|
|
 |
 Commentary
|
By
Kevin Starrett
Now that the dust is settling from the passage of S 397, "the
gun makers immunity bill," it might be a good time to assess
what happened.
As you probably know, when the NRA attempted to push this bill
through last time it was laden with anti-gun provisions which
were giving gun owners fits. But as the battle continued, NRA
and others in the establishment gun lobby insisted that the
bill should be passed, and promised it would be "cleaned
up in the House."
The late Neal Knox called those of us who opposed the bill "nervous
nellies." We were accused of paranoia and ignorance of
the process. We were told "not to worry, it's how it's
done around here."
The guarantees that the bill would be fixed, if only it passed
the Senate, continued until the last minute, when the unwavering
efforts of activist gun owners like you convinced the NRA that
they were on a sinking ship and they too, called for the bill
to be killed.
On the second go-round NRA seemed to have learned its lesson.
In a series of e-mails from NRA they repeated this hard-core
message : "Be sure to tell your Senators that you
consider any votes for any anti-gun amendments as a vote against
S. 397 itself." That quote appeared over and over.
Until it came time for a vote on the bill. A clean bill was
no longer what the NRA demanded.
When vote time came and the bill passed with anti-gun amendments
(that the militant anti-gun crowd have praised,) the NRA had
changed its tune.
No longer was a vote for an anti-gun amendment a vote against
the bill itself.
Suddenly, it was all no big deal.
Gone were the promises to "fix it in the House." In
place of those promises we had a stern warning from NRA ,"...
immediately call your U.S. Representative at (202) 225-3121
and urge him/her to pass S. 397 (as passed by the Senate)! "
The NRA was no longer even considering removing the anti-gun
language. Now they insisted that the bill pass the House "as
passed in the Senate."
Why this sudden reversal? Why this insistence that NRA members
accept any piece of garbage that was shoveled their way?
And why was this needed if NRA is in fact the lobbying powerhouse
that they claim to be? Why were other "pro-gun" organizations
jumping on the NRA bandwagon by telling their members that "politics
is the art of compromise" and the "art of the possible?"
Compromise is what you do when you have no choice. When your
back is to the wall and there is nothing left to do. It's NOT
what you do when you are in control.
Remember the famous comment by Kayne Robinson, NRA president?
"If we win, we'll have a president where we work out of
their office."
Well, the NRA "won." George Bush was elected. The
House and the Senate are under the control of our "friends."
So why are we snatching defeat from the jaws of victory?
Why are we making concessions to people who are out of power,
who for years refused to give an inch for our gun rights?
Why are people like Gordon Smith sending out letters taking
credit for opposing anti-gun amendments when he voted FOR them
and saying how proud he was of this bill when he didn't even
vote for it?
Because he can. Because of the constant cover that these people
get from groups like NRA who have given phonies like Smith thousands
of dollars.
After Bush signed the bill, Wayne LaPierre said "This is
an historic day for freedom. I would like to thank President
Bush for signing the most significant piece of pro-gun legislation
in twenty years into law."
Historic day for freedom? When you're forced by government to
buy something you don't want, don't need and which if used renders
your self defense firearm useless to you, but still easy to
steal?
When new "studies" have been authorized that the fringe
anti-gun group "Violence Policy Center" says "may
ultimately lead to a strengthening and expansion of the federal
ban on armor-piercing ammunition."
This is an "historic day for freedom?"
What's the NRA (and their parrots in large dollar "gun
groups") going to say if some politician introduces a law
that requires a gun safe? They've already signed off on the
concept. And what about the people who don't use a trigger lock?
Can they count on being prosecuted because they are NOT covered
by the immunity this bill claims to offer?
I wish we could share the jubilation of the NRA on this "great
victory". It certainly is a step forward for gun makers,
but it comes at tremendous cost to gun owners. And there is
not a single excuse for it.
Clinton's out of the White House and the people who got lots
of NRA bucks are in charge. So why are gun owners being told
they MUST "compromise?" When did we have a better
chance of making a real improvement?
This is why the battle is far from won. And why it's so critical
that we do what we can to elect people who will not throw gun
owners overboard after getting their checks and endorsements
from NRA.
We can't let the NRA's seal of approval continue to serve as
camouflage for people who vote against gun rights.
When anti-gun Kevin Mannix ran for governor, he bragged that
he had won the NRA's "defender of freedom" award.
A great selling point for a guy who worked overtime to attack
our freedoms.
At Oregon Firearms Federation, we have high standards for people
who are asking for the job of making rules about your life.
They don't get "A" ratings because they invited us
to a cocktail party and we won't tell you to "trust us."
We will continue to give you the unvarnished truth to the absolute
best of our ability. If only we could expect the same from the
NRA. |
 Send this Page to a Friend
|
 |
Copyright
© 2000 - 2010, Oregon Firearms Federation. All Rights Reserved.
|
|
|
