7/4/05

American Flag flying upside down as signal of DISTRESS


The debate with the NRA began with their refusal to take part in The Petition, essentially one of grievances about the many violations of the 2nd Amendment, being sent to John Ashcroft. The "Petition" had been a matter of discussion amongst a number of 2nd Amendment Groups, Constitutional Scholars, and other writers. They queried the NRA to gain support of the "Petition." The NRA response of no support or interest was sent to and circulated amongst that discussion group.

It is the assertion of the NCA that the NRA is not interested because it has no leverage to apply should the Petition fail. They have chosen no "or-else" options for use in response to any unconstitutional actions by the governments, other than those few unsuccessful choices they outlined to us. The discussion began here:


  • Peter [Mancus - noted attorney/author] sent out a message sent him regarding his inquiry about whether or not the NRA was going to participate in the Ashcroft Petition (10/10/01):

    > Thank you for contacting NRA's Institute for Legislative Action. In
    > regard to your suggestion, NRA has not taken a stance of the petition
    > posted to keepandbeararms.com, and we will not be posting it to our
    > website unless we were to get involved. While we are not working
    > against this effort, we do not believe that it will do much to
    > further our cause.
    >
    > Katherine A. Twardon
    > NRA-ILA Grassroots Division

[Cornet Joyce wrote the following broadside about the NRA response]:


The most blatantly obvious failing of the NRA is very simple: They have no responses (nor are they prepared mentally to formulate them) to the inevitable occasions of confrontation that result when the maintenance of Liberty requires the proper application of justice. The prosecution of forward motion through the momentary impasse of confrontation MUST be enjoined by the claimant with a consequence in the form of: "or else." The NRA has no viable response to that next step of the prosess of confrontation wherein the transgressor replies with the question "or else WHAT."

The NRA hides behind the comment of "not furthering their cause" because the petition raises the spectre of being found psychologically incapable of drawing the proper kind of line beyond which lies the repartee beginning with "or else." For the NRA there is no "or else." Geometrically they have their line ninety degrees "out of whack."

More profoundly depressing in light of their loudly touted numbers is the notion that many of the NRA membership do not want there to be an "or else." I challenge the reader to show me anywhere, other than the threat of court action (which is like jumping into the ocean to reason with the sharks about shark attacks) where the NRA has ever said: "This is what will happen if you continue on this course of unconstitutional behavior." I assert that many NRA members are so comfortable with their existing conditions that they are afraid of making any waves that might upset their lifestyles.

Bear with me as I sketch some metaphorical equivalents to the NRA:
  1. Rodney King: "Can't we just get along?"
  2. Neville Chamberlain: "Peace in our time!"
  3. "The Paper Tiger"
  4. "Let George Do It"- {If the job's too tough for you to handle, you got a job for me..)
  5. Students demonstrating against our most recent war action: "We should have meaningful dialogue rather than war," (relegating the Twin Towers to the level of a pollution problem), accompanied by the admonition: "don't you dare do that again."
  6. The "fixed" family pet, bovine "steer," or equine "gelding."
  7. Tories in the Colonies
  8. The Maginot Line

Frankly I feel that we who might be in the area should make a visit to the NRA headquarters building, befitting those made by Colonists upon the Tories, with the goal of smearing large gobs of bullfeces on their exterior walls. It is obvious that they are fundamentally a bunch of cowards.

The result of "their cause" has been the successful creation, without significant impediment, of some 20,000 unconstitutional laws. They inadvertantly support the tyranny by bowing to Ex-Post Facto law without even a whimper, while the voice of Blackstone thunders down through history about Ex-Post Facto law being a bellwether of the march of the tyrants.

Imagine, if you will, several million people standing in a line, straight as an arrow, Heston in the FRONT and the NRA lawyer in the REAR (leaning on the Constitution) facing a full scale avalanche.

Everyone in the NRA is "right behind Heston." MAJOR FLAW!!! The result of COWARDICE, COMPLACENCY, and LAZINESS! THEY HIDE BEHIND EACH OTHER!!! The avalanche goes right around them, as they stand there in full dress, saying, "see, we persevere against the onslaught."

The answer is very simple. Their line needs to be parallel to that of Lexington Green, not perpendicular to it. The onslaught stops, "or else."

C. Joyce II


The following unsigned response was received from NRA-ILA by the NCA (10/12/01):

    From: "ILA-Contact"
    To: "Cornet Joyce"

    Actually, you couldn't possibly be further from the truth in many (if not all) aspects of your message. NRA has several "or else" responses, of which you are likely very aware, but appear to selectively ignore. We tell lawmakers that they need to support the Second Amendment "or else" our members will elect someone who will. We also tell lawmakers not to pass laws we feel are unconstitutional "or else" we will challenge them through the courts (a practice to which you seem to object, even though it has been successful in many cases). We tell corporations and organizations not to promote or support anti-gun activities "or else" we will alert our membership, a committed force of more than 4 million law-abiding Americans that are more than happy to express their opposition to promoting or supporting an anti-gun agenda in any number of lawful ways. The fact that we might not choose your own, personal "or else" strategy simply means we do not agree with using such a strategy. Nor do the vast majority of our more than 4 million members, as you seem to imply. Apparently, you do not agree with a membership driven organization setting its agenda based on the views of the majority of its members. If that is your actual opinion, then we simply disagree with your views, as would, again, the majority of our members.

    Further, your assessment of NRA as an organization, and, apparently, its more than 4 million members, is completely off base. The use of terms such as "cowardice," "complacency," and "laziness" are simply inappropriate and inaccurate. Perhaps you don't know anything about NRA because you are not a member, or perhaps you are, but simply choose to ignore the fact that our Association remains the largest, most effective organization working in defense of our Right to Keep and Bear Arms. We only presume you are not a member because there does not appear to be any record of a "Cornet Joyce II" in our databse, but maybe you go by another listing. If you are a member, and are not pleased with the efforts of NRA, please feel free to give some specific suggestions as to what you think we should do (and please include your membership number).

    Most of your message below is little more than vague generalities, and contains little of substance or specificity. In addition, you have been shown to be wrong in your claim that NRA has no "or else" message, so if you care to explain exactly what your suggested "or else" message would be, that would be helpful.

    Your "challenge" has been answered, and we await your detailed explanation of your suggested "or else" message.


At this point, we chose NOT to answer their unsigned response, though it did create quite a bit of discussion in our group about the NRA. We submitted to the group:

    10/13/01
    Folks:

    I'm not going to answer the NRA response because they ignored my caveat that the "or else" has to take place AFTER the other avenues fail them, and because they chose to open the dialogue with a gratuitous assertion implying that I had lied in most, if not all of my essay.

    I would like to say this to those of you who have shared very interesting points, pro and con, about the NRA in response to the letter: Their choice of Project Exile, to me and my group, is totally unacceptable. Why? Because they, by their behavior in this and many other projects, give tacit approval to unconstitutional laws. They have also, by their approval of the status quo, approved ex-post facto laws in a number of instances, granting a "Pass" to continued legislative sedition and subversion of our Fundamental Documents.

    Under those circumstances I would have to conclude that the "majority driven" group about which I was lectured has a majority of firearms owners, some three million or more, who will probably cough up their equipment when it comes time to license their handguns, DEWAT their precious M-1s, and allow the confiscatation of the remainder of their equipment.

    Therefore the many millions of firearms owners we count upon to resist Federal confrontation should be decreased by at least three million in number. We should also conclude that if they aren't with us, they may be, if only by their usual tacit approval of the status quo, against us.

    Most Sincerely,
    C. Joyce II
That, needless to say, was only the beginning, because within a few weeks the NRA was throwing its support behind the Socialist land grab called CARA. For details about that discussion, use your return button and click on the CARA button in the NRA "menu."


To return to our home page, click: