-15 votes

Justin Raimondo on Rand: Turncoat

Justin Raimondo ‏@JustinRaimondo

It's time for libertarians to treat Rand Paul like the turncoat he is: boycott. No $$, no support, & start calling him Paul the Lesser.

https://twitter.com/JustinRaimondo/status/302169260929736705




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

let me get this straight

Let Me Get This Straight
Posted by Lew Rockwell on February 15, 2013 01:21 PM
Chuck Hagel must be defeated by the Israel lobby to refute his charge that the lobby is too powerful.

Idol worship

Rand is no God and no one sees him as one. He's a person and he makes a lot better representative than I would, or most of the complainers here. Quit complaining, when he's president, if he starts bombing people with drones, endorsing the fed and sends the army to take your guns, start complaining. If you do that, we would probably never hear from you again, and that wouldn't be so bad. You're all such a positive lot.

Hagel will be confirmed, it

Hagel will be confirmed, it will just take a couple weeks longer. This theater is for all the Republican Senators running for re election in 2014 so they can seem Tea Party. They are all scared has hell of the primary's. This is all this is

posturing

For AIPAC money to help with their next election.

why would anyone negative vote you for saying that? I say cheers

for sound awareness.

herehere, fuhk AIPAC! and the ADL! and All the scam artists at the FED.

Whether you think you can or you can't, you're right. -Henry Ford

Justin who?

This guy is making a huge impact in the world.

"Once you become knowledgeable, you have an obligation to do something about it."- Ron Paul

if you have nothing good to say about Rand why say it?

he is at the very least still talking up more libertarian ideas than the rest of congressmen yet you want to rid congress of him?

I think you don't understand the shell game we're playing with the zio-right and we're winning so shut up and sit down and watch how the game is played.

this is politics not a psychological check up

Whether you think you can or you can't, you're right. -Henry Ford

There Are Excellent Reasons

Having assessed the continual in-your-face Rand-worship, I see it as being directly akin to the phenomenon surrounding the NRA, a quisling organization.

The NRA has diligently and deliberately worked hand-in-hand with government, since the early 1900s, to morph Amendment II and its absolute prohibition on government from infringing on the right to keep and bear arms, into a government regulated, government controlled, firearms, people, place, and ammo restricted 'privilege'.

The NRA sycophants and slack-jawed adoring 'faithful' routinely ignore, rationalize, justify and ultimately actively support this traitorous organization, generally making claims, when confronted with information and fact that the NRA operates opposite to Amendment II, that although they 'do some things I don't like' they 'have to do so' to have influence. (relate to Rand only playing along with the GOP-establishment to gain power and influence, or Rand playing a three-dimensional chess-game to fool the GOP-establishment)

I hear ridiculous crap such as that we would 'have no gun-rights' if it were not for the NRA and that their 'compromises' and betrayals of fundamental liberty are 'necessary to keep legislation from being even worse'.

Steaming, stinking hog-schite.

The NRA has led a massive percentage of america's gun-owning lemmings into accepting and yes, even agreeing with increasing government infringement on a fundamental, constitutionally enumerated liberty, which is crystal-clear in its text and intent to be an absolute prohibition on government from infringing upon it.

Personally, I am puke-sick of the lot of you...Cult of Rand acolytes and ignoramus NRA-zombies.......Two fucked-up peas in the same sick, twisted, 'faithful' pod.

Compromising, willingly eroding liberty, slack-jawed, drooling non-principled gerbils, busily gnawing away at the foundations of the Constitution, the Republic and of Liberty itself.

This is classic 'fundamental principle' vs. foolish, trusting willful-ignorance, faith and cult-like sycophancy.

A person or an organization can do certain agreeable things and yet often knowingly facilitate and knowingly participate in a larger evil and a greater plan than the specific agreeable action indicates.

wtf I don't like the NRA any more than AIPAC or Big Pharma

I don't like any of them and I know the NRA could care less about us... but what I also know is the love of a son from a father as I am my father's son, and I know Ron wouldn't raise a sellout to the NRA to "look" Republican.

And even if Rand did talk the talk, his dad taught him where wise men walk.

So I assume we are supposed to in-fight on the margins..?

well last time I check Rand Paul was on NPR speaking for the Tea Party about drone strikes in response to the state of the union.

Where are you in all of this? where is your candidacy for freedom putting your last name up to try to save this country from money manipulators?

Whether you think you can or you can't, you're right. -Henry Ford

Provide

Provide some links for these NRA conspiracies for us to go along with your oh so enlightened tirade. You're not helping your cause by being a jerk. Or do you not care about your own cause and hope it fails? Maybe you're working with the NRA. Hmmm... ha.

Sure Thing...

...Likely NRA-Zombie.

As to me being a jerk, frankly, I am puke-sick of ignoramus-faithful who don;t have the temerity or courage to seek truth themselves.

Good Lord, You'd think this stuff was a state-secret or something. Sadly it is and has always been readily available.

I will stack a series of information posts onto this one, for your enlightenment, so make sure after your spazmo-fit, your hissy-fit and your angry-disbelief, you actually research the info to ensure yourself of its validity.

Post after post to follow this one, k?

First NRA-Quisling Org Post

The NRA supported The Federal Firearms Act of 1938, which
regulates interstate and foreign commerce in firearms and pistol, revolver ammunition.

The NRA supported legislation to amend the "Federal Firearms Act"
in regard to handguns when it was introduced in August, 1963.

In 1965, the NRA continued its support of an expansion of the above
legislation to include rifles and shotguns, as well as handguns.

Additionally the NRA supported the regulation of the movement of
handguns in interstate and foreign commerce by:
1. Requiring a sworn statement, containing certain information,
from the purchaser to the seller for the receipt of a handgun in
interstate commerce;
2. Providing for notification of local police of prospective sales;
3. Requiring an additional 7-day waiting period by the seller after
receipt of acknowledgment of notification to local police;
4. Prescribing a minimum age of 21 for obtaining a license to sell
firearms and increasing the license fees;
5. Providing for written notification by manufacturer or dealer to
carrier that a firearm is being shipped in interstate commerce, and;
6. Increasing penalties for violation.

NRA HELPED WRITE the 1986 federal law prohibiting the manufacture
and importation of "armor piercing ammunition" adopted standards.

*****

The NRA has been hard at work, over the last few years, turning a
RIGHT (guaranteed by our constitution) into a revocable PRIVILEGE.
Many pro-gun people commend them for this. Others see it for what
it really is.

The second amendment states. "The right of the people to keep and
BEAR arms" It doesn't say "to keep and display arms" or "to keep
and hide arms" or "to keep and disassemble and lock up your arms"
or "to keep and use arms" it says "to keep and BEAR arms" Look it
up in the dictionary. To "bear something" means to CARRY it. Any
attempt at "interpreting" the meaning of this, is clearly an anti-
gun tactic.

*****

"Project EXILE" IS the NRA's very own project. NRA'S project (EXILE) supports ALL UNconstitutional gun laws. Handgun Control Inc. supports it TOO. NRA-ILA Executive Director James Jay Baker commented, "I'm glad that the president has finally agreed with the NRA that enforcing federal firearms laws makes sense. We've been pushing for more enforcement of existing laws.

*****

Schools
Then NRA Executive Vice President Wayne R. LaPierre, Jr., made
these damaging statements during his nationally televised speech at
the Denver NRA Members Meeting May 1, 1999. "First, we believe in
absolutely gun-free, zero-tolerance, totally safe schools. That
means no guns in America's schools, period ... with the rare
exception of law enforcement officers or trained security personnel.

All across the country, school boards and state legislators started
doing precisely what LaPierre suggested: shutting down school
riflery programs, prohibiting historical firearms displays,
forbidding hunter safety training with unloaded guns, and banning
gun possession by teachers and other adults with carry licenses. A
good example of the long range implications of what LaPierre
endorsed back then, is the tragedy at Virginia Tech.

Making schools a "gun free zone" where lunatics can murder with
impunity, was his response to the Columbine shootings? What
happened to advocating responsible carry, by responsible citizens???

*****

LaPierre also blessed gun show background checks by saying: "We
will consider instant checks at gun shows when, and only when, this
Administration stops (charging for NICS
checks) and stops illegally compiling the records of millions of
lawful gun buyers."

The next day President Charlton Heston flatly said on ABC "This
Week" that he was "in favor of" gun show background checks. Within
weeks, bills for gun show background checks - and "youth gun
access" bans - had been submitted in both houses of Congress!

