NRA Prints HALF Of The Story (Barniskis)?

[Neal J. Lang]

E-mail From the Desk of Neal Lang

Hi, Dave,
Thank you for your prompt and thoughtful reply.  Sorry about the salutation 
mix-up.
NRA Candidate Ratings:
Rep. Ron Paul: Aside from reiterating that politics is based on the art of 
compromise, let me state that I was unaware of Congressman Ron Paul's (whom 
I consider a giant in the area of all rights, not just the 2A) NRA "B" 
rating.  I will of course query the NRA (as I do whenever I learn of such 
inconsistencies).  Not wishing to be seen as an apologist, I suppose they 
might suggest that Rep. Paul's opposition to a NRA supported Bill earned 
him such a grade.  After all, it is the NRA's rating system, so I suppose 
they can provide the criteria. Again, being unaware of the particulars 
(what Bill did Rep. Paul oppose? why? and why it was so important to the 
NRA?) would help my evaluation of this specific situation. On its face, let 
me express my disappointment (might I say sadness) in the NRA's chevalier 
treatment of someone I consider a hero.
Rep. Mary Bono:  In the Rep. Mary Bono rating, maybe I would chalk that one 
up to wishful thinking.  I believe her vote was reliable in Congress.  So, 
while perfection is reserved only for God and his Son, I might not be too 
worried about this particular rating.
Senate Trent Lott:  Here we agree, as I have long advocated the Senator 
from Mississippi be replace as GOP Senate Leader with the senior Senator 
from Texas.  I personally blame Senator Lott for the loss of Republican 
control of the Senate.  Not because he didn't "kiss Senator Jeffords' 
butt", but because he did.  A stronger performance on his part in 
leadership from 1996 - 2000 would have left less Republican carcasses on 
the ground after the last election, IMMHO.  That said, you don't get to be 
the "Most Influential Lobby in Washington" without "kissing some butt".  I 
guess a case could be made that the Majority Leader of the Senate is as 
good as any, if you really must "kiss butt".
Now, on balance, my friend, "like making sausage", effective politics 
"ain't very pretty".  I concede that sometimes the NRA "ratings scope" 
might beg for some "fine tuning".  However, to "rate" the NRA as the moral 
equivalent to HCI, BCPGV, or whatever "alphabet soup" the "forces of evil" 
have most recently metastasized into, really ventures way beyond 
"hyperbole", IMMHO.
IN RE Mr. Ashcroft:
I agree that you did not mention Mr. Ashcroft, while your "rant" (your word 
not mine - I prefer "passioned appeal") was at the end of a chain of 
e-mails that did (see cc:'s to my e-mail).  I, myself, do not know why the 
Editors at the NRA decided to leave out General Ashcroft's footnotes when 
they published his GREAT letter.  I concur it would have been much better 
to include said footnotes.
However, while you attribute this (oversight?) to some "dastardly plot" or 
"total incompetence", I am a little more charitable.  Maybe the journalists 
at the NRA thought including that the "Attorney General commits to uphold 
the law" was a little like publishing a story about a "dog biting a man".
I note that you loving cite "Marbury v. Madison" as establishing the 
supremacy of the Fed Law over all else (by the way, did you know some 
observers reference this case as the beginning of the "slippery slope" we 
are rapidly descending today).  Interestingly the phraseology "compelling 
state interest" comes from a long line of Supreme Court cases (mostly on 
free speech).  So the accusation against General Ashcroft seems to be that 
he is somehow violating Marbury vs. Madison by adhering to say Victoria 
Buckley, Secretary of State of Colorado v. American Constitution Law 
Foundation, Inc., et al. (1999).  This "free political speech" case turns 
on "compelling state interest".  Justice Clarence Thomas' concurring 
opinion uses that exact phraseology in its opening paragraph:
Justice Thomas , concurring in the judgment. 
When considering the constitutionality of a state election regulation that 
restricts core political speech or imposes "severe burdens" on speech or 
association, we have generally required that the law be narrowly tailored 
to serve a compelling state interest. But if the law imposes "lesser 
burdens," we have said that the State's important regulatory interests are 
generally sufficient to justify reasonable, nondiscriminatory restrictions. 
