7/4/05

American Flag flying upside down as signal of DISTRESS


A more telling discussion began several weeks later. The matter of the NRA supporting the Congressional CARA legislation was brought up in the NCA discussion group by an associate of the North Caucus. He had also complained bitterly to the NRA. At that point I chose to not only respond to the subject but send it to our general discussion group assembled by Peter Mancus. The response to that discussion by the NRA was no less than totally embarassing. One former NRA leader finally blew up and swore at one of the writers, ending the discussion for once and for all.


    11/7/01
    Dear all:
    --- Chester L McWhorter Sr wrote:
    >
    > Subject: CARA
    > The NRA has targeted its support behind a piece of
    > proposed legislation
    > which is intended to buy up private land and put it
    > into the ownership of
    > federal and state governments.

It is at this juncture, having been accused by the NRA in personal correspondence of not being able to prove they do not have a viable "bottom line," that I have no choice but to label the NRA as a mainstream socialist organization. They have no bottom line "or-else" because they are comfortable with the activities of our government as they presently take place.

How could I be so bold? Socialist organizations and socialist people lean upon their governments for services in a way that precludes individual liberty and enterprise. Socialists actually believe that their government knows best what is "good for them," and are willing to sell their life, liberty and pursuit of happiness off to reside in the safe nest of a governmentally controlled society.

Here we have the NRA, an organization that should have stayed with its prime objective of training our nation how to shoot and how to hunt, now participating in such things as "Project Exile," a tacit, fiat approval of all the unconstitutional laws forced upon them by their governments. Here we have the NRA, an organization that should have stayed out of the legal arena, now encouraging the Federal Government to confiscate lands, a situation that is already totally out of control at all levels with the constant invocation of "public domain" upon people in property issues that are purely a matter of taking a persons property and giving it to various business interests.

I will take one more step. Our government, by its actions, has labeled ALL American citizens as "the enemy." I give you airport security, searches, expanded snooping, ad nauseum (I will be submitting an essay called "We are the enemy" shortly). I submit that the NRA, by ignoring ex-post facto, unconstitutional, and subversive laws, has by its action agreed that the American Citizen is THE ENEMY.

I find that the most repulsive action the NRA has yet taken. I/we are NOT the enemy. Right now, Arabian appearing people are the enemy. Or, should I say, in the matter of a major accuser of Janet Reno and others suddenly dying and ending up proped up on his toilet in a fetal position, there are factions in our government that are OUR enemy?

The NRA should be ashamed of itself for joining Federal activities like CARA and supporting laws that were unconstitutionally booked.

I further submit, sadly, that the NRA, by joining governments in socialist activites, now appears much like the enemy of the Republic and its people.

I remain,
Yr. Most Ob'dt Sr'vt,
C. Joyce II

The general group of Peter Mancus got involved in the discussion. Peter responded to my letter with the following:

    From: "Peter Mancus"
    To: "Cornet Joyce"
    Subject: Re: Not Really American-CARA
    Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2001 21:30:16 -0800

    Well stated! Hard, if not impossible, to dismiss intelligently on any ground!
    --Peter Mancus, ex-NRA member for reasons similar to those expessed by Mr. Joyce

One of the Mancus discussion group, Frederick Blume, was blamed by the NRA for my letter to the NRA. A former Board Member, of the NRA, Dave Workman responded to the letter, though, with some incredibly embarassing gratuitous assertions, as follows:

    Subject: RE: Not Really American-CARA
    Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 07:20:13 -0800

    Dear Mr. Blume:

    I just read your astonishing missive on the NRA's involvement in the CARA legislation, and am stunned. Can it be true that you have joined the small ranks of those possessed of isolationist intellect, to presume that simply because an organization has taken a position on a segment of a piece of legislation with which you disagree, that suddenly that organization is the Devil incarnate?

    That, sir, would make you no better than the Taliban.

    As you may know, the NRA Board of Directors wrestled with this issue at its recent meeting in Virginia. The board adopted a policy that essentially backed away from CARA; a policy that I personally hinted at in conversations and e-mails with some of my board colleagues and at least one member of NRA staff.

    That policy is simple: NRA cannot support any program that uses public funds to purchase private land that will be placed in the public domain unless that property, regardless of its location, is open to hunting and fishing. Period. No debate, no negotiation, no compromise.

