy in the general election--did not go unnoticed by GOP
strategists and political consultants.
>> I don't expect a Browne endorsement (though, as I read the NRA's
>> principles, that's the only logical course of action), but it would be
>> nice if the *blackout* on him were lifted just a shade. The way AR
>> treats this true believer in the Second Amendment, I might as well be
>> reading "Newsweek."
>
>Browne and the Libertarians can't win. This is a fact.
I concede this readily. But it's not a good reason for a news
blackout in the NRA's official publications. Gun owners aren't a
bunch of children (indeed, isn't that sort of the whole central thesis
of the NRA?) who can't be exposed to "dangerous" ideas that might
upset them. The NRA has an obligation, as I see it, to expose its
readership to information of strong interest to Second Amendment
advocates. There is little question that Browne has been a powerful
spokesman for that viewpoint. He deserves some acknowledgment, even
if the political realities dictate that he receive no formal
endorsement.
>> You got the important part right, though: keeping the Congress is the
>> #1 priority. Losing both houses to the gun-grabbers would be a major
>> disaster.
>
>A Dole electoral disaster - a Clinton landslide - could easily destroy
>the Republican Congress if Republican voters stay home. Clinton with a
>Democratic Congress would be an absolute disaster - in fact, it could
>precipitate a social and political crisis that might lead to
>unimaginable consquences. Dole is imperfect, flawed, tainted. But a
>Dole presidency might buy a few more years time - a few more years of
>peace at least. Can we throw those few years away so easily?
I don't *want* the Republican voters to stay home. I think the
Congress is *much* more critical than the Executive in the current
civil rights situation. For God's sake, the Clinton Administration is
positively *salivating* to outlaw any private encryption to which they
don't have the keys! Dole, on the other hand, has sponsored PROCODE
and the even stronger-on-civil-rights legislation whose name I forget
right now. But Dole is, at this point, all but a lost cause.
The NRA is wise to focus its efforts in this direction. I appreciate
that. I'm not about to quit in disgust, or anything--in fact, I just
got my new membership card two days ago. I'm just irritated at being
treated like a child who can't "handle" the idea of a third party
whose basic agenda might interest me. Write him up, lay out his whole
agenda (drug legalization and all), and LET THE MEMBERS MAKE UP THEIR
MINDS. In the meantime, push and push HARD for retention of the pro-
Second Amendment majority (translation: GOP majority) in Congress.
I don't think there's a terrible lot to worry about here. Clinton has
no real coattails and, equally fortunately, neither does Dole. I am
much more worried by the massive push to "take back the Congress" for
the labor unions and trial lawyers--very, very rich and powerful
groups that make the NRA look like the Girl Scouts in terms of clout.
That's what's keeping me up nights worrying. Dole is a lost cause,
and that's been pretty obvious since before the primaries. Person-
ally, I thought it was obvious since about the *1980* primaries--he
just doesn't have the temperament to survive the scrutiny of a
national campaign. He's a good man and he's been an extremely
successful senator, but he just can't win this election. So we get
to suffer through four more years (or at least until the indictments
start rolling in) of Bill Clinton just because the GOP establishment
thought it was Bob Dole's "turn" to be President. Thanks, guys.
Matthew T. Russotto
In article <32473E...@best.com>, Rockerboy <roc...@best.com> wrote:
}Harry Thomas wrote:
}>
}> I have to admit I'm leaning towards Browne myself.
}
}Why, then, Mr. Thomas, is the NRA unwilling simply to endorse Browne?
}He represents everything the NRA stands for, and all he needs is someone
}like the NRA to back him to get his message out. Seems that if the NRA
}believed that the majority of people truly believed in the NRA's goals,
}they would be working hammer and tongs to help spread the word that a
}candidate exists who will implement those goals.
He has no chance of winning, zero, none, whether the NRA endorses him
or not. He faces a more than hostile press-- they'll talk about Perot
because he has the money, and they'll even talk about what's-his-name
the Natural Law candidate, and they'll talk about Nader. But they
won't even make reference to the Libertarians anymore -- apparently
they've figured out that ridiculing them only makes them more known.
He faces the rest of the barriers put up by the major parties. And,
the majority do not agree with him: in particular, a strong majority
supports the programs of what Virginia Postrel has called "the lethal
center". Those not turned off by drug legalization will get turned
off by the lack of gun control or the elimination of
antidiscrimination laws or some other such thing.
And no, I'm not voting for Dole. I support the Libertarians whether
they have a chance of winning or not. But the NRA isn't a libertarian
organization, it's a pro-gun organization. They may feel that if they
endorsed Browne they'd turn off their own membership -- and they may
be right.
--
Matthew T. Russotto russ...@pond.com russ...@his.com
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue."
JS
(In response to Mr. Baldwin's previous post, which in, combination with my
previous post, a little too long to reprint)
Your arguments as to the possiblilities of a Dole presidency/midterm
Democrat congress are certainly compelling. Where I think we disagree
(somewhat) is whether or not Clinton has coattails if he wins. I would
still maintain that Clinton could pull in Democrat congress members, and
that this would be a disaster of incredible porportions. On the other
hand, I am not really sure that the Reps would lose enough members during
a midterm Dole presidency to lose control; midterm elections mean losses
for the incumbant party but they don't always mean loss of control; after
all, the Demos retained control for decades with Demo presidents) I doubt
that a Dole presidency would engender the kind of quasi-revolutionary
fervor that led to the Clinton administration losing control of Congress.
It's also unclear to me that Dole would cave in to a Demo congress quite
as easily as you suggest; I still think that his present AW ban collapse
is simply a tactic to get the "woman's vote". (And a tactic that has
obviously failed; if you want the Reps to get the message that betrayal of
your base is no way to win I think they already have, as virtually all
other Reps from Gingrich on down urged Dole not to do this.)