*****

First amendment rights?
Was it the National Rifle Association that had ONE OF IT'S OWN
MEMBERS, a pro-gun activist, ARRESTED at its national convention
on, April 27, 2003 in Orlando, Florida for handing out PRO-gun
freedom literature from an organization known as the Free State
Project, Inc. The unlucky NRA member was Timothy Condon, a Marine
Corps Vietnam veteran and Director of Member Services for the
rapidly growing Free State Project.

*****

It was NRA PRESIDENT Dr. C.R. (Pink) Gutermuth, who saw "no problem
with gun registration," and was head of the Wildlife Management
Institute, who became NRA President in 1973.

Part of the problem began during the unlamented regime of former
Executive Vice President Warren Cassidy. NRA lobbyists under
Cassidy stopped opposing gun control bills and started offering NRA-
approved versions of the same legislation. The NRA started WRITING
ANTI-GUN LEGISLATION.

Politicians were lobbying their colleagues for the so-called
"instant check" These pro-gunners were pushing a gun control bill
that the NRA was strongly supporting.

Jim Baker of the NRA was quoted by USA Today on October 26, 1993 as
saying: "We already support 65% of the Brady bill, because it moves
to an instant check, which is WHAT WE WANT."

NRA spokesman Bill McIntrye said that the instant background check
also in the bill "will be a victory for gun owners.

From NRA Board member Tanya Metaksa.
I think this agreement was a victory for those who see flaws in the
current bill. This is a much different Brady bill. This bill
sunsets into what we've been supporting for several years [the
instant check]. If you look at it in the long range, IT'S OUR BILL
in five years.

*****

Recently the NRA tried to derail a case in Washington DC. The
"Parker v. District of Columbia" case. First by trying to have the
case consolidated with NRA controlled litigation, which would have
drug this case out for YEARS. When that failed, the NRA got behind,
and was pushing for the "DC Personal Protection Act" bill, which
would, in effect, remove the law that the "Parker v. District of
Columbia" case was based upon. Thereby preventing the "Parker v.
District of Columbia" case from going before the supreme court.

Why would they try to derail a case that ultimately DID overturned
a gun ban, and potentially settle the long disputed "individual
right v. the right of the militia" to keep and bear arms? Because
they said it was "too good" and might actually make it before the
supreme court? A supreme court (considering the make up of it at
present) where we had the best chance of them handing down a
favorable ruling, than we have had in decades. With the very real
potential, of the democrats gaining control in the next election
(thereby giving them the opportunity to choose the next judges) if
not now, WHEN?

*****

Now we come to the Veterans Disarmament Act. H.R. 2640
Just looking at who was sponsoring/co-sponsoring this bill. Why was
the NRA siding WITH the Brady bunch, Feinstein, Schumer, Boxer,
McCarthy, etc. When every PRO-gun organization was against it,
along with veterans organizations. Many members wanted to know WHY.
To my knowledge, the NRA never did answer these inquires.

Nevermind the far reaching implications, with the potential of
opening a Pandora's box, concerning the mental health issue
regarding veterans, as well as anyone else that has seen some kind
of mental issue. (children diagnosed with ADD? etc). You NO LONGER
have to have a court judge you adjudicated, now ANY authorized
person can take your rights away. Above all, the UNconstitutional
NICS check should not be EXPANDED upon, in the first place.

*****

Lets not forget the NRA BOARD MEMBER (Joaquin Jackson) who
indicated that assault rifles should only be in the hands of the
military and/or law enforcement. But since they ARE legal for
civilians to own, then civilians should be limited to 5 round
magazines.

And I quote.....
I think these assault weapons basically need to be in the hands of
the military and they need to be in the hands of the police, but
uh, as far as assault weapons to a civilian, it's alright if you
got that magazine capacity down to five.
.....end quote

*****

Katrina,
Everyone was screaming, "Where is the NRA" when guns were being
confiscated. Only AFTER the Second Amendment Foundation filed suit
did the NRA jump in. Then after a favorable court decision, the NRA
was sure proud of what they did. Follow up announcements from the
NRA taking ALL of the credit, they seemed to LEAVE OUT the fact
that the Second Amendment Foundation was involved at all. Hmmmm.....

*****

While reading the following, keep in mind that former NRA board
member Russ Howard, RESIGNED from the board. His words, "In the
past 5 years I've become increasingly concerned over NRA's penchant
for giving UNDESERVED grades to politicians who TRAMPLE on the 2nd
Amendment."

In California JOAN MILKE FLORES VS JANE HARMAN. 36TH CONGRESSIONAL
Flores is an anti-gun Republican who voted FOR the Los Angeles
Assault Rifle Ban. Harman is an anti- gun Democrat who got an "A"
rating from the NRA. Why an "A" rating? She was ANTI-GUN!!! Who
later said that she supports the assault weapon ban.

CHRISTINE REED VS TERRY FREIDMAN (State Assembly)
Reed was an anti-gun C-rated Republican Handgun Control Inc. member
who had been mayor of Santa Monica. Reed who should have been an
"F". Freidman was an F-rated incumbent Democrat who authored many
anti-gun bills

TRICIA HUNTER: Hunter was state senator whose bid to retain office
was based on high-profile attacks on "killer assault rifles". She
was rated "A-" by the NRA.

Howard Dean got an A+ from the NRA while governor, he supported the
assault weapons ban and Brady bill.

Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA). Did not vote when needed, but was
helped by the NRA come re-election.

Rep. Elton Gallegly (R-CA) voted FOR the brady bill (3 times) then
was helped by the NRA come re-election.

Congressman Elton Gallegly -- voted FOR the Brady bill and the
assault weapon ban and got an A-, and an endorsement. NRA's Terry
O'Grady said, 'Gallegly voted against us on Brady and the Crime
Bill, but he's always been with us before. We've decided to forgive
him, give him an A- and endorse him. SAY WHAT?

In Virginia, 15 legislators were given A ratings after they voted
FOR both the one-gun-a-month ban AND the shotgun ban. 41
legislators who voted for either or both bans got A ratings. 7 got
exceptional, "above the call of duty" ratings.

In North Carolina, some districts have two senators. In the '94
elections, District 20 was represented by Ted Kaplan and Marvin
Ward. Both favored assault weapon bans, handgun registration, and a
one-gun-a-month ban. Their challengers were solid pro-gunners Ham
Horton and Mark McDaniels (who fought tooth and nail for CCW).
Nevertheless, ILA upgraded both anti-gun incumbents to "A" (one was
initially a C), endorsed them, and supported them by mailing orange
alert cards to NRA members in their district. Kaplan and Ward lost
anyway, as incensed local groups like Grass Roots NC broke ranks
with ILA and helped elect the pro-gun challengers.

In NC in 1995, Senator Fountain Odom betrayed the 2nd Amendment by
gutting the CCW bill in his subcommittee. The bill had come over in
more or less tolerable format from the house. Odom fixed it so that
only a few police instructors could give the mandatory training.
NRA instructors were prohibited. He also worked to move un-
permitted CCW from a misdemeanor to a felony, prohibit CCW with any
alcohol "remaining" in the body, prohibit CCW in financial
institutions, mandate that all training be fully repeated for each
renewal, and gut statewide preemption. Limited preemption was
restored in the full judiciary committee, but Odom betrayed us
again, fixing it so CCW could be prohibited in any "park". Later on
the floor, to give ILA cover, Odom amended the training section to
allow NRA instructors to do the training. In 1996, Tanya Metaksa
gave Odom an A, an endorsement, and an orange ALERT postcard
mailing telling NRA members, "Senator Odom has demonstrated his
commitment to our right to self-defense...Here's how you can help
re-elect Fountain Odom -- a dedicated supporter of your Second
Amendment rights. Help the campaign...make a contribution...spread
the word to family, friends, and fellow gun owners... Sincerely,
Tanya K. Metaksa." Odom's still trampling on our rights. Now he's
pushing for a CCW liability law.

In Virginia in 1996, extreme "F" rated gun grabber Congressman Jim
Moran faced "A" rated, NRA life member John Otey. The American
Rifleman carried the following message: "THIS IS YOUR OFFICIAL PRO-
GUN BALLOT FOR THE FOLLOWING DISTRICT: VIRGINIA 8, US CONGRESS..NO
ENDORSEMENT"
NO endorsement for an A rated NRA life member challenging an F-
rated gun grabber???

In Virginia, 3 congressmen who voted many times against gun rights
and supported the Lautenberg ban, kept their A+ ratings (part of a
large club of turncoat A and A+ politicians). Tom Davis got an A
after voicing support for Brady and the assault weapon ban and
orchestrating a unanimous vote of support for the one-gun-a-month
ban as a Fairfax County Supervisor.

