does NRA President Heston speak for you??

[Fatelvis]

I believe the NRA is trying many different ways, to save our precious 2nd amendment. I`ve put my trust in them, and have supported them. If you disagree with small "issues" that you would of handled differently, that`s fine. But PLEASE, dont drop your membership because of it, they`re our strongest voice, and probably the ONLY reason we dont have rediculous gun laws everywhere in our country. I think they know what they`re doing, they`re pretty sharp. I`m getting to the point, that I`m not worrying HOW we`re going to accomplish winning (saving the 2nd), as long as we DO WIN.

[KeepAndBearArms.com]

Jim March:
"In 1967, and during the ramp-up to GCA68, the NRA wasn't a gun rights lobbying org at all. They were nothing but safety training and the like. "

In 1968 they claimed over 1,000,000 members in the same exact magazine, March 1968, where they said they are the "Foremost guardian of the American tradition and constitutional right of citizens to Keep and Bear Arms." If they weren't lobbying, why, in that same publication, did they tell us about all the legislation they'd been working with Senator Dodd and others to get passed? And if sending pro-gun-control messages to ONE MILLION gun owners isn't in itself "lobbying", what is? Lobbying doesn't "only" mean pushing their gun control through Congress -- which they were absolutely doing, long before 1968 -- lobbying involves communication placed in the public eye. YOU, Jim March, are the gun lobby.

Jim March:
They were dragged into the gun debate "kicking and screaming" by the media and various politicians.

If that is true, they certainly didn't have to kick and scream for gun control. And if kicking and screaming for gun control, why, in the same issue of their magazine mailed to over ONE MILLION gun owners did they claim to be the foremost defender of the right to keep and bear arms?

Answer: fraud.

Jim March:
I don't doubt for a second that they utterly blew it back then.
That has nothing whatsoever to do with current events.

Where is the retraction? Never happened. Instead, they now tell us things like:

"[Anyone] who carries or is exempted from [a] permit should be required to have...training"

"[He] did what any honest, law-abiding American would do...he turned in his [gun] to the police."

"It's reasonable to support the federal Gun-Free School Zones Act...it's reasonable to expect full enforcement of federal firearms laws...That's why we support Project Exile -- the fierce prosecution of federal gun laws...it's reasonable because it works."

If that isn't blowing it right now, what is? Keep in mind that LaPierre said it's reasonable to support the Gun Free Criminal Safety School Zones AFTER the law had been struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional. If that is reasonable, what is unreasonable?

Lord Grey Boots:
Um, one statement, taken out of context, from 7 years ago???

How many statements do you want? Do you want to hear the one where Heston said no NRA member would be involved in a militia? Or the one where LaPierre stood next to Sarah Brady and called for zero tolerance enforcement of gun prohibitions? Where is enough enough on the NRA Gun Control Bandwagon? http://www.KeepAndBearArms.com/NRA

Jim March:
KABA's recent rounds of NRA-bashing
the NRA-bashing he does is pointless and counter-productive

and again below...

Villain:
when knocking on the same doors for donation, bash the competition.......
This is a case of NRA bashing. Plain and simple!

So when we oppose Sarah Brady's gun control, it's liberty advocacy, but when we oppose NRA's gun control, it's bashing?

Political opposition is healthy. Sorry you guys cannot see that, and I hope you figure it out.

Bartholomew Roberts:
Whatever you think of the NRA, attacking them is pointless and counterproductive. If you don't like their stance then don't work with them on stances you can't support. Coming out and attacking them for not being hardcore enough doesn't do anyone any good.

It's not about "not being hardcore enough," friend. It's about NRA compromising your rights away. If that doesn't bother you, fine. Don't expect everybody else to turn a blind eye to traitors just because you do.

Country Boy:
Heston speaks for me a whole hell of a lot more than Chuck Shumer.

Al Gore speaks for me a whole hell of a lot more than Adolf Hitler did, too -- but I wouldn't send him money and defend him from fair political opposition.

