NRA Prints HALF Of The Story (Barniskis)?

[Peter Mancus]

Dear David and Neal:
    David, you continue to amaze me in a positive manner. For
cotemporaneous, spontaneous writing that is not polished by a guy who is
busy, you excel at manifesting the King's English, being a diplomat and
expressing a clear appreciation for complex subtelties.
    I find the exchange between you and Neal to be most interesting reading.
If the Gun Prohibitionists were to read your exchange they would have to
conclude that each of you are most thoughtful citizens who certainly appear
to be worthy of unregistered firearms.
    There is great truth in both of your viewpoints.
    There is no point in taking the time to split hairs in minutia.
    Please, I urge you, include me in all future such exchanges on any
topic. I love being exposed to fine minds at work.
    --Peter Mancus
----- Original Message -----
From: "David and Maureen Codrea" <codrea4 at home.com>
To: <movwater at bellsouth.net>
Cc: <Director at KeepAndBearArms.com>; <air.man at att.net>;
<brian at citizensofamerica.org>; <cypherpunks at cyberpass.net>;
<George at Orwellian.Org>; <declan at well.com>; <freematt at coil.com>;
<dial911book at yahoo.com>; <lrrankin at silcom.com>; "Peter Mancus (E-mail)"
<pmancus at prodigy.net>
Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2001 10:47 PM
Subject: Re: NRA Prints HALF Of The Story (Barniskis)?


> 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
> >
> >
> >
>