In Pennsylvania (1993), then Republican Minority Whip Matt Ryan
INTRODUCED an assault rifle ban. In 1994, he kept his A+ rating.

In 2006, the NRA rated Ron Paul (arguably the MOST constitutional
representative we have in office) with a "B" because he did not
follow along in lock step, when the NRA endorsed (what Ron Paul
saw) as an UNconstitutional bill. One that the NRA supported.
Instead, they endorsed his UNproved, UNtested, DEMOCRATIC opponent.

*****

John Dingell?
The NRA's Golden Boy? The former NRA Director? The same guy who
voted in favor of the 1994 "Assault" weapons ban and then resigned
from the Board of Directors the day after the vote? The same
Dingell who received the NRA's Harlon B. Carter Award, despite
voting FOR an outright gun BAN? The same Dingell that coined the
term "jack-booted thugs" when referring to the BATF? THAT Dingell?

NRA Board of Directors member Larry Craig, was one of the co-
sponsors of this bill, "Our Lady of Peace Act" Which was introduced
by Caroline McCarthy, and supported by Chuck Schumer along with the
usual band of anti Second Amendment slime like, Ted Kennedy,
Blanche Lincoln and Richard Durbin.
Don't know what it is/was? Look it up.

Can't forget the help we got from the NRA. In the "Protection of
Lawful Commerce in Arms Act" Not debating, if setting this kind of
precedent with legislation, protecting industries, is right. Not
debating whether the industry needed this protection. The point
here is, that there was a CLEAN bill (800) on the floor, AT THE
SAME TIME. Everyone agrees that either bill (397 or 800) would pass
through the senate, with no problem. So it depended on the house.
There are always more votes than there are co-sponsors of a bill.
S. Bill 800 had over 250 signed on as co-sponsors. MORE than enough
to pass it, CLEAN. Why did the NRA CHOOSE to back the anti-gun
laden bill, when there was a CLEAN alternative? For a true PRO-gun
advocate, this was a no brainer.

The NRA awarded Assemblyman Rod Wright its "Defender of Freedom"
Award. This is the same Rod Wright who supported UNconstitutional
limits on firearms purchases and background checks. This is the
same Rod Wright who authored a bill to increase licensing fees from
$3 to up to $100. Never mind the absurdity of bilking peaceable
citizens of hundreds of dollars for making a constitutionally
protected purchase. This champion of "freedom" apparently thinks
it's perfectly acceptable to license and charge Americans for
exercising their rights. The NRA's "Defender of Freedom" in 2001
voted against gun owners 62 percent of the time

Deborah Danuski, a Democrat from Lisbon, was endorsed by the anti-
handgun group, while also receiving an "A-" from the NRA on its
report card of candidates. As a matter of fact, in Maine, both the
NRA and Maine Citizens Against Handgun Violence supported 18 of the
same candidates!

In Colorado, where the NRA supported Senator Wayne Allard for
office, and even boosted his pro-gun lobby contributions to $37,000
since 1990, Allard stated flatly that he would support federal
legislation requiring gun registration for private gun sales at gun
shows. Is a legislator who wants to expand gun registration someone
who stands up for the rights of gun owners?

From Virginia, where the NRA Political Victory Fund touted the pro-
gun "accomplishments" of Delegate Jack Rollison. This is the same
Rollison who in a press release had the unmitigated gall to paint
Gun Owners of America and the Virginia Citizens Defense League, who
have endorsed his opponent Jeff Frederick, as extremists and
"milita-esque" organizations. This is the same Jack Rollison who
wants to ban your right to self-defense in any restaurant that
happens to sell liquor. And this is the same Jack Rollison who
voted correctly on only two out of eight issues important to
Virginia gun owners.

The NRA also gave their "Defender of Freedom Award" to one Kevin
Mannix, who ran for governor here in 2002. In 1999 Mannix was the
architect of the worst piece of gun control legislation in 10
years, in the Oregon House.

Second NRA-Quisling Org Post

What HARM can they do / have they done?

Let us first consider the "Uniform Machinegun Act of 1932" which provided for the registration of machine guns, that was adopted in a few states (Conn., Va., Md., Ark., and Montana and possibly others) which was developed with the support of the NRA, BEFORE the feds ultimately adopted the "National Firearms Act" in 1934.

The reason this stands out, is that MANY people believe that the "National Firearms Act of 1934" was the pivotal law, the first of the UNconstitutional laws. Thereby "starting" an ever widening path, allowing for further infringements. Not so, the NRA was first.

"The NRA supported The Federal Firearms Act of 1938, which regulates interstate
and foreign commerce in firearms and pistol, revolver ammunition.

The NRA supported legislation to amend the "Federal Firearms Act" in regard to handguns when it was introduced in August, 1963.

In 1965, the NRA continued its support of an expansion of the above legislation to include rifles and shotguns, as well as handguns.
Additionally the NRA supported the regulation of the movement of handguns in interstate and foreign commerce by:
1. Requiring a sworn statement, containing certain information, from the purchaser to the seller for the receipt of a handgun in interstate commerce;
2. Providing for notification of local police of prospective sales;
3. Requiring an additional 7-day waiting period by the seller after receipt of acknowledgment of notification to local police;
4. Prescribing a minimum age of 21 for obtaining a license to sell firearms and increasing the license fees;
5. Providing for written notification by manufacturer or dealer to carrier that a firearm is being shipped in interstate commerce, and;
6. Increasing penalties for violation.

NRA HELPED WRITE the 1986 federal law prohibiting the manufacture and importation of "armor piercing ammunition" adopted standards.

*****

The NRA has been hard at work, over the last few years, turning a RIGHT (guaranteed by our constitution) into a revocable PRIVILEGE. Many pro-gun people commend them for this. Others see it for what it really is.

The second amendment states. "The right of the people to keep and BEAR arms" It doesn't say "to keep and display arms" or "to keep and hide arms" or "to keep and disassemble and lock up your arms" or "to keep and use arms" it says "to keep and BEAR arms" Look it up in the dictionary. To "bear something" means to CARRY it. Any attempt at "interpreting" the meaning of this, is clearly an anti-gun tactic.

*****

"Project EXILE" IS the NRA's very own project.
NRA'S project (EXILE) supports ALL UNconstitutional gun laws. Handgun Control Inc. supports it TOO. NRA-ILA Executive Director James Jay Baker commented, "I'm glad that the president has finally agreed with the NRA that enforcing federal firearms laws makes sense. We've been pushing for more enforcement of existing laws. Did anyone tell them that ALL of the 20,000 gun laws are UNCONSTITUTIONAL??? OF COURSE Handgun Control Inc. supports this NRA project.

*****

Schools
Then NRA Executive Vice President Wayne R. LaPierre, Jr., made these damaging statements during his nationally televised speech at the Denver NRA Members Meeting May 1, 1999. "First, we believe in absolutely gun-free, zero-tolerance, totally safe schools. That means no guns in America's schools, period ... with the rare exception of law enforcement officers or trained security personnel.

All across the country, school boards and state legislators started doing precisely what LaPierre suggested: shutting down school riflery programs, prohibiting historical firearms displays, forbidding hunter safety training with unloaded guns, and banning gun possession by teachers and other adults with carry licenses. A good example of the long range implications of what LaPierre endorsed back then, is the tragedy at Virginia Tech.

Making schools a "gun free zone" where lunatics can murder with impunity, was his response to the Columbine shootings? What happened to advocating responsible carry, by responsible citizens???

*****

LaPierre also blessed gun show background checks by saying: "We will consider instant checks at gun shows when, and only when, this Administration stops (charging for NICS
checks) and stops illegally compiling the records of millions of lawful gun buyers."

The next day President Charlton Heston flatly said on ABC "This Week" that he was "in favor of" gun show background checks. Within weeks, bills for gun show background checks - and "youth gun access" bans - had been submitted in both houses of Congress!

*****

First amendment rights?
Was it the National Rifle Association that had ONE OF IT'S OWN MEMBERS, a pro-gun activist, ARRESTED at its national convention on, April 27, 2003 in Orlando, Florida for handing out PRO-gun freedom literature from an organization known as the Free State Project, Inc. The unlucky NRA member was Timothy Condon, a Marine Corps Vietnam veteran and Director of Member Services for the rapidly growing Free State Project.

*****

It was NRA PRESIDENT Dr. C.R. (Pink) Gutermuth, who saw "no problem with gun registration," and was head of the Wildlife Management Institute, who became NRA President in 1973.