    I argued that even if a parcel of land was located in downtown New York, if it is acquired with public money (which would include your and my tax dollars) for public use, then it MUST be open for anyone with a gun or fishing rod, no exceptions.

    Evidently, several of my colleagues saw things exactly the same way without my even having to be in attendance at the Board meeting (a scheduling conflict kept me back home, alas).

    Adopting this policy -- which some may translate into a slap on staff's wrist for supporting such landmark legislation without benefit of first having NRA board direction -- ought to solve everyone's angst. Provided, of course, that one does not wear the blinders of stubbornness and/or intolerance.

    The debate may be moot, anyway. From all indications, the legislation is going to die in the House because national attention is on far more important matters at the moment, including a tanking economy and the war against terrorism.

    In closing, I must say that it strikes me as terribly unfair that so many have collectively branded the entire NRA with accusations and name calling (i.e. "mainstream socialists") when so many on the NRA Board took strong positions against CARA.

    Ironically, many of those who have flooded NRA with calls, letters and e-mails on this subject are not even NRA members, yet they expect, nay insist, that NRA blindly accede to their demands.

    Sincerely,
    Dave Workman
    Member of the Board

As you can see, this was the beginning of a most heated discussion amongst the Constitutional Scholars, various 2nd Amendment groups, and other writers. The assertion that Patriots are like the Taliban was evidence to me that it was time to write We are the Enemy, and the NRA was just following the governmental bouncing ball. I chose to respond to this one since Mr. Workman had deigned to sign his letter.

    11/11/01
    Dear Mr. Workman:

    The "astonishing missive" to which you initially refer was not written by Mr. Blume. It was authored by me on behalf of the North Caucus of America. A number of us, including Mr. Blume, the NCA, the noted author-attorney Peter Mancus, elements of GOA, RKBA, CCOPS, and a number of other Constitutional scholars and attorneys, have been discussing legal activities of the nation and the legal issues created by legislative disobedience of the Constitution. We have been discussing all the options left to those of us who would, by the strength and bond of our oaths, defend the Constitution and the Republic. Ordinarily we of the North Caucus do not answer, as with the first letter we received from some anonymous writer with the NRA-ILA, any essays that employ gratuitous assertions or other "flames" of attitude.

    Since you seem to be unaccustomed to the rules of discussion, I should inform you that your gratuitous assertion that I was comparing your organization to Satan Incarnate, or that we are equivalent to the Taliban, can be responded with an equally gratuitous denial such as "you are absolutely insane," or "your blather is pure Pferd Scheissen." That being accomplished, the debate would end as suddenly as it began.

    But, since there are hundreds of readers following this truly ethereal discussion, I should like to publicly examine and respond to your comments. I shall attend to them seriatim as best I can, beginning with the comment where you compare any patriotic movement to sustain the Republic with the activities of the Taliban. I chose to call any digressions "side-bars" in a play on technical phrases employed by my legal friends in this group.

    Might I now take the sidebar to point out that you appear to have begun your discourse with a "hysterical response" of the fashion you decide to condemn in your last letter (ll/9/01), where you state:

    • "You have no point to make. You have an opinion, and you have expressed it. Your somewhat hysterical response to my simple question, however, allows me to rest my case. Further discussion with you on this subject would be without merit, and hardly productive."

    You seem to have condemned yourself, sir, in that you began your discussion with what appears to some to be a "somewhat hysterical response." I only mention that condemnation at this point to establish the apparent one-sidedness of your approach to the discussion. End of "side-bar."

    In your opening sentence you appear to have equated the activities of folks like Jefferson, Paine, Hancock, Revere, the Sons of Liberty, and the Massachusetts "Minuteman," as well as the modern militia to which President Bush directed his attention the other evening, to that of the Taliban. You have equated all of us, past and present, who wish to keep our nation free from Global Governance, to people who would crash a plane into thousands of innocents. That, sir, is absolutely inexcusable. I, for one, would be delighted to take you out to the back lot, put on the gloves, and teach you not to slander those people to whom we owe these very freedoms in which some in your organization seem to ignorantly wallow. It is statements precisely like yours that would have resulted in the formal duels to which more than one of our Founding Fathers attended and to which people appealed when their honor was slandered by others.

    Metaphorical comments and baseless assertions like those you used in your opening and closing statements should be scraped off ones shoes before entering the forum.

    Now to your letters:

    • 11/8/01:
      ------------
      >Dear Mr. Blume:

      > I just read your astonishing missive on the NRA's involvement
      >in the CARA legislation, and am stunned. Can it be true that you have
      >joined the small ranks of those possessed of isolationist intellect,
      >to presume that simply because an organization has taken a position
      >on a segment of a piece of legislation with which you disagree, that
      >suddenly that organization is the Devil incarnate?

    I would like to interject here, sir, that you are correct about the isolationist intellect having small ranks. The Constitution was created by the minority to protect the minority from Democratic majority rule, the precursor to Socialism. Your implication is that to be so minded is a fault is an unsupported assertion to be cast aside.

      > That, sir, would make you no better than the Taliban.
      > As you may know, the NRA Board of Directors wrestled with this
      >issue at its recent meeting in Virginia. The board adopted a policy
      >that essentially backed away from CARA; a policy that I personally
      >hinted at in conversations and e-mails with some of my board
      >colleagues and at least one member of NRA staff.
      > That policy is simple: NRA cannot support any program that uses
      >public funds to purchase private land that will be placed in the
      >public domain *unless* that property, regardless of its location, is
      >open to hunting and fishing. Period. No debate, no negotiation, no
      >compromise.

    Your employment of the word *unless* reveals that you and many of the Board support the Federalization of private lands.

    The idea that governments take property from the individual is a delicate matter because it takes that which belongs to the individual and ascribes it to the community. While it is established that governments may take private property, with compensation, to promote the public interest, the statism emerges with the decision that the Federal Government knows best what is good for the people. When that process becomes one of the amassing of huge federal lands, and there is the implication that the process is being done for, or orchestrated by such global interests as the UN, Environmentalists, etc., there is no alternative but to call it socialism. Under those circumstances, your verb "disagree" is inappropriate. We not only "oppose," but we "abhor" all such Federal activities. When we find our governments, previously employing "eminent domain" as the tool to remove people from their property, now adding to that process the formal abuse of the laws made available to the "Drug War," we have no alternative but to demand it be halted "or else."

    The NRA, by supporting this operation on the part of the Federal Government, is supporting not only socialism, but its growth. The caveat by the NRA requiring the government insure that the CARA acquired land is kept accessible to the hunter is the maintenance of the wants and needs of the hunter in exchange for the ongoing process of socialism.

    I should like to assert that under these circumstances the NRA would be more than willing to have all private property federalized as long as they could hunt and fish. Quite frankly that sounds as if the NRA would be comfortable in the Soviet Union provide they could hunt and fish. I would ask the question in response:

    1) WHAT IS YOUR BOTTOM LINE? What if it was YOUR property, and you were told to move off it. Would you refuse? It has happened, sir. Would you acquiesce as long as you were still able to hunt and fish on it?

    Sidebar: The NCA, followed by JPFO, CCOPS, and many noted editorialists have stated their bottom line: CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE.

    FYI: BOTTOM LINE

    (End of side-bar)

    Mr. Workman continues:

      > I argued that even if a parcel of land was located in downtown
      >New York, if it is acquired with public money (which would include
      >your and my tax dollars) for public use, then it MUST be open for
      >anyone with a gun or fishing rod, no exceptions.
      > Evidently, several of my colleagues saw things exactly the same
      >way without my even having to be in attendance at the Board meeting (a
      >scheduling conflict kept me back home, alas).
      > Adopting this policy -- which some may translate into a slap on
      >staff's wrist for supporting such landmark legislation without benefit
      >of first having NRA board direction -- ought to solve everyone's
      >angst.

    This discussion in which you, I, and Mr. Blume are engaged has nothing to do with any angst resulting from majority rule within the NRA Board, the various opinions upon that board, or who did or did not agree with you. The only people who could have the right to be uncomfortable about the voting process is those members of the NRA to whom it may for some reason or another have appeared to have been irregularly accomplished.

    "Angst" is the wrong word in this forum. This is not a matter of discomfort. This is a matter of ANGER resulting from the NRA supporting socialism. With that, I will now assert that the NRA is supporting subversive activity on the part of our Federal government. Your activities subvert the Constitutional direction given our Republic.

