No. While the NRA has its own internal problems, there is no other organization with the political and financial resources to counter the anti-gun forces poised against us. No matter what your feelings about the NRA, you should be a member if you value your Second Amendment rights. Refuse to support the NRA, and you are, in effect, aiding such groups as Handgun Control, Inc. (HCI) in their quest to disarm the American citizenry. The NRA is described by the media and politicians as the gun lobby. By their size and influence, this is so. Sadly, supporting only a smaller group is a mistake -- you make your point but you don't make a difference.
This is the big question and, I feel, the most important. An unfortunate truth is that the NRA, being seen as the gun lobby, has not only the power to fight on our behalf but to capitulate or compromise "on our behalf" as well. If the NRA makes a "policy decision" to support a less-restrictive, but anti-gun policy, then WE are seen as supporting that decision. Many of us would be more comfortable if the NRA took a firm, pro-Second Amendment position and refused to waver. However, this has not been the case. One example is the position taken by the (then, newly-elected) NRA President, Charlton Heston when he claimed to support the Second Amendment but added he saw no reason for citizens to possess such firearms as the semi-automatic AK-47 (AK47) and its clones. This is conditional support for the Second Amendment and, in effect, becomes support for the NRA's understanding of the Constitution. Firearms owners, whether collectors, hunters, competitors or those desiring the capability of self-protection MUST speak with a single voice! While the upland hunter may see no reason for ownership of a particular type of rifle or pistol, the hunter must support the rights of those whose opinions differ -- as must the collector, competitor and self-preservationist. Make no mistake, the intent of the anti-gun folk is to disarm the American citizenry! Not just "assault rifles." Not just "Saturday Night Specials." Not just "Street-Sweeper" shotguns. Not just high-capacity magazines or firearms that can utilize them. The fact that, recently, voices are being raised to regulate the sale of antique, percussion-ignition firearms demonstrates the forces aligned against us will never be satiated until we are disarmed! The NRA has demonstrated its willingness to compromise our freedom away, in useless efforts to appear to support reasonable firearms restrictions. We must influence this compromising attitude.
JPFO is uncompromising in its support of the Constitution's Second Amendment. The JPFO maintains that NO "gun law" for law-abiding citizens is reasonable. JPFO supports the view that America's founders denounced tyranny in all its forms and, realizing that NO government can long-continue repression of an armed citizenry, declared it an inalienable right of a free people that they be permitted ownership of arms -- arms that would be a deterrent not only to a foreign, invading power but to an internal government gone awry.
JPFO maintains that any support of "gun control" is tantamount to supporting or encouraging genocide -- the government-enforced murder of those people deemed "a threat" by their ethnicity, religion or political leanings. Does it seem incomprehensible that people such as Senator Charles Schumer, actor Paul Newman, singer Barbara Streisand, talk-show host Rosie O'Donnell and HCI's Sarah Brady support genocide? Yes, it does and there is no reason to believe they would ever condone such an atrocity. But...
JPFO has published a book titled Lethal Laws ($29.95 from JPFO, 2872 S. Wentworth Ave., Milwaukee, WI 53207). This book of over 340 pages makes clear one very important point -- a common factor in all seven recent episodes of genocide is the passing and enforcement of "gun control laws." Deprived of any effective means of resistance, over 55 million people have been murdered by governments and/or government-supported forces between 1915 and 1981. Only government can achieve murder on such a scale. Of course, the natural response to this fact is "OUR government would never do such a thing!" That may be true. In FIVE of the seven genocides detailed in Lethal Laws, the government which implemented the initial "gun control" was NOT the government which took advantage of the compiled lists of firearms owners or the disarming of citizens for purposes of "crime control" or "safety." In Guatamala, for example, where 100,000 Maya Indians were murdered, 90 years separated the original "gun control" efforts from the atrocity. However well-intentioned, the laws, while never doing much, if anything, to address "crime" or "safety," either deprived citizens of their arms or created lists of citizens known to possess firearms, lists later used for the seizure of firearms from those same citizens. While there is no way to know how the outcome of these atrocities may have been changed, it is obvious to all but fools that subjugation or eradication of a people is made much simpler if they have no effective means of resistance. A further report of a more-recent episode of genocide may be found in Rwanda's Genocide 1994 ($10.95 from JPFO). Again, a legacy of "gun control" left a virtually unarmed populace of Tutsi tribespeople. 800,000 were murdered. The reality seems clear. The American people must resist all forms of "gun control" or possibly imperil our descendents to some future government atrocity. Is any level of such risk acceptable?
JPFO has repeatedly asked the NRA and other pro-gun advocates to use their prestige and position to assist in placing their findings before the public, both pro-gun and anti-gun. The NRA has turned a deaf ear to JPFO, apparently feeling their message is too politically-charged. The NRA seems to feel the JPFO view is extremist and the NRA does not want to be seen as having a similar viewpoint. Unless the time is taken to study the facts available, it is easy to dismiss the link between "gun control" and atrocities such as genocide. The NRA seems to be making a great effort to appear "reasonable" in its pro-gun efforts and refuses to ally itself with groups which share similar goals but a differing rationale. As an example, JPFO has documentation showing a plausible connection between the federal Gun Control Act of 1968 and the Nazi Weapons Law of 1938. A key politician who helped draft the law quietly had the german text of the Nazi law translated into english.2 Many of the passages of our Act of 1968 are virtually word-for-word copies of the Nazi text. The NRA appears to be avoiding both this evidence and allying itself with an organization which proposes such a link. Strengthening JPFO may serve to permit the dissemination of this information on a larger scale and inspire other pro-gun groups such as the NRA to use these arguments to help counter further restrictive legislation.
JPFO states, unequivocally, the need not to just halt further restrictions on the law-abiding but to repeal all provisions of the National Firearms Act of 1934, the U.S. Gun Control Act of 1968 (as amended) and the thousands of existing state and local laws except those referring to ownership of firearms by criminals or to abuse of firearms by criminals. JPFO further states1
"First... There must be no laws restricting acquisition, ownership, possession, transfer, inter-state shipment, and lawful use of firearms and ammunition - and any components or accessories - by the law-abiding. A person shall be presumed to be law-abiding unless s/he is definitely known on the basis of properly recorded Court proceedings to have been convicted of a felony.
Second, we need universal training in the safe and lawful use of firearms. In America, a "Firearms Ed" course should be given in junior high school and repeated in high school. Those unable safely to use firearms (e.g., those with severe physical or visual impairment), or whose religious beliefs bar the use of arms, would be exempt. Recognition of conscientious objection is a sound tradition. No person should have to violate his/her religious beliefs for any public reason.
Third, we need to promote the building of shooting ranges. There should be no shortage of modern and environmentally safe places to practice. These ranges should be built by the private sector. Zoning regulations need to be structured to promote construction of target ranges with a minimum of "red tape." But government-owned ranges certainly would compete for business.
Fourth, we need to legislate nationwide carry without permit. ...The owner of a building or a business could, of course, ban the carrying of firearms on his/her premises. But s/he would be responsible for the safety of everyone on the premises. Such a building- or business-owner would assume full legal liability for anyone killed or wounded, if the victim were a person who refrained from carrying firearms at the request of the owner of the building or business.
...Fifth, taxes targeted on firearms, ammunition, parts, components, or shooting accessories would be revoked. The rate of sales tax on such items should be set at the minimum chargeable in a State. Thus, if no sales tax is charged on food or medicine by a state, then no sales tax should be levied on firearms. Federal Excise taxes on firearms and related items must be revoked and prohibited. The power to tax is the power to tax out of existence; we have presented evidence that such power has been used before by the Federal authorities.
Sixth, all government records (federal, state, town, city, and county) concerning private firearms ownership must be destroyed at once. Firearms dealers' records must be destroyed after they are no longer needed for general business purposes (typically 7 years). Failure to destroy these records should be a felony. A firearm dealer's records would not be available to law enforcement without a court order. The Court could make this order only in connection with an actual investigation of a crime. The Court's order would be valid only if it were specific as to the type of firearm being sought and the name of the person(s) to whom it was sold or who was suspected of having abused it. An attempt by an investigator to find or to use information beyond that specified in the Court's order would be a felony."
Now, find out what reforms your chosen organization seeks. The chances are good its effort is directed solely toward blocking passage of further restrictions or holding such additional restrictions to those deemed reasonable. What efforts do you support? Is it worth twenty bucks to have your say?
1 LETHAL LAWS, page 75
2 Senator Thomas J. Dodd(D-CT) was a senior member of the U.S. team that prosecuted the Nazis at Nurenberg, and his official duties were to examine Nazi records and laws. Dodd also chaired the Hearings before the Subcommittee to Investigate Juvenile Delinquency of the Committee of the Judiciary, 90th Congress, 2nd Session. On July 12, 1968 a letter was sent to Dodds Office from Lewis C. Coffin, Law Librarian at the Library ofCongress. Coffin wrote; "...we are enclosing herewith a translation of the Law onWeapons of March 18, 1938, prepared by Dr. William Solyom-Fekete of the European Law Division, as well as the Xerox of the original German text which you supplied."
Copyright 1999; Richard D. Jennings