Is It The NRA vs. The GOA In Texas All Over Again?
By Carl F. WordenHere we go again! This time, the NRA is threatening to pull its support of
the most constitutionally aggressive representative we have in Congress,
Ron Paul. Why? Because Representative Ron Paul insisted on maintaining
state's rights under Article X of the Bill of Rights, by opposing federal
legislation to thwart all litigation against firearms makers for simply
manufacturing guns that might be used to kill people.Now, most gun owners would rejoice at that legislation, and I thought it
was
a great idea too, until I was reminded it is just another federal
violation
of Article X. Talk about mixed feelings!! I have them too, but unless and
until we learn to support and defend the Constitution in ALL cases,
whether
we like them or not, we are just going to continue down the same road of
defiling that legally binding document.Representative Paul has proven time and time again that he will not
compromise constitutional principle for any reason, and he happens to
be the strongest supporter of Second Amendment individual guns rights
we have in the Congress.The NRA is engaging in "Situation Ethics", whereby they support the
idea that the ends justify the means if it happens to be something
the NRA supports. It doesn't matter to the NRA if the legislation is
unconstitutional on its face, so long as it gets them where they want
to go.Nothing in the Constitution gives the federal government the authority
to tell a state or a citizen what kind of remedy by litigation they may
pursue in state or federal court, and Article X of the Bill of Rights
specifically bars the federal government from seizing authority in any
area not specifically given the federal government by the Constitution.
Any questions? Read it for yourself.Let's take this a step further: If the federal government can pass
legislation barring state, city and individual lawsuits against gun
manufacturers for manufacturing guns, they can pass legislation barring
the same kind of lawsuits against cigarette manufacturers. They can
pass similar legislation barring lawsuits against any industry, from
pharmaceutical companies to automobile manufacturers. Representative
Paul recognized that, and therefore voted his conscience by opposing
the legislation, and the NRA had a cow.Gun Owners of America, the second largest gun rights group, strongly
supports Representative Paul, regardless of his position on this
legislation, because its Director, Larry Pratt, appreciates
Representative Paul's uncompromising stance on constitutional ethics,
whether it be Second Amendment rights, or Tenth Amendment restrictions.Do any of you happen to remember a dirt-bag by the name of Representative
Jack Brooks of Texas? Hmm? Most of us gun owners do. He is the man who
sat as House chairman of the Crime Conference Committee in 1994, the
committee considering whether to pass the 1994 "Crime Bill" that included
the infamous federal Assault Weapon Ban and a restriction on gun magazines
holding more than ten rounds. Brooks was also Chairman of the House
Judiciary Committee. Brooks was a Democrat, who usually supported most gun
rights legislation, but in this case Jack Brooks allowed the Crime Bill
out
of his committee to be voted on, and it was subsequently passed into
legislation that just happens to come up for renewal under our current
president, George W. Bush.Through a spokesman, our darling "pro-gun" Christian president has
recently
stated his support for renewing the federal Assault Weapon Ban if and when
it glides across his desk. If I'm right, GW will be a one-term president
just like his father for that transgression. Remember, "Read my lips."?Anyway, we would not have the federal Assault Weapon Ban were it not for
turncoat Representative Jack Brooks. And by the way, it turns out our Miss
Brooks took a virtual bribe: The crime bill included ten million dollars
to
Lamar University, which coincidentally, was in Jack Brook's district. What
a shock. Brooks had been in continuous office a total of 42 years, but his
luck was about to change.As a result of Brook's betrayal, a Republican challenger by the name of
Steve Stockman decided to run against Brooks. Gun Owners of America
staunchly backed Stockman against Brooks. Stockman was aggressively
pro-Second Amendment, and asked the support of the NRA as well.Incredibly, the NRA placed its support behind Jack Brooks. Here was a man
who had almost single handedly allowed the federal Assault Weapon Ban to
pass into law, yet the NRA backed Brooks for no other reason than the
usually pro-gun Brooks had a better chance of winning! I swear I'm not
making this up.As it turned out, Steve Stockman defeated the 42-year incumbent for his
seat
in 1994, and to those of us who remember it well, the NRA had egg all over
its face. 1994 turned out to be the year the Democrats lost their power in
Congress, and former President Bill Clinton admitted that the passage of
the
federal Assault Weapon Ban was the sole reason.
I haven't been a member of the NRA ever since the Jack Brooks debacle.
When
that shameful act played out, I completely lost confidence in the
management
of the NRA and lent my full support to Gun Owners of America (GOA) and
Jews
For The Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO).
It looks like the NRA is about to make the same stupid mistake all over
again. It is perpetually wrong and foolhardy to believe the ends justify
the means, and only the most immoral subscribe to situation ethics.
Perhaps
this will be a most well deserved nail in the NRA's coffin. Assuming the
average member is as outraged as me, it will probably result in yet
another