Angel Shamaya
Founder/Executive Director
KeepAndBearArms.com
(928) 522-8833

[Oleg Volk]

I must say that I agree with Shamaya on this. That said, I have seen incredibly effective efferts (and great results) from Jim March. That gives me hope that, regardless of the position on the NRA, you two will continue to cooperate.

KABA have always been very specific about which specific actions of the NRA were wrong. So, rather than condemn the entire org, I'd like to see it reformed in our image. Trying to destroy it and make a new one would be harder than infiltrating and subverting the current org, IMO.

[KeepAndBearArms.com]

Oleg Volk:
I must say that I agree with Shamaya on this. That said, I have seen incredibly effective efforts (and great results) from Jim March. That gives me hope that, regardless of the position on the NRA, you two will continue to cooperate.

I have been elated to invest dozens of hours, personally, to help Jim March fine tune and publicize his reports. I will always continue to help him and anyone else to the extent possible. I'll also continue to publish his and anyone else's rebuttals to whatever we publish that stirs up debates. Debate, contrary to some people's beliefs, is healthy -- especially in politics.

Now ask yourself this: can you imagine the NRA printing a rebuttal of any of their positions supporting numerous varieties of gun control?

--AS

[LIProgun]

Check out The Old Ways Die Hard for a good recap and a discussion of things Heston has said, both then and now.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

It's not about "not being hardcore enough," friend. It's about NRA compromising your rights away. If that doesn't bother you, fine. Don't expect everybody else to turn a blind eye to traitors just because you do.

Don't get me wrong Angel. You provide a great service with KABA and Operation Self-Defense has been invaluable to me in showing people that this does happen a lot more frequently than they know. It has even helped me win converts. At the same time, I hope you read the rest of my post because it was relevant.

I'm an assault rifle owning, multiple RKBA organization member and I don't agree with everything you support. If you can't convince me to back your organization completely, what chance do you have to organize a political movement that is more powerful than the NRA? I might also add that characterizing people who disagree with you as "turning a blind eye to traitors" doesn't do a lot to change that either. It also doesn't promote respectful or healthy debate.

Personally, I think we are a long way from where we can afford the luxury of infighting amongst ourselves. At the very least, can't we at least win the battles we all agree on before we start arguing strategy for battles that aren't even in the forseeable future?

Finally, telling me that by supporting the NRA I'm supporting an organization that is "compromising my rights away" doesn't do a thing to change my mind. Showing me a convincing argument on how other organizations could use my support more effectively would. A key element to constructive criticism is to suggest a solution to the problem you have identified. That's also an element I find lacking in many of your pieces on the NRA.

[KeepAndBearArms.com]

Bartholomew Roberts, these responses are all to you. Appreciate the debate...

Don't get me wrong Angel. You provide a great service with KABA and Operation Self-Defense has been invaluable to me in showing people that this does happen a lot more frequently than they know. It has even helped me win converts.

Thanks. And wait until you see the next rev. of OpSD, my friend. Long time coming, and it's going to be the single most helpful tool for armed self defense stories ever created on the internet.

At the same time, I hope you read the rest of my post because it was relevant.

Responding to other things your previous post said, below...

Anytime you insist on doctrinal purity you are hamstringing your movement because groups that are ideologically pure never get large enough to wield political power in a democracy.

America isn't a democracy; it's a Constitutional Republic.

I'm glad the Founders didn't listen to the Tories who were telling them that exact same thing. The people who freed this nation from British thuggery were far more radical than anyone in the leadership of the entire gun rights movement has (yet) become. If the truth "hamstrings" a movement, what does a long string of NRA lies do?

If KABA has a grudge with the thinking at the NRA, he would do better to address the membership that the NRAs views reflect. If 4.2 million members of the NRA were demanding Chuck wave an AK-47, he'd be waving one or someone else would be president. The reason that isn't the case is because much of the NRAs membership, like the public in general, needs patient and understanding education on these issues.