The Court today appears to depart from this now-settled approach. In my 
view, Colorado's badge, registration, and reporting requirements each must 
be evaluated under strict scrutiny. Judged by that exacting standard, I 
agree with the majority that each of the challenged regulations violates 
the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and accordingly concur only in the 
judgment.  (See the complete opinion at: 
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&court=US&c  
ase=/us/000/97%2D930.html )
I suppose in your U.S. of A. the Executive Branch officer, in this case the 
A.G. makes the call on Constitutionality despite opinions from the Supremes 
right on point.  I think that would violate the "Original Intent" big time, 
IMMHO.  I (politely) suggest that you re-read Articles I through III and 
see exactly what General Ashcroft took an oath to defend and preserve.
I think Karl Marx envisioned that wonderful utopia where everyone makes his 
own laws.  I believe they call it anarchy.  Going back to the basics, Dave, 
we must first understand why "men institute governments".  According to the 
"Declaration of Independence" it is to "secure these Rights".  What rights? 
 The "Natural Rights of  Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness". 
 That is the only reason for governments to exist (at least according to 
our founders).  Soooo!  The only acceptable "compelling state interest" 
must be related to securing these "Natural Rights".  Nothing else can be 
"compelling", IMMHO.  IMMHO, both Justice Thomas and General Ashcroft feel 
the same.
Would a future Supreme Court Associate Justice Ashcroft have adjudicated a 
future Miller v. U.S. differently than the 1939 Supremes?  I truly believe 
he would.  Will we ever get to find out?  No, that letter causing all the 
"weeping and gnashing of teeth" he wrote and shared with World probably 
ended any chance for his nomination to the bench, much less his 
confirmation.  Can you say BORKING!  What's more, I believe he knew it, but 
wrote the letter anyway, because it was the RIGHT THING TO DO.  That is 
courage, IMMHO.  Something we should be celebrating, not disparaging.
IN RE NRA practices and tactics:
Organizational politics are the pits, I agree.  When (way back in '06) I 
was State VP for the NJ Jaycees, I had a losing battle with one of my best 
friend (at the time President of my local Jaycees Chapter) over the State 
Presidential candidate to support.  He ended up having our Chapter support 
the WRONG (IMMHO) candidate, who lost, and thereby reduced the 
effectiveness of our Chapter in Jaycee State politics.  He promised to, and 
then reneged on, allowing me to address the Chapter's delegates before 
making the final decision on which candidate to support.  I haven't spoken 
to him since.  But as Chapter President he had the "power" to call the 
shots.
One of the reasons that the NRA is an effective organization, is because 
they know how to play "hardball politics".  Just ask Bill Clinton and Al 
Gore.  While it would be nice if "Robert's Rules of Order" applied to 
organizational "power" (control) politics, the fact is that they don't. 
 "Can't all we just get along?"
IN RE gun laws that have been passed on the "winning team's" watch:
Dave, the worst "Gun Law" passed in the 20th Century was the "Gun Control 
Act of 1968".  That passed in the form that it did because the NRA at the 
time (I was a member because I liked their magazine) was asleep.  After 
that wakeup call they have been pretty much on top of the game.  They know 
how to count votes as well (maybe better) than any party's "floor whip". 
 They know when to fight, and they know when to negotiate a "better deal".
"Galvanizing the gun owners" can be done, but I submit that it is BEST DONE 
BY THE NRA, IMMHO.  For example please see the 1994 Election.  Now if you 
are fair, Dave, you will agree that as far getting "gun owners" to the 
polls, the NRA is the real 800 lb. gorilla.  Getting the 80 million or so 
"gun owners" seems to be a real challenge.  After 8 years of the President, 
the AG (General Janet "Judge Dredd - I am da law" Reno) and their cast of 
thousands crapping all over the 2nd Amendment, I submit that in 2000 
"gun-owner voter turn-out" was quite "under-whelming". Possibly a large 
number of them voted for Gore figuring he was just a "good ole boy from 
Tennessee.
IN RE "Project Exile":
I have yet to see any NRA article, infomercial, advertisement, position 
paper or statement stating that "Project Exile" should "target" 
Lautenberg-type "firearms regulation violators".  If you know of any, 
please provide them to me.  When I queried the NRA on that very subject 
they stated that they believe that the purpose of "Project Exile" is to 
crack-down on felons illegally possessing "firearms".  I agree.  If there 
are felons working my neighborhood, illegally carrying a firearm, I would 
prefer them put-away, thank you very much.  Does the State have "compelling 
interest" in do just that?  IMMHO, YES.  After all the first "Natural 
Right" that government is "instituted to secure" is the "Right to Life". 
 If Mr. Felon is plying his "B & E" trade in my neighborhood "packing 
heat", I would be most appreciative of "Boca's finest" taking him "off the 
street" (on a gun violation) before he is surprised by my wife returning 
from the mall unexpectedly, and he shoots her to death.
