Why I Left the NRA

You read it right. I'm letting my membership expire. I'm leaving. I'm through. I quit.

No delayed April Fool's, no joke, I'm done with the NRA.And it hurts. I've been a member for the last 13 years. I've been proud of it. I've boldly shown off the stickers, worn the hats, read every magazine they sent me and even had the pleasure of attending three annual conventions (Pittsburgh, Houston, St. Louis.)

But I've had enough of compromise. I've had enough of garbage like this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/16/AR2009041602694.html?hpid=topnews

That's a link to an article about Obama's stated commitment to an international arms treaty with Mexico. Oh, don't worry! He won't re-enact the 1994 'Assault Weapons' Ban! Instead he'll sign a treaty that subverts the sovereignty of the United States and nullifies our own Bill of Rights.

So what does this have to do with the NRA? Well, they signed off on it, preferring, as usual, an incrementalist approach to an absolutist stance.

Add this to a long list of grievances. My decision was already made, but this makes for a poignant illustration. They supported John McCain. They didn't lift a finger to help Wayne Fincher. They did nothing that I can find for David Olofson. They tried to ride in on the white horse when the SCOTUS overturned the local DC ban, even though they wouldn't touch the case until it looked like a sure win.

They don't call for the abolition of the ATF.

They don't call for the repeal of existing unconstitutional laws, (like GCA 1968 or NFA 1934) instead they call for their enforcement, as though that's some sort of palatable alternative to even more draconian control mechanisms.

They don't get into any fight they might lose. And when they sign away more freedom, they stick out their chin, beat the drums, and tell us it's a victory for freedom. And then they proudly proclaim how cold and dead their hands must be before they give up their guns.

Where's the line in the sand NRA? In some distant and horrific future, I can just see Wayne LaPierre - grayed and hunched, wrinkled and feeble, but with that same over-my-dead-body sneer. Addressing the annual NRA convention in 2021, he defiantly raises a smart gun in the air. It beeps and an LED in the stock lights up in a greenish hue upon recognition of his fingerprints, identifying him as the true owner. He holds up his national gun owner's ID card and a copy of the registration for this particular weapon in his other hand, just so everyone in the crowd knows he's a "law abiding" gun owner. The ATF agents on stage (now required at any gun rights rally, thanks to NRA-sponsored legislation) watch on through dark Ray-Bans, bravely "enforcing existing gun laws". He sidles up to the microphone, and growls, "FROM MY COLD, DEAD HANDS."

That's the NRA I left. That's the NRA that supported John McCain. That's the NRA that re-writes the truth as they see fit. That's the NRA that will always...ALWAYS back down.

I'm going to the JPFO. Jews For the Preservation of Firearms Ownership. They're for real.

http://www.jpfo.org

I know a lot of people sticking with the NRA. I know a lot of life members who have already paid up. Part of me wishes I were a life member, because then I could send my complaints to Wayne & Co. expecting to be heard. But now I'm just going to be an 'ex'.

I can understand those who wish to stay. For a long time, I held off on leaving because the NRA is just so BIG, and I figured that even if they aren't the perfect gun rights advocacy group, at least they're the most recognized. And the better their numbers, the more effective they'll be, right?

Tell you what. Let me know when the NRA takes back freedom. I'll be first in line to renew.

Binghamton Shooting - Harsh Reality

We are recently apprised of the blood spilled in New York. Blood baths like this make the news every now and then. Of late, there seems to be a disproportionate amount of mass shootings in the news. No sooner have the bodies hit the floor than everyone wrings their hands and asks, "Why?" and The Search for Answers begins. Invariably we hear about societal ills - too much violence in entertainment, the despondency of pop culture, the superfluence of weapons available in America, etc. Invariably, someone will propose a "solution," and months or years later we find ourselves staring at another blood soaked room piled with warm corpses. I have a few observations about mass shootings. These incidents have many common elements from which we can learn how to not make it happen again.

The first commonality is the inability of the victims to return fire. These massacres always occur in Gun Free Zones - you know, places where some wise policy maker has declared it illegal to carry a gun. Somehow the shooters always ignore the signs, policies and laws. When these things happen, we ask "How could this HAPPEN?" when quite plainly, the answer is that no one had the ability to shoot back.

The only exception to the Gun Free Zone rule that I can think of is the shooting in Samson, Alabama. In New York, Columbine, V-tech, and all the other school shootings, the victims were all forbidden from the means to protect themselves. Samson is a little different, because Alabama allows concealed carry. However, it's worthy to note that it occurred in a small town where such an incident is far less likely to occur. So even though they could have been armed, those who encountered the shooter were not, likely for the same reasons most most small-town Americans wouldn't carry a gun in their home town, but would on a trip to a big city. But with that exception, every other shooting has occurred somewhere where people were FORBIDDEN to protect themselves with firearms.

The second thing to note is that the police have yet to save anyone. Columbine, V-Tech, and New York give us a score of Killers: 55, Cops: 0 (not counting the shooters, who bagged themselves.) So far the only hero coming to the rescue is Suicide, which has ended each of the above massacres. Can you imagine being at the mercy of a madman, knowing that your only chance is for him to kill himself?

So where were the cops? Well, in New York, they were hiding behind their cars, judging by the pictures on Fox News. In Columbine and V-Tech they found better cover (trees.) That's right - the same SWAT teams that will blow your door off the hinges, storm into the house, flashbang your kids, and hold your family hostage while they scream curses at you if they suspect you're selling pot, will hide behind whatever they can find when there is a REAL threat. (Thanks to David Codrea for making this point over at his blog - The War on Guns. I can't take credit for the idea, but it's worth reiterating.)

Further, when the smoke clears, the cops (or at least their spokespersons) are the first ones to come out against allowing any member of the public from protecting themselves. We hear the same tired tripe about how it will only "escalate the violence" and that you should always give the aggressor what they want. So the question is, what if they want to kill you? (More props to David.)

Now don't get me wrong - I can't entirely fault the cops for hiding behind trees and cars. I mean in each of these situations, they had no way to know how many shooters there were, where they were, how they were armed, etc. And statistically, the event usually ends itself, so to speak. They want to go home at the end of the day, and charging into gunfire won't help them accomplish that goal. My objection is to the notion that they are somehow going to protect us. So far, their track record is worse than failure. Sure, in this litigious society, public officials are going to be reticent to tell people to go arm themselves. But we've seen multiple times now that the alternative is NOT that the police will protect you. THEY WON'T. They'll stand by while you die and pick up the shooter's brass when it's all over. The choice we have is NOT between police protection and self protection - the choice is between self protection and NO protection.

Next we come to the common threads in the media reporting. In the hours following a massacre, there is an ongoing contest amongst the major news outlets to make the incident sound as horrible as possible. Demonization of the weapon used must be maximized and facts about the weapon's legality, charateristics, capabilities, and functionality must be ignored for full effect. After all, the public is much more likely to cry out for a ban if the shooter was weilding a full auto .50 caliber high power sniper assault rifle that fires armor piercing heat seeking laser guided bullets accurate to a mile at 87 rounds per second with a 5,000 shot clip, pistol grip, bayonet lug, folding stock, barrel shroud and thing in the stock which tells time that anyone (including your kids!) can buy at Wal-Mart for $59.95 with no permit, background check and even if you tell the checkout clerk, "I AM GOING TO KILL PEOPLE WITH THIS."

Another commonality is the outcry to "do something" (see above rationale for such outcry). Instead of analyzing the FACTS of the situation, the anti gunners rely on good ol' emotion.
FACT: If no one can shoot back, everyone is at the shooter's mercy.
FACT: The shooter does not care what the law says.
FACT: The police can't respond as fast as anyone in the killing zone, and when they get there, they are historically proven to wait until the incident is over to do anything.
FACT: GUN CONTROL LEAVES PILES OF BODIES IN ITS WAKE.

Collectively, we refuse to learn from these massacres. Collectively, we promote the murder with every new citizen disarmament law that is passed. Collectively, we willingly cede power to mass murderers and psychopaths.