By education, do you mean saying that the militia is bad, any honest gunowner would turn banned guns in to the police, AK-47's are nerve-racking and creating Criminal Safety Zones is reasonable? If so, we see things differently, indeed. None of those things is true -- so what you call education, I call deliberate disinformation.

All denouncing the NRA does is encourage people who do want to see Chuck waving that AK to leave the NRA and go to another group - which means that the largest and most recognized gun lobby increasingly belongs to duck hunters and other people who might be valuable allies if only we took the time to educate them instead of yell at them.

It sounds, to me, like you are saying that the NRA should never be chastised, even when they lie. That is where the phrase "turn a blind eye to traitors" came from -- and I reiterate the same exact statement. But that doesn't mean I don't respect or appreciate you, Bartholomew -- it simply means I think you're naive.

If anything I would think that KABA would look at its recent lack of success with a hardcore pro-gun ISP (never more than 100 members in a year?) and ask themselves exactly how broad their base of political support is before they attempt to narrow it down even more by attacking the people most likely to sympathize with them.

The depth of our ISP woes and the primary cause of our ISP woes can be summed up in three letters: A-O-L. Add 10 new subscribers, lose 10 new subscribers. Not worth elaborating, but if you'd like to find out how many ISP's AOL has killed or maimed, read up on the $Billion+ class action lawsuit against them. Then there was the faulty service provided by our supplier, which also contributed to lots of ticked off customers -- to the point where it was more hassle than it was worth. Had AOL not broken laws by infringing on people's hard drive integrity, and had our provider provided a good, clean, workable system with expansion into new areas as promised, even with the onslaught of high-speed connectivity we'd have at least a thousand ISP customers right now and wouldn't need to do raffles.

But if your point is that because our organization and hard line stances aren't as popular as NRA's appeasement strategies we are meaningless, all I can say to that is you aren't very knowledgeable about history. Suffice it to say that what today appears radical will one day be expected of all defenders of the Real Second Amendment -- because our aggressors fully intend on entirely disarming ALL OF US.

Now going to your latest post...

Personally, I think we are a long way from where we can afford the luxury of infighting amongst ourselves. At the very least, can't we at least win the battles we all agree on before we start arguing strategy for battles that aren't even in the forseeable future?

If you think exposing the NRA is luxurious, think again. It's PAINFUL. To have to do it, to have them creating the NEED to do it. We would MUCH rather focus on a unified front, but while real Second Amendment groups are pushing for reforms, NRA is pushing GUN CONTROL and is using its mighty marketing machine to brainwash disinformation into the minds of people who need to be educted with The Truth. Would you like to know how the NRA screwed Utahns and how their having done so just came home to roost in Utah? Or how NRA just screwed Arizonans out of concealed carry reforms? Tip of the iceberg is what we report on.

And some of the righteous battles being fought by non-NRA groups, while valid and true, are being OPPOSED by NRA. In other words, the NRA works against Liberty, consistently, across this nation. Yet you want to insinuate that demanding that they stop working for tyranny is a bad thing. Your logic fails miserably when scrutinized.

Finally, telling me that by supporting the NRA I'm supporting an organization that is "compromising my rights away" doesn't do a thing to change my mind. Showing me a convincing argument on how other organizations could use my support more effectively would. A key element to constructive criticism is to suggest a solution to the problem you have identified. That's also an element I find lacking in many of your pieces on the NRA.

To correct a problem, the problem must first be identified. And our time/energy/money resources being limited as they are, you'll have to forgive our lack of full coverage on how the NRA screws people in virtually every state legislature in America, friend -- we can't keep up with their sellouts. (I've got a dozen options on states where NRA Exposure is needed.) Do your homework in your own state by touching base with the non-NRA group and you will quickly find out, quite personally, how politics as usual from NRA has compromised your rights away and what has been done and is being done to claim power in your state legislature - away from the appeasers at NRA, and back into the hands of people who prefer the Real Second Amendment to their watered down version.

Discovering how your rights are being compromised away is important enough to begin your own discovery, too. It's your duty to be fully informed, and to act where appropriate for the right side of the tough issues. Some of those tough issues, if you honestly investigate, will have you at odds, philosophically, with the National Rifle Association. And if you think you can do a better job at presenting their foolishness in a way that produces positive results, let's hear what you've got to say and make sure 20,000 people read it tomorrow: http://KeepAndBeararms.com/newsarchives/XcNPAdd.asp

Be sure to read Jon Dougerty's report on WorldNetDaily either tomorrow or the next day to see about yet another coalition that has formed in opposition to NRA's unacceptable police state advancement. Or just hit our home page at midnight to go directly to what he will be reporting on.

Angel Shamaya
KeepAndBearArms.com
(928) 522-8833

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, Angel.

By education, do you mean saying that the militia is bad, any honest gunowner would turn banned guns in to the police, AK-47's are nerve-racking and creating Criminal Safety Zones is reasonable?

By education I meant that you needed to address gun owners who do believe those things and explain why those things are bad or untrue. You seem to be aiming your articles at stirring up people who already agree with you. If that's your strategy then fine; but I don't think it is a productive one.

You continually assert that the NRA engages in deliberate disinformation and consistently works against liberty. Don't you find that a little incredulous? Is there any reason to assign a conspiracy when human frailty would be just as likely a reason? Have you even asked the NRA to comment on some of the issues you've raised to see what their reasoning is?

I belong to an IDPA club with less than 30 members and the internal politics at that level is enough to make me queasy. Should I jettison the whole thing because some members act in their own self-interest or do I work to make it better?

In the meantime, thanks for Operation Self-Defense and particularly Sean Oberle's piece on the Harvard research and Jim March's stuff. I know how time-consuming it can be to get into these debates. I know how time-consuming it can be to get into these debates; so I also appreciate you taking the time to give a detailed and passionate reply - particularly in light of my brief and uninsipired reply. Whatever our differences are, we still have a lot of common goals to reach towards and I intend to see we reach them.

[Jim March]

Putting on my computer tech hat for a sec: what Angel's talking about with AOL is quite serious: if you EVER load one of those free AOL CDs onto your PC, you'll never fully get rid of it unless you REALLY know what you're doing (hand-tweaking the registry) and in most cases, trying to work with any type of "normal" ISP on that computer will be difficult, and in some cases impossible without re-formatting the drive.

It's a freakin' VIRUS.

Anyways. Back to business.

The upside to having multiple RKBA orgs is that some people just aren't going to spend money on one particular approach, but will support something else.

It's like selling beer. If there was nothing but one type, say, ordinary Bud, total beer spending would be a fraction of what we have today.

The problem comes with bashing. In my case, I'm still going to work with Angel, but it becomes increasingly difficult to work with NRA folks in California at the same time. And in California, the NRA is deeply connected with *everything*, including running the local grassroots meetings (NRA Members Councils), maintaining a law office in-state that deals with CCW reform (Chuck Michel and company have been invaluable in the CCW wars) and maintaining a full-time lobbying staff in Sacramento. As to that last, Ed Worley is among the most effective RKBA activists in the nation, bar none, I consider him a personal hero.

I have to work with these people. They have resources, information and contacts unavailable anywhere else.

And then Angel tries to make open war with 'em. Sigh. Makes my life REALLY freakin' complex at times .

So OK, maybe I'm biased.

But I still have to ask, "How does it help!?".

----------------------------------------------------

In related news, today we saw an example of the "hardcore approach" backfiring. Bigtime. See also:

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedi...e%2Dcalifornia

And THIS is what the legicritters pay the most attention to :barf:.