      >Provided, of course, that one does not wear the blinders of
      >stubbornness and/or intolerance.

    Blinders, Sir? I am so sorry you used that metaphor. I think if you sat and thought about it a little bit you would come to see that those who are stubborn, or, for that matter, intolerant, particularly in matters of the subversion of the Constitution, are by far and away the most all-encompassing observers to be found (they watch everything). Blinders are worn by many, including those whose agendae include the specific or ignorant imposition of Unconstitutional law upon the nation (I would hope the NRA falls in the latter category).

      > The debate may be moot, anyway. From all indications, the
      >legislation is going to die in the House because national attention is
      >on far more important matters at the moment, including a tanking
      >economy and the war against terrorism.

    It is NOT moot, sir. You are saying that this problem will just "go away" now, so why bother with the debate. We are saying that just because the law will be put in a drawer for a year, an option the NRA has used in any NUMBER of yearly projects, does not mean that the subversion is eliminated. You must eliminate the law, end support of all the other unconstitutional laws, and enjoin an "or-else" response to any attempts to create unconstitutional law.

    There is only one law (not the 20,000 that the NRA accepts) necessary so far as the 2nd Amendment is concerned. "The person who uses a firearm in a felony will be removed permanently from the society." Be it exile to the most remote Aleutians or capital punishment would have to be legally determined. CARA must be eliminated, and the matter of properties held by the government reverted back to Constitutional limitations upon Federal land ownership.

      > In closing, I must say that it strikes me as terribly unfair
      >that so many have collectively branded the *entire* NRA with
      >accusations and name calling (i.e. "mainstream socialists") when so
      >many on the NRA Board took strong positions against CARA.

    What other word is there than *entire.* The board voted. That represents the NRA policy. The NRA is incorporated. That means it is much like an individual. Those who booked strong positions against CARA should quit the NRA, or they will be painted with the one brush that exists for the individual. That is how corporations "work."

    You have not made any attempt to show where the NRA is NOT acting like a mainstream socialist or statist organization. That was the original premise of my "missive." You gratuitously relegate the essay to "name calling." You have not, by definition of socialism, addressed that matter. That is the justification by which Mr. Blume asked you what kind of government we have. More below.

      > Ironically, many of those who have flooded NRA with calls,
      >letters and e-mails on this subject are not even NRA members, yet they
      >expect, nay insist, that NRA blindly accede to their demands.

    Would it be stretching the NRA imagination too far to suggest, assert, if you will, that there are millions of independent people out here, recognizing the size of the NRA, who wish they would support the Republic (I pledge allegiance) so they could join them? Right now, the NRA has every appearance of the extended arm of the socialists that run this nations government and media.

    "Blindly?" Another horribly chosen metaphor. But, considering the weight of historical evidence, including that decision in the matter of Dr. Emerson (ignoring the trashing of unalienable in the same breath), if there is any blindness, it would be caused by those blinders you folks seem to be wearing.

      >Sincerely,
      >Dave Workman
      >Member of the Board

Next we have the following exchange between C. Joyce II, Mr. Workman and Mr. Blume:

    on 11/8/01 6:03 PM, Frederick P. Blume Jr. at rishidev@mho.com wrote:
    > That would make me no better than the Taliban?
    > Just listen to you. Making such a statement just goes to prove my
    > point.
    > Also, you didn't answer my question. What form of government was
    > founded here?

To which Mr. Workman replies:

    >And my statement to you does not prove any point you made. You may
    >think it does, but you can think anything you want. Doesn't make you
    >right.

Mr. Workman is incorrect here. He did NOT address any of the issues that make the NRA appear to be socialistic. His choice not to answer the assertions means they still stand. Sadly, responses to the "missive" seem to be spiraling down toward the juvenile level of discourse. Not infantile by any means, but surely expositions in inability to logically respond to any assertions.

    >A Constitutional Republic. 5th grade American history, 7th grade
    >American government. Senior high school Civics. Are you thinking
    >about going somewhere with this, or are you just running laps?
    >Or do I win a prize?

Actually, Mr. Workman, that was totally unnecessary. Mr. Blume was trying to give you a hint. We are, as you said, A Constitutional Republic. The adverb Constitutional being the driving force in the discussion, and the noun Republic being the results that are desired.