Part of the problem began during the unlamented regime of former Executive Vice President Warren Cassidy. NRA lobbyists under Cassidy stopped opposing gun control bills and started offering NRA-approved versions of the same legislation. The NRA started WRITING ANTI-GUN LEGISLATION.

Politicians were lobbying their colleagues for the so-called "instant check" These pro-gunners were pushing a gun control bill that the NRA was strongly supporting.

Jim Baker of the NRA was quoted by USA Today on October 26, 1993 as saying: "We already support 65% of the Brady bill, because it moves to an instant check, which is WHAT WE WANT."

NRA spokesman Bill McIntrye said that the instant background check also in the bill "will be a victory for gun owners.

From NRA Board member Tanya Metaksa.
I think this agreement was a victory for those who see flaws in the current bill. This is a much different Brady bill. This bill sunsets into what we've been supporting for several years [the instant check]. If you look at it in the long range, IT'S OUR BILL in five years.

*****

Recently the NRA tried to derail a case in Washington DC. The "Parker v. District of Columbia" case. First by trying to have the case consolidated with NRA controlled litigation, which would have drug this case out for YEARS. When that failed, the NRA got behind, and was pushing for the "DC Personal Protection Act" bill, which would, in effect, remove the law that the "Parker v. District of Columbia" case was based upon. Thereby preventing the "Parker v. District of Columbia" case from going before the supreme court.

Why would they try to derail a case that ultimately DID overturned a gun ban, and potentially settle the long disputed "individual right v. the right of the militia" to keep and bear arms? Because they said it was "too good" and might actually make it before the supreme court? A supreme court (considering the make up of it at present) where we had the best chance of them handing down a favorable ruling, than we have had in decades. With the very real potential, of the democrats gaining control in the next election (thereby giving them the opportunity to choose the next judges) if not now, WHEN?

*****

Now we come to the Veterans Disarmament Act. H.R. 2640
Just looking at who was sponsoring/co-sponsoring this bill. Why was the NRA siding WITH the Brady bunch, Feinstein, Schumer, Boxer, McCarthy, etc. When every PRO-gun organization was against it, along with veterans organizations. Many members wanted to know WHY. To my knowledge, the NRA never did answer these inquires.

Nevermind the far reaching implications, with the potential of opening a Pandora's box, concerning the mental health issue regarding veterans, as well as anyone else that has seen some kind of mental issue. (children diagnosed with ADD? etc). You NO LONGER have to have a court judge you adjudicated, now ANY authorized person can take your rights away. Above all, the UNconstitutional NICS check should not be EXPANDED upon, in the first place.

*****

Lets not forget the NRA BOARD MEMBER (Joaquin Jackson) who indicated that assault rifles should only be in the hands of the military and/or law enforcement. But since they ARE legal for civilians to own, then civilians should be limited to 5 round magazines.

And I quote.....
I think these assault weapons basically need to be in the hands of the military and they need to be in the hands of the police, but uh, as far as assault weapons to a civilian, it's alright if you got that magazine capacity down to five.
.....end quote

*****

Katrina,
Everyone was screaming, "Where is the NRA" when guns were being confiscated. Only AFTER the Second Amendment Foundation filed suit did the NRA jump in. Then after a favorable court decision, the NRA was sure proud of what they did. Follow up announcements from the NRA taking ALL of the credit, they seemed to LEAVE OUT the fact that the Second Amendment Foundation was involved at all. Hmmmm.....

*****

While reading the following, keep in mind that former NRA board member Russ Howard, RESIGNED from the board. His words, "In the past 5 years I've become increasingly concerned over NRA's penchant for giving UNDESERVED grades to politicians who TRAMPLE on the 2nd Amendment."

In California JOAN MILKE FLORES VS JANE HARMAN. 36TH CONGRESSIONAL
Flores is an anti-gun Republican who voted FOR the Los Angeles Assault Rifle Ban. Harman is an anti- gun Democrat who got an "A" rating from the NRA. Why an "A" rating? She was ANTI-GUN!!! Who later said that she supports the assault weapon ban.

CHRISTINE REED VS TERRY FREIDMAN (State Assembly)
Reed was an anti-gun C-rated Republican Handgun Control Inc. member who had been mayor of Santa Monica. Reed who should have been an "F". Freidman was an F-rated incumbent Democrat who authored many anti-gun bills

TRICIA HUNTER: Hunter was state senator whose bid to retain office was based on high-profile attacks on "killer assault rifles". She was rated "A-" by the NRA.

Howard Dean got an A+ from the NRA while governor, he supported the assault weapons ban and Brady bill.

Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA). Did not vote when needed, but was helped by the NRA come re-election.

Rep. Elton Gallegly (R-CA) voted FOR the brady bill (3 times) then was helped by the NRA come re-election.

Congressman Elton Gallegly -- voted FOR the Brady bill and the assault weapon ban and got an A-, and an endorsement. NRA's Terry O'Grady said, 'Gallegly voted against us on Brady and the Crime Bill, but he's always been with us before. We've decided to forgive him, give him an A- and endorse him. SAY WHAT?

In Virginia, 15 legislators were given A ratings after they voted FOR both the one-gun-a-month ban AND the shotgun ban. 41 legislators who voted for either or both bans got A ratings. 7 got exceptional, "above the call of duty" ratings.

In North Carolina, some districts have two senators. In the '94 elections, District 20 was represented by Ted Kaplan and Marvin Ward. Both favored assault weapon bans, handgun registration, and a one-gun-a-month ban. Their challengers were solid pro-gunners Ham Horton and Mark McDaniels (who fought tooth and nail for CCW). Nevertheless, ILA upgraded both anti-gun incumbents to "A" (one was initially a C), endorsed them, and supported them by mailing orange alert cards to NRA members in their district. Kaplan and Ward lost anyway, as incensed local groups like Grass Roots NC broke ranks with ILA and helped elect the pro-gun challengers.

In NC in 1995, Senator Fountain Odom betrayed the 2nd Amendment by gutting the CCW bill in his subcommittee. The bill had come over in more or less tolerable format from the house. Odom fixed it so that only a few police instructors could give the mandatory training. NRA instructors were prohibited. He also worked to move un-permitted CCW from a misdemeanor to a felony, prohibit CCW with any alcohol "remaining" in the body, prohibit CCW in financial institutions, mandate that all training be fully repeated for each renewal, and gut statewide preemption. Limited preemption was restored in the full judiciary committee, but Odom betrayed us again, fixing it so CCW could be prohibited in any "park". Later on the floor, to give ILA cover, Odom amended the training section to allow NRA instructors to do the training. In 1996, Tanya Metaksa gave Odom an A, an endorsement, and an orange ALERT postcard mailing telling NRA members, "Senator Odom has demonstrated his commitment to our right to self-defense...Here's how you can help re-elect Fountain Odom -- a dedicated supporter of your Second Amendment rights. Help the campaign...make a contribution...spread the word to family, friends, and fellow gun owners... Sincerely, Tanya K. Metaksa." Odom's still trampling on our rights. Now he's pushing for a CCW liability law.

In Virginia in 1996, extreme "F" rated gun grabber Congressman Jim Moran faced "A" rated, NRA life member John Otey. The American Rifleman carried the following message: "THIS IS YOUR OFFICIAL PRO-GUN BALLOT FOR THE FOLLOWING DISTRICT: VIRGINIA 8, US CONGRESS..NO ENDORSEMENT"
NO endorsement for an A rated NRA life member challenging an F- rated gun grabber???

In Virginia, 3 congressmen who voted many times against gun rights and supported the Lautenberg ban, kept their A+ ratings (part of a large club of turncoat A and A+ politicians). Tom Davis got an A after voicing support for Brady and the assault weapon ban and orchestrating a unanimous vote of support for the one-gun-a-month ban as a Fairfax County Supervisor.

In Pennsylvania (1993), then Republican Minority Whip Matt Ryan INTRODUCED an assault rifle ban. In 1994, he kept his A+ rating.

In 2006, the NRA rated Ron Paul (arguably the MOST constitutional representative we have in office) with a "B" because he did not follow along in lock step, when the NRA endorsed (what Ron Paul saw) as an UNconstitutional bill. One that the NRA supported. Instead, they endorsed his UNproved, UNtested, DEMOCRATIC opponent.

*****

John Dingell?
The NRA's Golden Boy? The former NRA Director? The same guy who voted in favor of the 1994 "Assault" weapons ban and then resigned from the Board of Directors the day after the vote? The same Dingell who received the NRA's Harlon B. Carter Award, despite voting FOR an outright gun BAN? The same Dingell that coined the term "jack-booted thugs" when referring to the BATF? THAT Dingell?