[KeepAndBearArms.com]

Bartholomew:
You continually assert that the NRA engages in deliberate disinformation and consistently works against liberty. Don't you find that a little incredulous? Is there any reason to assign a conspiracy when human frailty would be just as likely a reason? Have you even asked the NRA to comment on some of the issues you've raised to see what their reasoning is?

C'mon Bart. LaPierre gave congressional testimony supporting Gun Free Criminal Safety Zones after the "law" had already been struck down as unconstitutional, and conducted a Coup to put Heston into the President's chair when Heston's mindset was to ban AK-47's. Get with some intellectual honesty if you want to debate this issue, then get back to me. [email protected] by email, or start a new thread once you get clear on how absurd what you said truly is. The NRA's management knows exactly what it's doing, and some of what it's doing is flat out wrong.

Jim:
And then Angel tries to make open war with 'em. Sigh. Makes my life REALLY freakin' complex at times.

My friend, if you think the gentle tactics used at KABA to expose NRA's shortcomings constitute open war, I wonder what you'll think next time they support federal gun control or if they don't call for Bush to let the AW ban sunset. We've been playing softball compared to the dirt we've got on NRA, my friend. The NRA could face criminal prosecution for what I've got in my files -- signed, sworn statements of illegal backroom dealings, abuse of power, violations of tax law, and much more. We are being exceedingly kind -- gentle warning shots across the bow is all you have seen to date. The NRA declared war against my rights by lying to my countrymen repeatedly and by promoting, endorsing, condoning and even drafting gun control legislation. We are simply defending RKBA, my friend.

What good comes of it? Awareness that NRA needs to straighten up and fly right. They are on notice that there are no sacred cows when it comes to defending liberty.

In related news, today we saw an example of the "hardcore approach" backfiring. Bigtime. See also: http://www.latimes.com/news/printedi...e%2Dcalifornia
And THIS is what the legicritters pay the most attention to.

Good. The legislators had damn well better pay attention -- we do NOT want war, but they are leaving little room for anything else.

Sorry honesty makes you uncomfortable, Jim. Nothing Brian Puckett says in his report is untrue; it needs saying.
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/infor...em.asp?ID=3271
Meanwhile, if they ban the .50 in CA, we can count on NRA to help escort the guns to the police and shame gun owners into doing the same, right?

LA Times tells us that someone who tells the truth and suggests there may be trouble if they keep banning our guns should be stripped of his right to keep and bear arms. That's important data for people to discover. Though I doubt those cowards will print mine or Brian's rebuttals, they'll certainly receive them. And if you think his report was "bad," if they ever print what I told them about the right of the militia to resist unlawful arrest by any means necessary, you will have a stroke.

Kinda funny that LA Times demonizes gun owners who warn of impending danger but prints FBI's reports warning of impending danger as if it's a public service, actually. And the fact that LA Times' publisher hates Liberty is no reason to be dishonest about the grave consequences of continually banning guns. SOMEBODY needs to say it.

--AS

[KeepAndBearArms.com]

Jim March:
In related news, today we saw an example of the "hardcore approach" backfiring. Bigtime. See also:

http://www.latimes.com/news/printed...pe%2Dcalifornia

And THIS is what the legicritters pay the most attention to.

By the way, Jim, did you see what the San Francisco paper printed a couple of days ago about the possibility of violence being required to end the war on some drugs and all rights? And I quote:

"I am looking forward to the time when drug war bureaucrats and agents become the enemy in the new drug war. I believe every town in America might one day seek out such people, burn them out of their homes and confiscate whatever is not burned for sale to the highest bidder."

"It will be good to watch those fires burn, to bid on those seized items. It will be high time the present enemy -- free people -- fought back against a corrupt and broken system. If our legislators won't stop the drug war, then we must do so ourselves 'by any means necessary.'"

Source:
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg.../hsorensen.DTL

That's in a liberal, mainstream media outlet in the heart of anti-gunnersville.

QUESTION: Is that also a backfire? Or might it be that liberalites have more guts than gunowners these days?

Just curious.

--AS