The NRA has exhibited the inverse function, "Unconstitutional Socialism," by granting fiat to the existence of 20,000+ unconstitional laws and negotiating a mutually agreeable land confiscation deal with a government that continues to ignore its oath to the upholding of the Constitution.

As a matter of citation to the point of apparent NRA willingness to support unconstitutional law, I would like to proffer the morning news:

http://www.jointogether.org/gv/news/alerts/reader/0%2C2061%2C546435%2C00.html

"The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence announces that the vast majority of Virginians -- including gun owners and NRA supporters -- strongly endorse criminal background checks at gun shows"

    >And please refresh my memory. You are an annual or Life member of
    >NRA????

I have a second question here, Mr. Workman:

2) Why is this important?

Most people, based upon their experience with intellectual abuse, would conclude that you were trying to assert that Mr. Blume, or I, could not enter this forum with you without being a member of the NRA. If credentials were essential to this discussion, it should have been brought out as basic rules of the forum.

If this was just a matter of casual curiosity, I would respond that our memberships to any organizations were not germane to the discussion.

If this question was a matter of positioning yourself for the judges of the debate, this is not a debate in which I would take part.

    >Dave W.

And now to the concluding note, mentioned at the sidebar during the opening remarks:

    >frederick:

    > You put a question to me and I answered it.
    >
    > I put one back to you, and I get a stream of invective that
    >might, to the casual observer, appear close to paranoia. Sir, I would
    >hardly want your voice suppressed, and anyone who knows me (you
    > don't), would immediately explain to you that such a notion is not in
    >my philosophy. Firm believer in the First Amendment.

The appearance of paranoia is an acceptable observation. It goes along with "Congress fled their buildings when anthrax spores were found, almost a symptom of paranoia;" or "Some people are becoming paranoid about the eavesdropping that is being proposed on phones and internet;" none of which have anything to do with the matter at hand. The only problem is that the use of such verbs, particularly in light of all the other gratuitously offered comments that were made available in your response, would lend the listener to think that aspersions were being cast upon Mr. Blume.

Please take this point to heart: If you are so defensive of the First Amendment, how does your (NRA) zeal in that matter compare to your zeal toward the 2nd? I assert, sir, that they are nearly day and night apart from one another. I suggest the physical metaphor: "diametrically opposite."

    > You have no point to make. You have an opinion, and you have
    >expressed it. Your somewhat hysterical response to my simple question,
    >however, allows me to rest my case. Further discussion with you on
    >this subject would be without merit, and hardly productive.

I made points. You did not respond to them with any counter points other than some of the proceedings that led to the NRA decision.

Finally, sir, it is our (NCA) "opinion" that the NRA should adhere to the advice of the Marine Corps, namely: "stay under the porch." "If you can't play with the big dogs, stay under the porch."

The metaphor means "please limit your massive organization to the wonderful programs of firearms education for which you have 130 years of experience of administration." Please spend your energies on making sure that Americans who want firearms have available to them the training that assures them to be responsible firearms owners. Leave the legal battles over Constitutional law to the Big Dogs: GOA, COA, RKBA, JPFO, CCOPS, TRT, etc.

    >Dave W.

Most sincerely,
Yr. most ob'dt sr'vt,
C. Joyce II
NCA

Shortly thereafter, Mr. Blume attempted to respond to a question by Mr. Workman, resulting with this most disappointing NRA response (at that point we ended discussions completely because others of the NRA were tossing verbal handgrenades into the arena, making the whole effort totally unprofitable):

From: Dave Workman [mailto:handgnr@nwlink.com]
Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2001 7:09 AM
To: Frederick P. Blume Jr.
Subject: Re: Not Really American-CARA

on 11/9/01 7:52 PM, Frederick P. Blume Jr. at rishidev@mho.com wrote:
> You're on the board, right? How am I to take your inquiry about the status
> of my membership (if any) in NRA? I know you better than you think! [snip text]

Hey, Frederick.
I just figured you out.
You're fucking crazy.
have a nice day.



We of the North Caucus of America have no choice but to conclude that the NRA is a socialist organization. Their support of big government, their juvenile responses to serious inquiry, and their abrogation of 2nd Amendment rights is irrefutable evidence.

C. Joyce II
North Caucus of America

To return to our home page, click: