From: rats@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (Morris the Cat)
Subject: Re: Gun-Free School Zones and Gun Cases
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 18:46:18 GMT


In <1992Apr14.145648.11834@convex.com> Mike Tighe states:

|>NRA doesn't tell us, it's membership, anything when it comes to making
|>deals that many members would consider utterly dispicable.
|>Like:

|<deleted>

|You forgot the BIG one. The 1986 Machine-gun ban! Snuck in at the last
|minute as part of a compromise to get the Firearm Owners Protection Act
|passed. I remember it well, I dumped my NRA membership shortly thereafter.
|With "pro-gun" friends like them, who needs HCI?

No, I didn't forget it; it was a judgement call (Maybe) on NRAs
part.

NRA worked a long time to get some form of McClure-Volkmer into the
hands of the President. The bill evolved through time.

NRAs "compromise" in 1986 was the removal of the handgun interstate
sale provision. NRA believed that made the bill acceptible to the
majority of legislators. For that bit of backtracking, ABC news made
NRA Executive VP J. Warren Cassidy the "Man of the Week." (Or was it
the ILA head?)

At the last minute, a scumbag Floridean Representative, Larry Smith (D),
attached the ban on new machineguns via a dubious voice vote; a call
from a pro-gun Rep. for a recorded vote was either unheard or ignored.

NRA made the decision to go with the McClure-Volkmer with the MG ban
under the thinking that "something is better than nothing" and that
we could fight the MG ban later.

NRA apparently decided that the MG ban was best fought in the Courts
rather than the public, where the news media holds the reins of
opinion molding. At least, that was what sounded expediant until Larry
Cipriani called and spoke to an NRA-ILA person who told him that
machineguns were _NOT_ militia weapons covered by the Second Amendment;
clearly, the strategy NRA adopted for fighting the MG ban was grounded
in deception of NRA's own membership, but in fighting what it believed
to be a lost cause the cheapest politically expediant way possible as 
well.

The truth of the matter is that NRA is limited by what it's membership
is willing to do for itself and on behalf of NRA. No amount of
threatening of a politician's career is of any use unless backed up
by the votes to remove a politician from office; that's why so many
politicians look down at NRA as a paper tiger, especially in big
cities where the Democratic Machine, whether in tatters or not, can
turn out the vote to defeat virtually any NRA backed candidate.

And of course, there are gun owners who think only their favorite
firearm is worth keeping; everyone else's be damned. A NY Times poll
published in the March 12, 1992 edition, A16 has this:

	Would you favor or oppose a ban on assault weapons - that is,
	semi automatic military-style rifles that can hold up to
	30 bullets?
	
		General population:
		
		79% YES
		
		12% NO
		
		 2% DON'T KNOW
		
		
		Gun Owners:
		
		76% YES
		
		24% NO
		
		 1% DON'T KNOW
		
When even your so-called "sportsmen" support the "screwing" of each
others guns, there ain't all that much room to make hay with.

And that's the truth.

So what's the NRA to do?

Join them and tell them where you want to go; your responsibility on
the other hand is to supply funding and to "spread the word." Your
responsibility includes voting and encouraging others to vote as
well.