Big laugh. They thought I was joking.
I wasn't. Here's why.
The First reason why I think the NRA is too liberal:
Charlton Heston.
Oh yes, I've been a member of the NRA; often, and frequently. For years I was on their mailing list (still am) and they would send me appeals to join. I did. They sent me magazines that didn't give me much more information than I would get at other places, except for "The Armed Citizen". I consider that their greatest contribution to RKBA issues, but it wasn't enough. Sometime in the mid-1990's I declared "enough". Having joined, and quit, three times I finally just ignored their offers.
Then in 1997 they elected Charlton Heston President of the NRA. I thought "Wow! This is great. They finally have a spokesman I know and respect." I remember all of the "I Am The NRA" ads featuring Heston with a broke-breech double-barrel shotgun over his shoulder, and I just knew that he was the iconic figure who could make sense out of the confusion.
My love affair with Charlton Heston lasted until his first public interview as the representative of the NRA, on May 6, 1997. In a San Francisco Radio Interview during the morning drive-time slot, he uttered the fatal words:
"AK-47's are inappropriate for private ownership, of course."(Thanks to Dean Spier at The Gun Zone)
I was devastated. "Of course."
Why?'
Up until this very moment, I thought that the NRA stood for the Second Amendment. I thought they understood that it had nothing to do with hunting, or even competition. I thought they understood that it had to do with the right of a private citizen to protection against aggression, whether by a mugger or a State. As a constitutional amendment, and only 2nd among 10 of the Bill of Rights, it was the provision which insured all other rights "when everything else fails".
Most important, I thought it was the entire reason for being of the NRA. It was our protection against losing our protection. It wasn't about the type of arms we deemed necesary to protect our rights. It was objective and the NRA protection of this right applied to all firearms.
(I wish I could find a video, or at least an audio, copy of that interview. I doubt a video exists, but I know I listened to an audio file on the Internet over and again to make sure I heard it right. I did, but after ten years they no longer are available.)
Sure, Heston went on to give many memorable speeches (see here and here), and I loved him as a man, and a performer, and I loved everything he said "after". But I always remembered that when he spoke extemporaneously ... he revealed a soft center. He believed in civilian firarms ownership. But only for 'some' firearms.
He always thought it was about duck hunting, and trap shooting.
Second reason why I think the NRA is too liberal:
Wayne LaPierre.
If there ever was a member of the NRA BOD who impressed me, it isn't him. I know I should be grateful for his contributions for the cause of citizen firearms ownership, but I have to say this is not my idea of a champion for 2nd Amendment Rights.
Surely the NRA can find a stronger voice, a more convincing advocate than this.
As evidence, I offer the "Great UK Gun Rights Debate". This is a debate between Wayne LaPierre and "international gun ban proponent Rebecca Peters."
(Hat Tip to Phil at Soft Green Glow, via Say Uncle.)
While I encourage you to go to both websites in recognition of their contribution, and for their general contribution to The Cause, l've provide the link to YouTube videos of debate segments directly.
There are only four brief segments of the debate offered here, but I have to say that LaPierre's defense (and he is always on the defense) is so weak and ineffectual that even I have to say that Peters outscored him on every point of contention.
Why?
Because LaPierre insisted on discussing HER point of "legitimate firearms role" without once referring to either personal defense or the basic reason for the 2nd Amendment ... the ultimate protection of all other civil rights by a tyranical government. As long as he avoids this issue in debate, he will not present a reasonable argument against the concept that guns are only means of hunting and competition. That is to say, "sporting usage" (which the BATF had arbitrarily decided does NOT include IPSC competition.)
LaPierre can't even win a debate in his home country. How does he hope to win a debate in Socialist Nanny-state England, or Australia (home of Rebecca Peters, who presents her home-country record as evidence that "gun control works" regardless of the fact that both England and Australia have seen soaring rates of Violence committed with guns against unarmed citizens since they instituted their own "gun control" laws.)
For example, Peters presents the argument that "there is no justification for semi-automatic rifles to be owned by ... members of the civilian population." She offers this in the context of hunting, and goes on to cite the Australian Professional Hunters' Association, whom she quotes as having said: "Anyone who needed a semi-automatic to kill animals was a 'City Boy', who shouldn't be out there with a gun in the first place!"
She goes on to say: "Yes, we believe that semi-automatic weapons and shotguns have no legitimate role in civilian hands; and not only that, HANDGUNS have no legitimate role in civilian hands!"
What is LaPierre's counter?
"We're just finally getting to the point. I mean, the fact is that Miss Peters ... and her UN crowd believe that EVERY firearm has no legitimate use. Not just semi-autos, but pump-action shotgun(s), any rifle that can shoot over 100 yards ... hunters know that's every rifle out there. Handguns, they don't believe handguns have any legitimate use. The truth is, there's no legitimate role for a firearm. Isn't that your real opinion, Miss Peters?"Peters replies:
"No. We recognize that hunting, for example, plays an important role in many cultures. You do not need a semi-automatic firearm, you do not need a handgun, to kill a deer. To go hunting. We recognize that target shooting is also a sport in many countries. One of the concerns that was raised with the reform of the gun laws in Australia was that this would affect our Olympic performance. [snip] You can be a sporting nation without semi-automatic rifles or handguns."[blink]
The fact is, LaPierre allowed the debate to be conducted entirely by his opponent. He never brought up his own point, beyond "we're not going to let you do that", although he never bothered to say how the NRA could prevail over a well-funded NGO drive against civilian possession of firearms, when he couldn't even prevail over a bright and personable young lady in open debate.
I do not have access to either a video or audio clip, nor the transcript of the entire debate. And while the YouTube video purports to be provided by an "NRA" proponent, it's entirely possible that the linked segments are hosted by an anti-gun faction which deliberately presented only those (edited) clips which shows Peters in the best, and/or LaPierre in the worst light.
Still ....
If this is the NRA, is this is the best defense we can present against the world-wide attempt of socialist nations and agenda-driven NGO onsloughts on the 2nd amendment, then we would do as well to present NO defense and save our (your) membership fees and spend them instead on 4" plastic tubing, super-glue, duct tape and dessicant.
That's right, my friend. If you expect the NRA to defend your right to Keep and Bear Arms, you may as well get started early in the effort to pack up your firearms and bury them in the garden for your grandchildren (optimistically speaking) to dig up in the next century.
No doubt about it. If Wayne LaPierre is your first, best line of defense against gun-grabbers, you might as well give up now and use what remains of your self-reliance to hide your guns against the predations of the inevitable licensing, then registration, then confiscatory measures which will be imposed upon you and your children.
Prove to me that I'm wrong.
Please.
No comments:
Post a Comment