But this is all speculation.
As to your other point, I agree that the NRA should not blackout mention
of Browne's name, and they should give the Libertarians some recognition.
My great fear is a Clinton presidency/Demo congress -next year-, which
could tear this country apart. Dole is uninspiring, but if disaster could
be delayed by only a few more years....
JS
Nick Hull
.............
>
> As to your other point, I agree that the NRA should not blackout mention
> of Browne's name, and they should give the Libertarians some recognition.
The NRA seems determined to split the gun vote as far as possible. Their
backdoor recommendation of Dole will go far in getting us an anti-gun
president not only this year but in 2000 etc. If gun owners want to EVER
be taken seriously, we should work for a disastrous defeat for Dole (he
was nominated to lose anyway). If Dole comes in THIRD, then maybe
Congress will respect us and the Republicans will nominate a pro-gun
candidate in 2000. It's the best we can hope for in the 96 presidential
race.
Nick
--
nh...@mindspring.com
Free men own guns-slaves don't
Chris BeHanna
In article <324177...@dixie.com> Patrick Graham (pdgr...@holli.com) wrote:
:>Joe Zychik wrote:
:>>
:>> Over the weekend, a bunch of mealy mouthed bureaucrats came up
:>> with the following piece of cowardly double talk:
:>>
:>> "We therefore resolve that the Board of Directors of the National
:>> Rifle Association urge in the strongest terms that the members of
:>> the Association use their collective power of the vote to remove
:>> Mr. Clinton from office and additionally to re-elect and increase
:>> the current Second Amendment majority in the Congress."
:>> What this means is that Nothing but Republican Asswipes (NRA)
:>> does not want to admit that Bob Dole and Newt Gingrich have sold
:>> out gun owners.
:>I can hear CNN now. "NRA Losing support - anti-gunners gaining support".
:>How much are you receiving from Handgun Control Incorporated for this??
I doubt Zychik is receiving a single dime from HCI for this. NRA *has*
supported anti-gun candidates, *HAS* written anti-gun laws and helped to get
them passed, and *HAS* helped to stop gun rights legislation in the past. *ALL*
of this activity is well-documented.
A few representative examples:
o NRA-ILA supported mildly anti-gun Greg Laughlin over strongly pro-gun
Ron Paul in a primary in Texas just this year. Paul previously
held the seat until he left it to run for President on the
Libertarian ticket in 1988. His "pro-gun-ness" is a matter of
public record, as is Laughlin's waffling.
o NRA-ILA did not support challenger Steve Stockman in his race against
the traitorous Jack Brooks, who sold out our gun rights for a
$10 million dollar honorarium to a university in his district
in the conference committee for the Crime Bill of 1994.
Fortunately, Stockman beat Brooks anyway.
o NRA-ILA has repeatedly botched mailings in Pennsylvania. In 1994 in
the gubernatorial primaries, they put out a mailing for Mike
Fisher three days *AFTER* the election. They then endorsed
gungrabber Tom Ridge for governor (Ridge voted for the AW ban
as a Congressman). In 1996, in a primary in the 8th district
in Pennsylvania, NRA completely botched a promised 8000-piece
mailing supporting the primary election challenger to F-rated
Jim Greenwood. The challenger ended up losing by a mere 6000
votes in a countywide race.
o NRA-ILA *wrote* the federal bullet ban of 1986.
o NRA-ILA helped scuttle a Vermont Carry bill in Pennsylvania in the
1995-1996 session, instead pushing their much-vaunted instant
gun registration program in what became Act 17/66, a law
praised by none other than Sarah Brady herself as containing
"the most comprehensive list of who cannot own a gun in the
nation." We are *still*, a year after its effective date,
unraveling many of the anti-gun implications of this new law.
NRA-ILA State Liaison Alan Krug admitted to having *personally
written* the law, and has repeatedly denied the anti-gun
implications despite letters from BATF itself that confirm our
suspicions. We are happy to report that Krug has been banished
to Fairfax, where he can only cause us trouble by remote
control.
o NRA-ILA now supports Mike Fisher in his bid for Pennsylvania Attorney
General, despite or because of Fisher's backstabbing of
Pennsylvania gun owners with Act 17/66. Fisher also sponsored
and pushed legislation in the Pennsylvania Senate that would
gut Pennsylvanians' Constitutional protections against
arbitrary search and seizure and that would allow federal
agents to enforce Commonwealth and municipal laws. We here
recently that he is also behind a roving wiretap bill that has
been introduced in the PA Senate. For these kinds of
activities, Tanya Metaksa *personally* presented Fisher with a
"Defender of Justice Award" or whatever-they-call it (question:
could the money spent on that award have been better used to
send out that mailing against Greenwood a few months ago?).
:>If you hate us gun owners you should at least have the guts to say so.
I do not think Zychik hates gun owners. I have archived some other
posts of his that describe absurd Supreme Court search and seizure and
civil forfeiture rulings in which he exorts gun owners to wake up and smell
the coffee as these precedents *WILL* be used against us, and *SOON*.
:>[...ad hominem deleted...]
Aside: for support of my next-to-last bullet above, see
http://www.users.fast.net/~behanna/paibcatf.html.
Aside, redux: NRA Life #CPC7725J. They don't get any contributions
from me anymore, and they won't until they straighten up and fly right. I
send money to GOA, JPFO, and local gun rights organizations these days.
--
Chris BeHanna Director, New Jersey Self Defense Coalition
NJ-RKBA List Maintainer P.O. Box 239
beh...@syl.nj.nec.com Milford, NJ 08848-0239
kore wa NEC no iken de gozaimasen.
Why is Lon Horiuchi still breathing? PGP 2.6.1 public key available
GUNS SAVE LIVES