NRA Prints HALF Of The Story (Barniskis)?

David and Maureen Codrea codrea4 at home.com
Sun Jul 29 22:47:34 PDT 2001


Hi Neal,

Lemme get a few disclaimers out of the way before I begin:

#1- I don't know everyone on your list.  I went ahead and "replied to all"
because I am assuming there is interest, and because it is my shady virtue
that is being questioned here...:-)  If any of you have no desire to be part
of this exchange, please accept my apologies for intruding into your
e-lives.  Let me know and I will see that you are not included in further
discussions.

#2- I have added a couple other folks who I think may have an interest in
this.  Again, if I am being presumptuous, please just send me a "drop dead"
flame and  throw a brick through my window, and I will leave you off any
future exchange.

#3- I generally don't have a lot of time for back-and-forth one-on-one
debating- I find my time more productively spent on my own agenda items, and
what with all the other limitations and demands, I may or may not be able to
get back to rebuttals or additional emails from others in a timely or
comprehensive manner.  I sure don't want to get into an endless exchange
over this, as there are so many productive venues.

----

Let me begin by saying I do not consider your legitimate concerns to be a
flame.  I'm a big boy and can take my lumps, and you have been
most...ummm...politic in stating your reservations and explaining the
reasoning behind them.  You have a right to your say.  I'm also sorry if I
made you "sad."

I don't know if it's gonna be productive to take ALL the points of my piece
and ALL the points of your reply and interlineate comments and rebuttals.  I
especially don't think it would be a very interesting read- I think,
instead, it would quickly devolve into something fragmented, and very hard
to follow.  So I'd like to address this in generalities, with the further
qualification that I'm not out to try and score points at your expense, or
even to convince you that I am right and you are wrong;  I can walk away
from this knowing that we disagree and still think highly of you.  In fact,
I have heard the arguments you pose, in one form or another, before, so I
don't think my mind is going to change on this- and I cede to you the same.

I began talking about NRA ratings.  I think it has been pretty well
documented that they have on occasion given high ratings to politicians who
haven't necessarily earned them in the hope of establishing good will.  I
have also seen the opposite occur, that is, a 2nd Amendment champion like
Ron Paul being downgraded NOT for his stance on 2A purity, but rather
because he opposed legislation being promoted by NRA.  Surely, Neal, you
will not argue that Mary Bono is the equal to Ron Paul in terms of
Constitutional fidelity?  Pragmatism aside, which rating system do you think
best exemplifies original intent: NRA's or GOA's?  And would you at least
acknowledge describing Trent Lott as "stalwart"  on the 2A is, at best,
hyperbole?

In re Mr. Ashcroft, I believe if you look again, you will see that I did not
mention him at all, but rather, composed my rant in response to a thread
that did.  I think the omission of his qualifying statement in re
"compelling state interest" in the official NRA journal has one of two
credible explanations: incompetence, or suppression of information.  As I
don't "know" why it happened, I really cannot speculate further in any
fairness.  That said, I do stipulate that he is no Janet Reno, and I am
encouraged by some of his statements, as well as disappointed by others.
You are correct that his proper function is to enforce the law; I would
submit that the supreme law of the land is clear, and that precedent
established in Marbury v Madison relegates anything in conflict with this
null and void.

In re NRA practices and tactics, I have never seen a stockholders' report or
a proxy ballot where management urged owners to vote AGAINST a slate of
candidates.  That such ads were paid for by private parties does not
diminish the fact that they appeared alongside official ballots.

In re gun laws that have been passed on the "winning team's" watch, you may
be right that we would have seen much more draconian increments had the NRA
monolith not provided a breakwater.  Then again, one can only speculate had
overreaching socialists tried compressing 25 years of citizen disarmament
into a shorter period; perhaps it would have horrified sleeping gun owners
and galvanized them into individual, spirited activism, and to organize
behind a fiercely uncompromising banner.  Perhaps this would have scared our
attackers off.  But we will never know- all we can see is what has
transpired, and I fear the heat has been turned up so slowly that the frog
may never escape the pot.

In re "Project Exile," I have not seen a substantiated rebuttal to any of
the points I made, especially in re the activist I cited urging that they
instead adopt "enforce existing violent crime laws".  So I'll just ask a
simple question or four: Where in the Constitution has the fedgov been
delegated the enumerated power to enforce ANY gun laws?  Wouldn't the
Constitutionally-consistent position be to repeal these laws? Isn't such
enforcement precisely what precipitated Waco and Ruby Ridge?  And if phrased
more precisely, would you and NRA management advocate enforcing existing
CITIZEN DISARMAMENT laws?

In re your premise on pragmatism and compromise, as you have pointed out,
our Constitution was ratified through exactly that means.  But the
compromise already happened.  I hear you about the Civil War, but have to
ask you at what point would you say such rebellion might be justified, and a
preferable alternative to tyranny?  Believe me, I do understand compromise
and do it every day, as do we all;  I think the difference here is one of
tolerance threshold more than principle.  And please don't think I am
offering my poor self up for comparison, but we need people to speak loudly
on uncompromised principle; you would not have urged Samuel Adams or Patrick
Henry to moderate, would you, Neal?  And we know that the Republic we got
was nowhere near the ideal these men strived for, due to compromise, but wit
hout their strident voices stirring sentiment in a sufficiently critical
mass, how much more might it have been compromised?

I don't know where your line in the sand would be to engage in civil
disobedience, or to physically resist, and I certainly would never presume
to challenge your convictions on that- but I am curious as to where exactly
you would say there can be no more compromise?  If you have read my stuff,
you'll see I'm pretty consistent at advising that  a time for physical
engagement is not (yet) upon us, as there are still means of redress
available; I therefore urge people to work within our system, not only
because it is pragmatic, but because it is a moral imperative that we
exhaust available resources before resorting to more drastic measures.

But as much of a firebrand as you think my rant made me appear, it is not I
who held a gun up in front of a crowd and challenged "From my cold dead
hands!" What do you think Mr. Heston meant by that?  Was it entirely
symbolic, or do you think he would urge NRA management supporters to shoot
and kill government agents attempting to disarm them?

By the same token, where I have engaged in civil defiance, I have done so
because the chances of such recourse are questionable, and the violation of
rights by "officials" has been so blatant and repugnant:
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a397d8e1c3a66.htm

I believe, Neal, that right now, under certain circumstances, civil
resistance is warranted, and California's "assault weapons" ban certainly
seems to be a "reasonable" place to just say "no."  I don't so much see this
position as one of civil diobedience as much as obedience to the supreme law
of the land over an unconstitutional, thus null and void, perversion of the
law.  Yet it was NRA presenting the DoJ reps as people they can work with,
proud of their cordial relations, and mindful that the reps did not "have"
to come and address us- the folks whose leader holds up a musket and dares
you to kill him were facilitating our surrender without a fight.  But of
course the DoJ did have to be there- because they were there to dictate the
terms of our surrender, and they wanted desperately to convince us that they
were serious about enforcing this "law"- after all, they, again,
desperately, didn't want to see transpire exactly what has- massive
noncompliance, making them look impotent.  I am proud to have added my voice
to this, and would be pleased no end to think that it may have given others
some sense that they were not alone,  that there is strength in numbers, and
that we must steel ourselves from caving.

Anyway, that's about all I'm good for on this- I wrote way more than I set
out to- I really don't like working this way, as I'm pretty anal about
revising and rewriting my stuff a jillion times before releasing it-  a rule
I broke in the rant that precipitated this- but you posed some fair
observations and deserve to have your concerns at least addressed, if not
resolved.  I really don't know if I'll be up to another long rebuttal, so I
may or may not be able to give you satisfaction on future installments of
this thread- there is only so much time in my day for this, and I've just
exhausted it- tomorrow brings a new set of priorities.

But this has been good for me- extemporaneous responses help to hone our
skills against our mutual opponents.  Thanks for your thoughtful
correspondence and best regards.  I look forward to our continued
communications, and to hanging together, but not hanging together, if ya get
my drift...

Cordially,
David Codrea





----- Original Message -----
From: "Neal J. Lang" <movwater at bellsouth.net>
To: "David Codrea (E-mail)" <codrea4 at earthlink.net>
Cc: "Peter Mancus (E-mail)" <pmancus at prodigy.net>; <lrrankin at silcom.com>;
<dial911book at yahoo.com>; <freematt at coil.com>; <declan at well.com>;
<George at Orwellian.Org>; <cypherpunks at cyberpass.net>
Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2001 5:39 PM
Subject: Re: NRA Prints HALF Of The Story (Barniskis)?


> E-mail From the Desk of Neal Lang
>
> Hi, Pete,
> I was forwarded your e-mail on the above subject by Pete Mancus.  As I was
> not an original recipient, I hope you don't consider my response
> impertinent.
> I read with interest (and sadness) your July 27th letter satirically
> belittling the National Rifle Association for celebrating arguably the
> "most important" political coup on behalf of the "individual right to keep
> and bear arms" in the last 8 years.
> I hope you don't find my corrective reply to be a flame, as I do not
intend
> it to be taken as such.   I respect you and your efforts on behalf of "the
> cause" too much.
> This current epistle, while I believe errant, evidences the "passions" and
> "wit" that make all your correspondence a "joy" for those "true believers"
> who clearly see the "truth and the light".  However, the underlying
concept
> that the NRA is "counter-productive" (and thereby, by implication,
> undeserving of our support) is wrong.  I'll tell you why.
> First, your position (along with others) seems to suggest that the battle
> to restore our "unalienable rights" can be won without compromise.  This
> position suggests that our Federal government and its Constitution were
> founded on "principles" that could never be compromised.
> Obviously, Dave, history tells a different story.   After all, our
> founders, after engaging in a desperate struggle with the most powerful
> empire on earth over "principles" eloquently expressed in the "Declaration
> of Independence" instituted a government by ratifying a Constitution that
> codifies a "compromise" allowing slavery.  A Nation born on the idea that
> "all men our created equal" allowed a government based on the
> "constitutional principle" that certain "man" count only a as "3/5th
> persons" and "untaxed" Native Americans don't count at all.
> Compared to the founders' "constitutional compromise" on "slavery", the
> NRA's giving ground on "Brady" in order to demand an "Insta-Check" and a
> "ban" on the government retaining records of purchasers is really quite
> minor.  Interestingly, by including these provisions in "Brady", we have
> today a situation whereby America's chief lawman, General Ashcroft, can
> insist that records illegally retained by the FBI for 180 (or more) days,
> must be destroyed with 24 hours under the "rule of law".  I see this as a
> "glass half-full", Dave, not "half-empty".  If the NRA did not have a
place
> at the table to get demand this compromise, we would today be "truly"
> experiencing "totally unacceptable delays" in firearms purchases, along
> with a "permanent registry" of firearms buyers.  To think that "Brady"
> would not have passed, despite NRA opposition, without these important
> compromises is quite delusional, IMMHO.
> The assault on Attorney General Ashcroft by "Constitutional zealots" is
> also quite delusional as well, IMMHO.  To say that one believes in the
> "infallibility" of the U.S. Constitution and therefore I condemn  the
> Nation's highest law enforcement officer for saying that he will serve his
> constitutional role by enforcing the law, is really quite illogical.  If
> you understand the Constitution, you will see that it did nothing more the
> "institute a government".  The form of government instituted was a
> "republic", a where everyone, "the People" as well as the "magistrates"
> must obey the law.
> Our constitution established three distinct branches, each with different
> authority and responsibility.
> Article. I. Section. 1. - "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be
> vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate
> and House of Representatives."
> Article. II. Section. 3. - "(H)e (the President) shall take Care that the
> Laws be faithfully executed..."
> Article III. Section. 1. - "The judicial Power of the United States shall
> be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the
Congress
> may from time to time ordain and establish."
> Article III. Section. 2. - "(T)he supreme Court shall have appellate Jur
> isdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such
> Regulations as the Congress shall make."
> The Executive branch, of which General Ashcroft is a member, must
> "faithfully execute" the laws that are passed by the Legislative Branch
and
> adjudicated by Judicial branch. When one of President Clinton's "White
> House Counsels" gleefully exclaimed, "Stroke of the pen, force of law,
> NEAT!" - we, the believers of Constitutional law, were justifiably
> horrified.  Why than are we so quick to object to the Attorney General
when
> he states the obvious.  He MUST uphold the law.  He cannot on his own
usurp
> the authority of either the Congress or the Courts.  In this he is living
> his oath of office and serving as an example of the kind of "true Original
> Intent" that has not been seen in Washington in at least 12 years, if not
> longer.
> The fact that he bravely committed his Department to the "true" meaning of
> the 2nd Amendment as an "individual right" should be the cause of great
> celebrations throughout our country by those of us who believe that "the
> People" in fact means individuals.  Instead we "parse" his words and
> de-ride him for keeping his oath of office by "faithfully executing" the
> Federal code he inherited.  Shooting organizations should be today
renaming
> "Practical Shooting Matches" after this courageous American and hero of
the
> 2nd Amendment.
> Dave, the undermining of our rights begins when governmental officials
> forget we have a government of laws.  Our founders thought that Congress,
> not the Attorney General should make the laws of our country.  General
> Ashcroft agrees.  Historically, the Courts determine the Constitutionality
> our laws, not the Attorney General.  General Ashcroft agrees. I think you
> should celebrate this victory, not commiserate when a public official
> recognizes it.
> I am glade you still retain your "life membership" in the NRA.  However,
as
> a member, I am not sure you can see how this GREAT organization fits in
the
> scheme of the defense of our "unalienable rights" in the reality of 21st
> America.
> Personally, I believe neither the NRA, the Constitution, POTUS, the
> Attorney General, Congress, nor the Supreme Court have any bearing on the
> actual existence of any my "unalienable rights".  I sleep peacefully every
> night in the knowledge that while my government may have the "power" to
> kill me, it does not have the "authority" to "separate me from these
> rights".  In fact, I, myself, cannot even "give away" these "unalienable
> rights" if I wanted to - else they would not be "unalienable".
> The struggle to insure these rights "politically" in the "good old" U.S.
of
> A. must be fought on at least three fronts.  These fronts are:
> 1. The Judicial - overturning existing "bad laws" in the Courts.   This
> requires the nomination of good judges that understand the meaning of
> republic and the simple plan English of the U.S. Constitution.
> 2. The Legislative - passing new laws that correct existing "bad laws" and
> promote expansion of our 2nd Amendment rights to the States and local
> governments. This would be similar to the Civil Rights legislation of the
> 1960.  This requires electing good Representatives that understand the
> Constitutional limits imposed on Congress.
> 3. The Promotional - to insure the appropriate "public relations" climate
> to insure items 1. and 2.  This involves also election the "right" public
> officials to nominate the "right" kind of Justices and to pass the "right"
> kind of legislation.
> I submit, Dave, that the NRA is carrying the battle on these three most
> effectively.  After all, being rated the "Most Influential" lobby in
> Washington indicates to me that the NRA is nothing if it is not effective.
> To fault the NRA in the absence of a more effective means of defending our
> rights is quite easy.  If you analyze the "political" battlefield were
> meaning and effect of the 2nd Amendment as it stands today is being