I have no problem with that type of "Project Exile", Dave.  If you do, I 
guess we agree to disagree.  According to everything I have read about the 
NRA's position that is exactly the way they see "Project Exile" working. 
  CRIMINAL, not CITIZEN DISARMAMENT, Dave.
An indication that this tact on the NRA's part has been effective is the 
change seen in the opposition.  It's hard to find today calls for more "gun 
regulation" based on criminal miss-use from the anti-rights folks.  The new 
manta is "Firearms Safety".  Why?  Because the NRA has been so effective in 
undermining the illogic of new gun control legislation based on "criminal 
use" when current "criminal gun laws" on the books are not being enforced. 
 Americans can be quite logical sometimes, as polls on this very issue have 
shown.  Quite a clever and effective ploy on the part of the NRA, IMMHO.
As for Ruby Ridge and Waco, I believe that both cases centered on the 
"Firearms Act of 1934".  Pretty much a "tax evasion case".  The only case 
on the Act to reach the Supremes was Miller v. U.S.  The court did not 
exactly find the 1934 Act Constitutional, merely opining that the Feds 
could tax firearms of "no militia value" (in Miller's case a short-barreled 
shotgun).  I wonder how the decision would come out had Miller been caught 
with a Thompson?  Hmmm!  Of course that is the very thing Randy Weaver was 
indicted for - possession of an Untaxed (and Registered) short-barreled 
shotgun.  The Branch Davidians case may have also involved the 1980's ban 
on new "fully auto weapons", however, even though I believe they had a 
Class 3 firearms dealer license.   Personally, I think in both cases the 
government was trying to "take out" the suspects in order to avoid a 
possible challenge before the Supremes of these laws.
Allowing that the Miller Court never even looked at exactly where, under 
"Commerce Cause", the "Firearms Act of 1934" might fit, I would love to see 
the current Supremes take a case on this federal law.  Justice Thomas' 
opinion (either for the majority, in dissent or in concurrence) should be 
priceless, IMMHO.
IN RE your premise on pragmatism and compromise:
Dave, it real tough to talk about rebellion, when we can't even get our   
"forces" to polls.  Lets look at both "slavery" and the "right to keep and 
bear arms".  One reason the 2nd Amendment was proposed and finally accepted 
to the Constitution is the concept that "you cannot make slaves of armed 
men".   This concept goes back at least to Aristotle and possibly further. 
 How does one justify a "unalienable right to keep and bear arms" for all 
men, based in part as a bulwark against "slavery", being included in a 
document that institutes a government that condones that very institution? 
 If anyone can answer that question for me, I would sincerely appreciate 
it.
The fact is, Dave, whether I would ask them or not,  both Patrick Henry and 
Samuel Adams (as well as Tom Jefferson, and James Madison, and George 
Washington, and John Adams, et. al.) did compromise.  The "Declaration of 
Independence" was a compromise (Tom Jefferson wanted an anti-slavery 
statement but didn't get it from the Continental Congress).  The 
Constitution of the United States was a compromise. (Read the Debates of 
the Federal Convention at: http://www.constitution.org/dfc/dfc_0000.htm - 
to see how much a compromise.)  The "Bill of Rights" was a compromise. 
 James Madison didn't want them added to his Constitution, even after he 
proposed them.  (See Madison Proposal to Congress for a Bill of Rights at: 
http://www.jmu.edu/madison/madprobll.htm#  - to see how much its author 
compromised.)
I, too, consider myself a "purest" when comes to both "fly-fishing" (dry 
flies only, if the trout wont take dries - screw them) and "Natural 
Rights".  While governments are (should be) instituted only for the purpose 
of "securing the People's Natural Rights" they seldom, if ever, met this 
goal.  "Natural Rights" are not capable of being compromised, IMMHO.  Why? 
 "Unalienable" means that even you cannot give-up your "right to Life, 
Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness".   How then can you compromise an 
absolute?  It would be like compromising on "gravity".  You or I just 
can't.
Where the compromise comes into play is in politics.  If the founders did 
not want politics (and compromise) to be part of the equation, the 
Constitution would have instituted a government based on a King or 
dictator, rather than giving all the power to the most political body - the 
legislature.  The question is where to draw the line.  Apparently the 
founders decided that the line could be drawn on the other side of slavery, 
because that is what they did.  This then begs the question, if the 
"institution" (slavery) can be compromised on, why can't the defenses 
against "slavery" - such as the "right to keep and bear arms"?  Again, we 
are confronted with a conundrum.  It is a political conundrum from a 
political document, the U.S. Constitution.