NRA Board of Directors member Larry Craig, was one of the co-sponsors of this bill, "Our Lady of Peace Act" Which was introduced by Caroline McCarthy, and supported by Chuck Schumer along with the usual band of anti Second Amendment slime like, Ted Kennedy, Blanche Lincoln and Richard Durbin.
Don't know what it is/was? Look it up.

Can't forget the help we got from the NRA. In the "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act" Not debating, if setting this kind of precedent with legislation, protecting industries, is right. Not debating whether the industry needed this protection. The point here is, that there was a CLEAN bill (800) on the floor, AT THE SAME TIME. Everyone agrees that either bill (397 or 800) would pass through the senate, with no problem. So it depended on the house. There are always more votes than there are co-sponsors of a bill. S. Bill 800 had over 250 signed on as co-sponsors. MORE than enough to pass it, CLEAN. Why did the NRA CHOOSE to back the anti-gun laden bill, when there was a CLEAN alternative? For a true PRO-gun advocate, this was a no brainer.

The NRA awarded Assemblyman Rod Wright its "Defender of Freedom" Award. This is the same Rod Wright who supported UNconstitutional limits on firearms purchases and background checks. This is the same Rod Wright who authored a bill to increase licensing fees from $3 to up to $100. Never mind the absurdity of bilking peaceable citizens of hundreds of dollars for making a constitutionally protected purchase. This champion of "freedom" apparently thinks it's perfectly acceptable to license and charge Americans for exercising their rights. The NRA's "Defender of Freedom" in 2001 voted against gun owners 62 percent of the time

Deborah Danuski, a Democrat from Lisbon, was endorsed by the anti-handgun group, while also receiving an "A-" from the NRA on its report card of candidates. As a matter of fact, in Maine, both the NRA and Maine Citizens Against Handgun Violence supported 18 of the same candidates!

In Colorado, where the NRA supported Senator Wayne Allard for office, and even boosted his pro-gun lobby contributions to $37,000 since 1990, Allard stated flatly that he would support federal legislation requiring gun registration for private gun sales at gun shows. Is a legislator who wants to expand gun registration someone who stands up for the rights of gun owners?

From Virginia, where the NRA Political Victory Fund touted the pro-gun "accomplishments" of Delegate Jack Rollison. This is the same Rollison who in a press release had the unmitigated gall to paint Gun Owners of America and the Virginia Citizens Defense League, who have endorsed his opponent Jeff Frederick, as extremists and "milita-esque" organizations. This is the same Jack Rollison who wants to ban your right to self-defense in any restaurant that happens to sell liquor. And this is the same Jack Rollison who voted correctly on only two out of eight issues important to Virginia gun owners.

The NRA also gave their "Defender of Freedom Award" to one Kevin Mannix, who ran for governor here in 2002. In 1999 Mannix was the architect of the worst piece of gun control legislation in 10 years, in the Oregon House.

Admittedly, some of this information is "historical" in nature. The present administration had nothing to do with it. On the same note, some of this information is CURRENT. Does this information show a distinct pattern? An agenda? If so, it's one that I'm not happy with at all.

Is this the kind of "representation" that YOU want/expect, are PAYING FOR? There are more anti 2nd amendment bills that the NRA HELPED WRITE, or WROTE themselves. Other ANTI_GUN candidates that they endorsed. But why, if this doesn't open your eyes, nothing will.

*****

Why is it, that some NRA supporters will not accept the truth (even when presented with facts) about how the NRA has been selling our gun rights down the river for a VERY long time?

I believe that everyone would agree, that the NRA is recognized as the 800 lb. Gorilla, in the fight for our gun rights. This is the very same organization that the NRA supporters have been paying money to for YEARS. Paying big bucks to be a "Life Member" Signing up their children/grand-children, almost as soon as they are born. Everyone KNOWS who the NRA is.

They are relying on the NRA to be supportive in the fight for our gun rights. They consider the NRA to be the last bastion of hope. They will NOT admit that the NRA "might not" be on their side, because if they find that the NRA is NOT actually on our side,
then....is there....really....any....hope?

Maybe these MILLIONS of members should take it upon themselves to fight for their rights?

Third NRA-Quisling Org Post

Quotations are original from the "American Rifleman" article and to NRA Executives.

NRA quotes are in italics & bold to better find/read them. Red and blue are added by el-tee to emphasize certain points.
__________________________________________________

NRA Supported the National Firearms Act of 1934

In fact, they've supported gun rights infringements "since...1871."

by Angel Shamaya
Founder/Executive Director
KeepAndBearArms.com

March 29, 2002

"The National Rifle Association has been in support of workable, enforceable gun control legislation since its very inception in 1871."

NRA Executive Vice President Franklin L. Orth
NRA's American Rifleman Magazine, March 1968, P. 22

INTRODUCTION

When I recently used the term "NRA-supported" in reference to the National Firearms Act of 1934, some readers asked why I would assert such a thing. They believed NRA had no involvement in gun control politics back then. Because they and others didn't believe me, I prepared this historical record #65533; to prove my claim and inform others.

I agree that blaming today's NRA management for transgressions of their predecessors is wrong. But confronting NRA management's longstanding support of gun control is a first step toward understanding that "My NRA" of today views the Second Amendment differently than America's Founders did #65533; and they have for a very long time.

Don't take my word for it.

_____________________________________________

KeepAndBearArms.com

The National Rifle Association has been called "the largest and oldest gun control organization in America" by more than a few gun owners. A fair amount of evidence supports their claim.

As the Gun Control Act of 1968 was nearing the President's desk, NRA was being accused by Senator Robert Kennedy (D-NY) of not supporting "any legislation to try and control the misuse of rifles and pistols in this country." Naturally, NRA needed to respond to the allegation, and they responded with great detail and unusual candor.

To deflect Senator Kennedy's assertion, NRA published an article by their magazine's Associate Editor entitled "WHERE THE NRA STANDS ON GUN LEGISLATION" elaborating at length about NRA's longstanding support for a wide variety of gun controls that included gun and gunowner registration, waiting periods, age restrictions, licenses for carrying a firearm or having a firearm in your vehicle, increased penalties for violating gun laws, regulating ammunition and more.

Following are several telling quotes from the March 1968 American Rifleman NRA's premier magazine, then and now and brief analysis of a few of them. The complete article from which these quotes were taken can be found further below. Scanned images of this article are also linked below.

First, let's clear up the matter of NRA's support of NFA'34:

"The NRA supported The National Firearms Act of 1934 which taxes and requires registration of such firearms as machine guns, sawed-off rifles and sawed-off shotguns. ... NRA support of Federal gun legislation did not stop with the earlier Dodd bills. It currently backs several Senate and House bills which, through amendment, would put new teeth into the National and Federal Firearms Acts." American Rifleman, March 1968, P. 22

Unless someone has evidence to prove that the NRA lied to its membership in its premier magazine, let the record show that the NRA got behind the first unconstitutional federal gun law in America and then bragged about having done so, many years later, decades after the law had been continually used to violate the rights of untold numbers of American citizens, including, surely, their own members.

The "Dodd" to which the above quote refers is the late Senator Thomas J. Dodd. Senator Dodd mimicked the Nazi Weapons Law of 1938, applied the underlying principles to the Gun Control Act of 1968, and took a leading role in getting the bill signed into federal law.

"The NRA supported The Federal Firearms Act of 1938, which regulates interstate and foreign commerce in firearms and pistol or revolver ammunition..." (P. 22)

The term "interstate commerce" is the BATF's fundamental justification for its firearms branch, a "color of law" excuse for the many assaults of innocent people they've conducted.

"The NRA supported the original 'Dodd Bill' to amend the Federal Firearms Act in regard to handguns when it was introduced as S.1975 in August, 1963. Among its provisions was the requirement that a purchaser submit a notarized statement to the shipper that he was over 18 and not legally disqualified from possessing a handgun." (P. 22)

That's one form of registration.

"In January, 1965, with the continued support of the NRA, Senator Dodd introduced an amended version of his first bill, now designated 5.14 and expanded to cover rifles and shotguns as well as handguns." (P. 22)

That's an extension of one form of registration to all types of guns not already under registration schemes at the time.

In order to "put new teeth into the National and Federal Firearms Acts, "NRA management also pressed the federal government, in 1968, to:

"Regulate the movement of handguns in interstate and foreign commerce by:

"a. requiring a sworn statement, containing certain information, from the purchaser to the seller for the receipt of a handgun in interstate commerce;"

That's a registration list.