> determined, you will find that:
> 1. Congress, as a whole, does not see the 2nd Amendment as do you or I, or
> the GOA, JPFO, COA, or the NRA, for that matter.  For this reason the NRA
> legislative strategy since 1968 has been a "rear guard" action.  Through
> "political compromise" they attempted (and for the most part succeeded) to
> blunt the more onerous Federal and State laws invading our 2nd Amendment
> rights.
> 2. The Courts, in general, and the U.S. Supreme Court, in particular, do
> not see the 2nd Amendment as do you or I, or the GOA, JPFO, COA, or the
> NRA, for that matter.  Through lifetime, "good Behaviour" tenure, most
> judges are "immune" to "politics".  However, before their confirmations,
> the NRA can and does have some influence in the selection, nomination and
> confirmation of these Judges.  Additionally, in very well prepared and
> persuasive "Amicus Briefs", the NRA helps promote an "unalienable,
> individual" 2nd Amendment Right in the courts.   In fact, a fair reading
of
> their Amicus Curiae in Emerson would indicate that NRA position on
> Lautenberg parallels mine (and maybe yours?) - (it can be read at:
> http://www.saf.org/NRAbrief.htm ) - despite how you have painted it in
your
> letter.
> 3. The public at large ("the People" of the Constitution) generally does
> not see the 2nd Amendment the same as you or I, or the GOA, JPFO, COA, or
> the NRA, for that matter.  This is our "PR gap".  I think the NRA has been
> most effective on this front in the "battle", as well.  While accepting
> their inevitable defeat in Congressional on the "Assault Weapons Ban", in
> 1994 the NRA came back with a "vengeance" that helped account for one of
> the most historic political "turnarounds" in U.S. history, giving control
> of Congress to the more "2nd Amendment friendly" Republicans.  This caused
> our "true" enemies to institute those IRS audits about which you write in
> revenge for NRA part in their worse 20th Century political loss.
> Do I wish we lived in a utopia where all gun owners truly understood their
> rights and voted?  You bet.  But the sad truth is, Dave, many gun owners
> haven't a clue, and many of those that do, don't bother to vote.  This is
> the "real world" in which the NRA is attempting to "hold the line".  Do
> they make mistakes?  Of course they do.  But on balance, IMMHO, without
NRA
> we would be today looking at British-like total bans on all firearms.  If
> you are fair, I think you will agree.
> While we need to help this organization to "stay on the mark", we also
must
> recognize their tremendous contribution.  As such we must be careful not
to
> destroy this truly effective and necessary organization, as we attempt to
> promote the "true" meaning of "unalienable rights".  I fear, my friend,
> that sometimes passionate words, even amongst friends and "true
believers",
> can also be damaging and counter-productive.
> One reason, Dave, I enjoy so much your "in your face" correspondence
> directed at the real "forces of evil" is the passion you display in
> "fighting the good fight".  I love the way you verbally "hold them by
their
> nose while you kick their ass".  However, that said, I also think when
> addressing the "choir", some check on passion in the direction of
> presenting the "all the facts" might be the "order of the day".   While
> "tearing down" is sometimes necessary in order to "build-up", care must be
> used when instructing on "enemy recognition".
> A fair reading of this latest epistle of yours has the NRA as the "enemy".
>  IMMHO, Dave, they are not.   If enough of NRA members that truly respect
> you take you at your word, serious damage will be done to the NRA and also
> to our "right to keep and bear arms".   If that happens, the opportunity
to
> re-take our "rights" on the three fronts of the Legislative; the Judiciary
> and the Public Opinion will be lost leaving only one "Civil War" as the
> only available option.  I don't think I need to remind you, my friend,
that
> the last "Civil War", killed more Americans that all the conflicts we were
> involved in - combined.
> Remember, Dave, when it comes to "2nd Amendment rights", we will, in fact,
> "all hang separately, if we can't hang together".
> Keep the Faith,
>
> Neal
> Neal J. Lang (Signed)
> E-mail: movwater at bellsouth.net
>
>
>





More information about the cypherpunks-legacy mailing list