Being an absolutist on "Natural Rights" (as found in the "Declaration of 
Independence") helps.  But don't look for your "rock" in the 
"Constitution".  It ain't there in that "political" document.  That is why 
I have always contended that our "right to keep and bear arms" cannot 
solely rely on the "Parchment Defence" of the Constitution and the 2nd 
Amendment.  IMMHO, our strongest defence is in the words of Jefferson, not 
Madison.  We need to use our "Natural Rights" as the reason we must enjoy 
the "right to keep and bear arms".
As for "Civil Disobedience", the essence of which is, as both Gandhi and 
King would tell you, if you are prepared to be jailed for your beliefs.  I 
suppose I am.  I haven't been confronted with the opportunity, so I do not 
know how I would react.  It's "seeing the elephant".  I haven't seen war 
(civil or otherwise) so I really don't know how I would react when the 
bullets are flying, shells are bursting, and my friends are dying around 
me.  I like to think I would be brave, a hero even - but, in truth, I just 
don't know.
I concur (wholeheartedly) about continuing to work within the system. 
 After all, one of the "biggies" for the founders was "taxation without 
representation".  So far we can still vote for those guys that tax us 
beyond the "Medieval Serfs".  IMMHO, the "showdown" if (or when) it comes 
will not be over the "right to keep and bear arms" but over some other item 
(items) of individual rights.  You will note that none of the items 
included in King George's indictment in the "Declaration of Independence" 
includes "citizen disarmament" (although we know such took place).  The 
real challenge for us "gun nuts" is to insure that sufficiently numerous 
armed citizens exist if (when) the "scat hits the bladed cooling device".
As for Chuck Heston's (Moses?) gesture with a "musket", obviously it was 
symbolic.  Is he a true hero?  I think so.  His ideas and mine are pretty 
close, at least based on his speeches and his book (I have an autographed 
copy - To: "Smokewagon" From: "Chuck Heston").  I think he believes in 
freedom, Dave, no matter what he thinks about the AK47.  I believe many 
"pro-rights" people have attacked him unfairly.  It took real courage, 
IMMHO, for someone from Hollywood to get so involved in 2nd Amendment 
rights.  I think he did "the cause" a whole lot of good. I say, "God bless 
him."  Would he "go to the mattresses" if the need arose?  I really think 
he would.  He was, after all, already arrested for "civil disobedience" 
during "civil rights marches" in the 1960's.
As for "civil disobedience" regarding California's "assault weapon" ban, I 
suggest you use the General Ashcroft test for the Constitutionality of "Gun 
Control Laws".  That is does the State of California have a "compelling 
interest" in banning certain semi-automatic and ugly (in the eyes of the 
beholder) firearms.  Unless the Government of the State of California 
(Republic of California actually - see the U.S. Constitution) can show 
where such a ban helps "secure the People's Life, Liberty and the Pursuit 
of Happiness", such a law could be and should be the cause of "Civil 
Disobedience".  Go ahead, Dave, "Dump the tea in the harbor".  But be 
prepared, as the "Sons of Liberty" were, to "pay the piper".
Remember, however, Dave, based on the Constitution and Jurisprudence 
starting even before Marbury v. Madison, that only what the Supremes deem 
as unconstitutional is unconstitutional.  Remember, also, that the Supremes 
believe that privacy (arguably a civil right) trumps "Life" which is a 
"Natural Right", at least according to the "Declaration of Independence". 
 I would not be surprised that the Supremes might find that the State 
(especially Style-conscious California) would have a "state compelling 
interest" in banning "ugly firearms".  After all, they clash with so much 
of the really hip beachwear don't they?
While I really feel sorry for you guys in the "Republic (Peoples?) of 
California", I note that in the 2000 Election cycle "the People" (sheeple) 
of California decided (overwhelmingly) instead for throwing "the 
Oppressors" out - they would make rather us all suffer their same fate. 
 Hardly encouraging when you are planning a political turn-around, much 
less a successful rebellion, IMMHO.
Dave, while I am "four square" by your side in the idea that some 
"politicians" (oppressors) probably should be tried (due process by all 
means) and then executed, I am merely trying to raise the fact that 
"circular firing squad formations" may be hazardous to your health.
Please stay the course, my friend.  I will continue to read with much 
pleasure (and usually much amusement) your excellent verbal rockets.
Keep the Faith,

Neal
Neal J. Lang (Signed)
E-mail: movwater at bellsouth.net