"b. providing for notification of local police of prospective sales;"

That's another registration mechanism.

"c. requiring an additional 7-day waiting period by the seller after receipt of acknowledgment of notification to local police;"

Wait a week to exercise your inalienable rights.

"d. prescribing a minimum age of 21 for obtaining a license to sell firearms and increasing the license fees;"

That is called Age Discrimination. In essence, in 1968, the NRA was saying "You can go die over in Vietnam for your country at age 18, but you can't sell a constitutionally protected item to your own neighbors for three more years."

"e. providing for written notification by manufacturer or dealer to carrier that a firearm is being shipped in interstate commerce;"

"Carrier" includes the U.S. Postal Service #65533; another ripe opportunity for the federal government to collect names of gun buyers.

"f. increasing penalties for violation." (P. 22-23)

What do you think America's Founders would say about the NRA calling for "increasing penalties for violation" of unconstitutional gun laws?

At least as early as 1930, the NRA supported:

"...requir[ing] the purchaser of a pistol to give information about himself which is submitted by the seller to local police authorities..."

Historically noteworthy is the fact that the Germans were simultaneously doing the same thing, laying the groundwork for a Hitler to happen.

and

"...requir[ing] a license to carry a pistol concealed on one's person or in a vehicle..." [emphasis mine]

Ever heard of a license to carry a firearm in a vehicle? NRA has, over 70 years ago.

Not only has NRA management long supported gun owner registration, they've worked hard for it and still do. And NRA's current management still supports "penalties" for exercising your rights, which they now call "zero tolerance enforcement". (See Project Exile Condemnation Coalition and the Project Exile Archives for more information.)

"Many other instances of NRA support for worthwhile gun legislation could be quoted. But these suffice to show that Senator Kennedy's 'terrible indictment' of the NRA is groundless." (P. 23)

"Worthwhile gun legislation"?

The "terrible indictment" of NRA, as you will see in the full text below, was that NRA didn't support gun control. NRA set that matter straight with a loud thud. NRA Management still to this day supports a wide variety of ever-complex gun controls. And despite taking in hundreds of millions of dollars a year, they've still never managed a Supreme Court court victory based on the Second Amendment's historically-valid "individual right" argument. It's no wonder, their version of the Second Amendment is different than that of America's Founding Fathers.

Do notice the subtitle of NRA's 1968 article below. A "97-year record" of supporting gun control, to NRA's management, was a matter of pride. Some things never change:

"We think it's reasonable to support the federal Gun-Free School Zones Act. ... We think it's reasonable to expect full enforcement of federal firearms laws by the federal government. ... That's why we support Project Exile -- the fierce prosecution of federal gun laws...we think it's reasonable because it works. ... We only support what works and our list is proud."

NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre
Congressional testimony, May 27, 1999
Hearing Before 106th Congress
House of Representatives
Committee On The Judiciary
Subcommittee On Crime
First Session
(source)

NOTE: This article has been out of print for decades and is very hard to find, so we include the full text. This information is distributed free of charge, is not being used for profit and is strictly for educational purposes. Scanned images of this article can be accessed by clicking the following links: Page 22 (319K), Page 23 (275K). (In fact, if you'd like, you can see a scanned image of the color cover of the magazine where this gun control braggadocio was published.)

BEGIN TEXT OF PAGES 22 AND 23 OF NRA'S
AMERICAN RIFLEMAN MAGAZINE, MARCH 1968 EDITION

###

WHERE THE NRA STANDS ON GUN LEGISLATION
97-year record shows positive approach to workable gun laws

By ALAN C. WEBBER
Associate Editor
THE AMERICAN RIFLEMAN

"I think it is a terrible indictment of the National Rifle Association that they haven't supported any legislation to try and control the misuse of rifles and pistols in this country."

"The NRA supported The National Firearms Act of 1934 which taxes and requires registration of such firearms as machine guns, sawed-off rifles and sawed-off shotguns..."

American Rifleman
March 1968, P. 22

That flat assertion was made by Senator Robert Kennedy (N.Y.), Jan. 16 in addressing the New York State University law school in Buffalo.

Terming Kennedy's accusation "a smear of a great American organization," NRA Executive Vice President Franklin L. Orth pointed out that "The National Rifle Association has been in support of workable, enforceable gun control legislation since its very inception in 1871."

A few days later, Orth seconded the request of President Lyndon Johnson, made Jan. 17 in his State of the Union message, for a curb on mail-order sales.

"The duty of Congress is clear," Orth said, "it should act now to pass legislation that will keep undesirables, including criminals, drug addicts and persons adjudged mentally irresponsible or alcoholic, or juveniles from obtaining firearms through the mails."
"The NRA supported The Federal Firearms Act of 1938, which regulates interstate and foreign commerce in firearms and pistol or revolver ammunition..."

American Rifleman
March 1968, P. 22

The NRA position, as stated by Orth, emphasizes that the NRA has consistently supported gun legislation which it feels would penalize misuse of guns without harassing law-abiding hunters, target shooters and collectors.

Here is the record over the years:

Item: The late Karl T. Frederick, an NRA president, served for years as special consultant with the Commissioners on Uniform State Laws to frame The Uniform Firearms Act of 1930.

Adopted by Alabama, Indiana, the District of Columbia, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, and Washington, the Act directly attacks the "mail order murder" to which President Johnson referred in his State of the Union Message. It specifically forbids delivery of pistols to convicts, drug addicts, habitual drunkards, incompetents, and minors under the age of 18. Other salient provisions of the Act require a license to carry a pistol concealed on one's person or in a vehicle; require the purchaser of a pistol to give information about himself which is submitted by the seller to local police authorities; specify a 48-hour time lapse between application for purchase and delivery.

Item: The NRA supported The National Firearms Act of 1934 which taxes and requires registration of such firearms as machine guns, sawed-off rifles and sawed-off shotguns.

Item: The NRA supported The Federal Firearms Act of 1938, which regulates interstate and foreign commerce in firearms and pistol or revolver ammunition, and prohibits the movement in interstate or foreign commerce of firearms and ammunition between certain persons and under certain conditions.

"NRA supported the original 'Dodd Bill' to amend the Federal Firearms Act..."

American Rifleman
March 1968, P. 22

More recently, the spate of articles on gun legislation has spread the erroneous impression that the NRA has always opposed Senator Thomas J. Dodd's attempts to keep guns out of the hands of juveniles. This is simply untrue. The facts are these:

The NRA worked closely with the Senate Subcommittee on Juvenile Delinquency, of which Senator Dodd was chairman, in its investigation into the relationship between juvenile crime and the availability of firearms.

The NRA supported the original "Dodd Bill" to amend the Federal Firearms Act in regard to handguns when it was introduced as S.1975 in August, 1963. Among its provisions was the requirement that a purchaser submit a notarized statement to the shipper that he was over 18 and not legally disqualified from possessing a handgun.

In January, 1965, with the continued support of the NRA, Senator Dodd introduced an amended version of his first bill, now designated 5.14 and expanded to cover rifles and shotguns as well as handguns.
"Senator Kennedy's 'terrible indictment' of the NRA is groundless."

American Rifleman
March 1968, P. 23

The parting of the ways came only when Senator Dodd introduced still another bill (S.1592) in March, 1965, which drastically intensified his earlier bills. The NRA opposed S.1592 and subsequent bills introduced by the Connecticut Senator. If passed into law, S.1592 would, among other things, have ended all interstate shipments of firearms except to persons holding a Federal firearms license. It also would have prohibited even a Federal licensee from selling a pistol to anyone residing in another State.

NRA support of Federal gun legislation did not stop with the earlier Dodd bills. It currently backs several Senate and House bills which, through amendment, would put new teeth into the National and Federal Firearms Acts. The essential provisions which the NRA supports are contained in 2 Senate bills introduced by Senator Roman L. Hruska (Nebr.) and House bills introduced by Congressmen Cecil R. King (17th fist.-Calif.) and Robert L. F. Sikes (1st Dist.Fla.). These bills would:

1. Impose a mandatory penalty for the carrying or use of a firearm, transported in interstate or foreign commerce, during the commission of certain crimes.

2. Place "destructive devices" (bombs, mines, grenades, crew-served military ordnance) under Federal regulation.

3. Prohibit any licensed manufacturer or dealer from shipping any firearm to any person in any State in violation of the laws of that state.

4. Regulate the movement of handguns in interstate and foreign commerce by:

a. requiring a sworn statement, containing certain information, from the purchaser to the seller for the receipt of a handgun in interstate commerce;

CONTINUED ON PAGE 23 (text below)
THE AMERICAN RIFLEMAN
(March 1968)

b. providing for notification of local police of prospective sales;

c. requiring an additional 7-day waiting period by the seller after receipt of acknowledgement of notification to local police;

d. prescribing a minimum age of 21 for obtaining a license to sell firearms and increasing the license fees;

e. providing for written notification by manufacturer or dealer to carrier that a firearm is being shipped in interstate commerce;

f. increasing penalties for violation.

Through bulletins to its members, the NRA has often voiced approval and support of State and local ordinances designed to keep firearms out of the hands of undesirables. A bulletin of Feb. 20, 1964 notified Virginia members of the introduction in the Virginia House of Delegates of a bill requiring a 72-hour waiting period for purchase of a handgun. In the bulletin, which outlined the provisions of the bill, NRA Secretary Frank C. Daniel commented as follows:

"A number of States and local jurisdictions have a waiting period of varying length for the purchase of a concealable firearm; and, where intelligently and reasonably administered, it has not proved to be an undue burden on the shooter and sportsman. ... The bill from a technical point of view adequately protects citizens of good character from any arbitrary denial of their right to purchase a handgun. It should be judged on the basis of whether or not a waiting period for the purchase of a handgun is desirable for the State."

The bill was killed in the House Feb. 25, 1964.

When bills were introduced in the Illinois legislature in February, 1965, to provide mandatory penalties for crimes committed while armed with a firearm, the NRA expressed its opinion to Illinois members in these terms:

NRA Secretary Daniel

"The purpose of these bills is to penalize the criminal misuse of firearms and weapons, and not the firearms themselves. This is a sound and reasonable basis for regulation and is aimed in the right direction--that of criminal conduct when armed. Senate Bill No. 351 and House Bill No. 472 are worthy of the support of the sports-men of the State of Illinois."

The bills were passed by the Senate and House but were vetoed by Gov. Otto Kerner a few months later.

Many other instances of NRA support for worthwhile gun legislation could be quoted. But these suffice to show that Senator Kennedy's "terrible indictment" of the NRA is groundless.

END TEXT OF PAGES 22 AND 23 OF NRA'S
AMERICAN RIFLEMAN MAGAZINE, MARCH 1968 EDITION

You can find this article and many other documented accounts of NRA management's support of gun control at http://www.KeepAndBearArms.com/NRA and http://www.KeepAndBearArms.com/Exile.
_____________________________________________________

This is 'your' NRA. The self-imposed, self-aggrandizing "staunch defender of your Second Amendment rights".

Nothing has changed. The NRA continues to strive for "workable" and "common sense" gun control laws, just as it has since its inception.....in their own words.

It is what it is.

Fourth NRA-Quisling Org Post

Not Rational Anymore
Sarah Thompson, M.D.

A lot of people claim that NRA stands for "Not Relevant Anymore".

I wish it were true. Unfortunately, the NRA is about as irrelevant as Chuck Schumer, Dianne Feinstein and Frank Lautenberg – and much more effective at promoting gun control. The NRA is relevant; but it’s Not Rational Anymore.

Thanks to the NRA, we have the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968, Brady registration, and Project Exile. Now, in addition, we will likely have six more years of Orrin Hatch and four more of Mike Leavitt.

That’s right. The NRA spent a lot of money and went to a great deal of trouble to support and endorse Utah’s elite anti-gun duo. They helped Hatch get the Republican nomination for his re-election and helped keep Leavitt from losing his nomination.

Most of you are probably familiar with Senator Hatch, and his abominable S. 254, the Juvenile InJustice Bill. Now that the NRA has done everything possible to give Hatch cover for his gun-grabbing ways, I expect the bill will explode out of the conference committee and land right in the middle of Clinton’s desk. Hatch’s own version of the bill (not including amendments by other anti-gun senators) includes the following:

Mandatory trigger locks with each sale
Mandatory registration of all gun show and pawn shop transactions
Mandatory registration of all firearms repairs
Mandatory 5 year prison sentence for parents whose children responsibly use certain semiautomatic firearms without written permission.
Increasing BATF funding by $40 million
Mandatory lifetime ban on firearms ownership for anyone who commits certain crimes as a juvenile
Hatch’s excuse is that these are "pro-gun" provisions that will "protect" gun owners. Apparently he believes that if this bill is passed, the anti-gun forces will simply go away.

Other notable accomplishments of Utah’s senior senator include:

Overseeing the Waco cover-up and declaring that the government had done nothing wrong
Voting against a prohibition on US troops serving in combat under UN command
Voting to confirm notoriously anti-gun Surgeon General, David Satcher, an advocate of fraudulent anti-gun "junk" science.
Voting to confirm liberal, activist judges including Richard Paez, Marsha Berzon, and Margaret Morrow
Refusing to allow the Freedom from Union Violence Act to emerge from the Senate Judiciary committee, thus endorsing violence as legitimate political activity.
Supporting the Chemical Weapons Treaty
Supporting taxpayer funding for the National Endowment for the Arts
This no doubt explains why the NRA flew Wayne LaPierre out to Salt Lake City to defend Orrin Hatch against angry gun owners. It no doubt explains why Charlton Heston sent me a letter explaining that "Senator Hatch has been one of the most committed, principled and consistently effective advocates of your Second Amendment rights on Capitol Hill. He’s stood with the NRA and fought to protect your constitutional freedoms when others lacked the courage or the stamina to do so."

The last time I saw Sen. Hatch, he waggled his index finger at me and told me I was too stupid to understand how things are done in Washington and I should trust him to do the right thing. Maybe he’s right; I certainly don’t understand how registering my guns, rewarding the murderous BATF, and throwing me in prison for taking my son shooting with a 10-22 protects my rights.

Was Hatch at least better than his opponents? Absolutely not! Both (defeated) challengers Greg Hawkins and Frank Guliuzza are committed gun rights advocates who made their opposition to gun control a highlight of their campaigns. Hawkins failed to force a primary by only 53 votes out of 3500. By endorsing the only anti-gun candidate, and helping to eliminate the pro-gun candidates, the NRA made sure we’ll have a choice between an anti-gun Republican and an anti-gun Democrat in November.

While it’s not much of an excuse, it is true that Hatch was a supporter of gun rights twenty years ago when he was a freshman senator. This is more than can be said for Governor Mike Leavitt, who has never been an advocate of gun rights.

While Leavitt is best-known nationally for his support of an internet tax, here in Utah he’s leading the gun control charge. He has actively supported the following:

Banning concealed carry in schools and churches (regardless of the wishes of the school or church authorities)
Prohibiting firearms possession for anyone convicted of one of a long list of misdemeanors, including spanking a child
Increasing fees for carry permits, background checks, instructor permits, etc.
A lifetime ban on firearms possession for anyone committed to a mental institution, even if the commitment was wrongful or the person recovered fully
Allowing public schools to question children about their parents’ firearms ownership and use without parental notification or permission
Prohibiting firearms possession by juveniles adjudicated delinquent without a jury trial
Expanding prohibitions on handgun possession to include long gun possession
Calling a special session of the legislature specifically to enact gun control legislation
Yet, the NRA donated $10,000 to Leavitt’s reelection campaign, and then endorsed him, writing: "Your record of accomplishment reflects the priorities and beliefs of the NRA membership, and we believe you are uniquely suited to be the Republican nominee for Governor of Utah in 2000…We look forward to continuing our relationship with you in the years ahead to continue preserving and protecting Utah’s rich Second Amendment and hunting traditions."

Once again, all three of Leavitt’s opponents, including current challenger, Glen Davis, are committed gun rights advocates, who focused on gun rights in their campaigns, attacked Leavitt’s anti-gun record, and put their commitments in writing. Had the NRA chosen to support a pro-gun candidate, that person might now be Utah’s Republican gubernatorial candidate.

The bottom line is that in Utah’s two most critical contests, the NRA went out of its way to support and endorse the ONLY anti-gun candidate in each race! This is sickening beyond words.

What is going on here? I have no way of knowing for sure, although I hear those Potomac Swamp vapors are toxic to higher brain functions. But I have some ideas…

The NRA’s business is gun control. Without gun control, the NRA would be reduced to teaching firearms safety and use, hunter education, and sponsoring sporting events. These are important and necessary functions, and the NRA does a good job with these non-political tasks. But the big money, the media attention and the glamour are in gun control. No gun control means no million dollar contracts, no dinners with celebrities, no lavish expense accounts, and no TV appearances.

The NRA needs gun control. So the NRA perpetuates gun control. They support anti-gun politicians, and when those anti-gun politicians propose more gun control, the NRA sends out more letters screaming for help, and another few million dollars roll in. What a scam!

Of course in order for the scam to work for very long, the NRA also needs to appear to be doing something. They need to be able to claim that they helped to elect pro-gun politicians. This means that the NRA is necessarily more concerned with supporting a winner than with supporting pro-gun candidates. Thus the NRA supports whomever they think will win, rather than the most pro-gun candidate.

The Utah governor’s race is a perfect example. Mike Leavitt is solidly anti-gun, but the media insisted he was a "sure thing", with an 80% approval rating. So the NRA endorsed him, instead of any of the pro-gun candidates. They goofed. Gun owners hate "Slick Mikey", and booed him right off the stage. They forced Leavitt into a primary with pro-gun candidate Glen Davis. The NRA destroyed the best chance they had to elect a pro-gun governor of Utah, and may end up irreparably damaging the rights of Utah’s gun owners. Even the Utah Shooting Sports Council, the NRA’s usually docile ally, is furious at this betrayal.

These shameful shenanigans allow the NRA actually to support gun control by colluding with the media and the gun-grabbers. The anti-gun forces moan endlessly about the NRA and its "extremist" views, even though the NRA is neither "extreme" nor even very "pro-gun". The media then define the sides as NRA vs. Handgun Control, Inc. (HCI), giving us a choice between NRA sponsored gun control and HCI sponsored gun control. This completely eliminates the possibility of NO gun control from the discussion, and thus from the minds of the public. If your choices are limited to NRA gun control and HCI gun control, you can bet you’ll end up with – you guessed it – gun control!

The problem here is not ordinary NRA members, many of whom are solid pro-gun, pro-liberty folks, many of whom I consider friends. These people don’t believe that Mike Leavitt is "uniquely suited to be the Republican nominee for Governor of Utah". They’re hard-working, responsible Americans who don’t deserve to have their hard-earned money spent on anti-gun politicians.

If you’re a Utah NRA member, you gave over $.50 to Leavitt this year! Meanwhile, all three of the pro-gun candidates combined spent less than the $10,000 the NRA gave this anti-gun zealot. What might have happened had the NRA decided to support one of the pro-gun challengers? (Consider that Glen Davis got 46% of the vote while spending only $3,000. It’s mind boggling!)

What happened in Utah must not be allowed to happen in other states. It’s time the NRA’s reprehensible support for gun control and anti-gun politicians is exposed to NRA members and to the public. It’s time people realize that the NRA is doing more harm than good. It’s time to send the NRA the same message we send to people like Bill Clinton and Ted Kennedy – NO MORE GUN CONTROL! Otherwise the NRA may end up endorsing Hillary Clinton this fall!

Please write to the following people to protest the NRA’s support for gun control:

Mr. Randy Kozuch
NRA/ILA Director of State and Local Affairs
National Rifle Association of America
11250 Waples Mill Road
Fairfax, VA 22030

Mr. James Baker
NRA/ILA Director
National Rifle Association of America
11250 Waples Mill Road
Fairfax, VA 22030

You can also call 1-800-392-8683.

Nearly three years ago, I wrote the following Letter to the NRA:

When you decide to stop selling our birthright,

When you decide to stop supporting permits,

When you proclaim that each and every one of us is innocent until proven

guilty; that we need not subject ourselves to "background checks",

registration or bureaucracy,

When you refuse to tolerate evil,

When you are willing to call evil by its rightful name,

When you are willing to call genocide by its rightful name,

When you stop distracting yourselves and others with peripheral issues,

When you learn that a compromise with the devil is no compromise at all,

Then, and only then, will you have my support.

Until that time, may your chains rest lightly.

I’m still waiting for a response.

And for Not Rational Anymore to come to its senses.

(C) 2000, Sarah Thompson, M.D., and The Righter

Dr. Thompson is Former Executive Director of the Utah Gun Owners Alliance.

http://nrawol.net/

?

Is there a different gun advocacy group that you recommend? Further, being sick of things doesn't mean you should be a jerk. Just tell people the reasons why you're upset.

Actually...

...I recommend the Gun Owners of America (GOA) and the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) for their lobbying and legal efforts to actually roll-back gun laws. For educational purposes, I recommend both the aforementioned, along with the Jews For the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO).

I long ago opted for an in-your-face confrontational style on such matters, after spending multi-decades trying to calmly convince people to wake up.I find that far more attention is garnered overall by the slap across the chops.

A man may get angry, but that is a good thing because it causes him to focus on the cause and the point made/info given and perhaps reevaluate, unless that man is a pussy, then he merely slinks off after an ankle-bite or two.

Any who discount information due to the 'delivery style', I am not interested in wasting time on. Things are way to far along for kid-gloves and coddling, as I see it.

As to advising people why I am puke-sick of their ignorance, well, I believe I have done so...time and time again.

I make fundamental points, non sugar-coated and often scathing, about the bottom-line of things, avoiding the peripheral superfluous stuff...unless I am deliberately being a smart-ass whilst making a specific point.

All that said, I appreciate your follow-up question. It shows that you are a man willing to evaluate, as indicated, above.

Agree to disagree

Your information was much appreciated but I think you'll find your in your face style doesn't have the desired effect you hope it does. It just makes people hate you and your cause, which I'm pretty sure is one of my causes too and why I find being disrespectful in argument childish and fruitless. But we'll have to agree to disagree.

If You...

...are disagreeing with 'my style' that is fine, because I don't care about people's emotive reactions (hate is amongst them).

If you are disagreeing about the NRA information, I would be interested in hearing your reasoning.

If people hate me for whatever reason that is fine. I simply don't care.

If people hate 'my cause' and/or discount information based on the bearer/vehicle/delivery style, well, that speaks directly to the underlying ethic of those people, not the bearer of the info or 'my cause'.

Information is neutral. It can be received either positively or negatively, but that reception to the content is based on the knowledge, understandings, experience, beliefs, ethic, philosophy etc, of the receiver.

I have sound and deliberate reasons to do things the way I do and I am not desirous of fleshing them out here. The desired effect of what I do has been confirmed sufficient times to support my reasoning and to expose the falsity of what many people claim to support.

Where it comes to Liberty issues, I call them as I see them.

information

information is neutral but we are not. I was disagreeing with your tactics. You may think they work. That's fine. I think you're wrong.

Fair Enough...

...and understood.

Take care.

Thanks

I look forward to reading this. Thank you. I guess this is my spasmodo fit or whatever you were accusing me of.

Bottom line is

if Rand is on the ballot in 2016 and he has Jesse Benton anywhere near his campaign I ,who have donated thousands to his father's campaigns, will only be counted upon for one thing. My vote.

If not us than who?

That says something right

That says something right there. Rand needs to keep Jesse far away from any of his campaigns. However, it is interesting to note the changes in some of McConnell's positions. I'm not sure if that has more to do with Jesse or Rand though.

It is a agame to keep you on

It is a agame to keep you on the hook. You know, say one thing, do another....just like the other politicians.

Justin, why are you viciously

Justin, why are you viciously attacking the best pro-liberty US Senator? True he's not Ron but he's still the best we got. I can understand some harsh criticism, Rand is not above that. But calling the man a turn coat and boycotting him? Even worse - suggesting we don't give him campaign money? Do you really want to have something like this as the next Senator of KY: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-13-7Aj2ks

You two are both right.

Us "Rand Haters" are probably overboard on our criticism of Rand. But we are just so disheartened at the loss of opportunity that Rand pissed away. I just expected so much more from Ron's offspring.

I think the Rand Lovers may be overboard on there admiration of him though. No one around here posts every media showing of Jim Demint.

Jim Demint 2016!

Sounds pretty bizarre, right?

Come on now Jim Demint is a

Come on now Jim Demint is a good dude but he's no where near as good as Rand. And Rand is not Ron.

In many ways, yes.

But the recent 'Israel' comments and actions may be worse than JD. I am really trying to see the good in Rand now though. Granger pushed me over the edge. She found me hanging out on jrd's jammin' thread where I am really malleable and did her Rand-pushing shpeal on me and it worked. So I am trying to focus on Rand's good points now.

RAND 2016!!

See?

Quit pouting

And direct your negative fire at those who truly deserve it. There are 99 other senators who are worse when it comes to liberty than Rand. Choose a couple to use your attack dog tactics on rather than going after liberty-lovers' best ally in the senate. Common sense.

_________________________________

Freedom - Peace - Prosperity