Sunday, February 7, 2010

NRA cheese dicks at it again.

Cheese Dick:

1. A guy who is not only cheesey with the ladies, but is also an arrogant dick head. He almost definitely wears gel in his hair at all times and/or dresses in nice expensive clothes.

2. Smegma . . . a thick cheesy material that collects under the foreskin and on the head of the dick. Indicates a bath is urgently needed! ! !

3. A military term used by rank and file troops. Started in use during the Vietnam era and continued till the mid-late 90's. The term describes a person who at all cost to his fellow troops attempts to climb the rank ladder. A kiss ass' kiss ass. A brown nose that will sellout his brothers and throw anyone under the bus. -- Urban Dictionary.

New NRA officially-approved snack. Goes down smoothly when munched in between sips of the grape from the official NRA wine list.

Well, folks, the NRA cheese dicks are at it again. See this JPFO press release.

The NRA elbows its way into the McDonald Case

By Kirby Ferris
Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership.

One wonders if NRA members should be proud of their organization’s apparent newfound fiduciary conservatism. The so-called “premier” gun rights organization has now managed to finagle its way into the spotlight after someone else’s sweat and money rented the hall, built the stage, and set up the sound system.

NRA lawyers are now second guessing pro-gun lawyer Alan Gura’s expertise. And this, after Gura masterminded and navigated the vitally crucial landmark Heller case to a victorious decision in favor of the Second Amendment.

The NRA’s leadership must have looked at each other and realized that (coming so close on the coat tails of Heller) McDonald actually had a good chance at victory. I can just hear them clinking their drinks in toast and chuckling: “Gura will likely win this one too. Let’s get on board now!”

All that might not be so bad, but look who the NRA has hired as their head counsel in this wedge into McDonald: Paul Clement, the very attorney who advocated against our gun rights in Heller!

That’s right, Clement led the federal government’s charge to protect the Washington D.C. ban on handgun ownership!

Here are some of Paul Clements espousals during Heller. These are from Clement’s oral arguments to SCOTUS and from the written brief filed in the case. He penned or uttered these little nuggets of liberty loving patriotism.

“In our view it makes a world of difference, Justice Ginsburg, because we certainly take the position, as we have since consistently since 2001, that the Federal firearm statutes can be defended as constitutional, and that would be consistent with this kind of intermediate scrutiny standard that we propose.”

Oh yeah?

Now take a look at this one:

“The Second Amendment talks about "the right to bear arms", not just "a right to bear arms". And that preexisting always coexisted with reasonable regulations of firearms.”

Don’t you love the word “reasonable”? It sound so…so reasonable! Unfortunately what Clement is talking about here is a ban on the possession of a handgun in your own home for your own self defense!

And here’s an intriguingly slippery one for you:

“Absolutely, Justice Ginsburg, and just... I mean, to give you a clear example, we would take the position that the kind of plastic guns or guns that are specifically designed to evade metal detectors that are prohibited by Federal law are not "arms" within the meaning of the Second Amendment and are not protected at all.”

Hmmm…. Very lawyerly. I’m not going to comment on that one. Just read it a couple of times for your own smell test.

And now a couple of tidbits from Paul Clement’s written brief in Heller:

"Given the unquestionable threat to public safety that unrestricted private firearm possession would entail, various categories of firearm-related regulations are permitted by the Second Amendment."

How does “shall not be infringed” somehow sneak past this guy’s obviously impressive intellect?

Some icing on the cake:

“Nothing in the Second Amendment, properly understood -- and certainly no principle necessary to decide this case — calls for invalidation of numerous federal laws regulating firearms.”

Oh boy…

Yes, friends, this is the man the NRA has hired to defend your gun rights in the unbelievably crucial McDonald vs. The City of Chicago case.

This is the same NRA that still believes the BATFE has a warm and fuzzy place in our lives. See: "NRA Letter"

This is also the same NRA that has not called for the completed destruction of “gun control” laws. And it’s the same NRA that does not appear to have a problem with Nazi “gun control” laws used as a basis for “The Gun Control Act of 1968”. See: this handbill and see also: the film "No Guns for Negroes".

In a recent JPFO alert article I speculated on what might knock McDonald off the rails. See: "Will Your Gun Rights Live or Die?" This present turn of events should certainly not deter our fears. JPFO is not alone in our concern with this NRA/Clement issue. See: this Cato @ Liberty article, (also archive copy here on JPFO).

Paul Clement is like a shark who just tried to bite our legs off. And now the NRA has crashed the pool party and tossed him in with us! Is it “hire a crook to catch a crook” logic? How can Clement’s oral arguments in the upcoming McDonald case possibly be all that effective? Those nine Justices (four of whom are obviously anti-gun Liberals) might truly wonder to themselves: “Hey! This guy was here about a year ago and argued the exact opposite of what we’re hearing now!”

Hey NRA, do you call that good legal strategy? And more importantly: Do you really want a McDonald victory?

OK, class, repeat after me: Never, ever give money to the No-balls Retreat Association. Give it to JPFO or GOA. Preferably both.



Anonymous said...

I quit the NRA idiots in the Clinton yrs. They were stupid then and are mega-stupid now. I can't for the life of me see why people stay with them.

Oldfart said...

I found this while looking for something else. The author is admittedly a gun-banner for the Brady Bunch but his claim is certainly interesting.

Gun Control Act of 1968
Keith Rollins Eakins

A highly controversial bill that precipitated emotional debate and ferocious political battles, the Gun Control Act traveled quite a convoluted path prior to its ultimate approval by Congress. It started down its torturous road in 1963 when Senator Thomas J. Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut, championed legislation geared specifically at tightening restrictions on the sale of mail-order handguns. After President Kennedy was murdered with a military-style rifle obtained through the mail, Senator Dodd extended the reach of the legislation to include "long guns," including rifles and shotguns. The legislation met an early demise when it was held up in the Commerce Committee and not allowed out for a vote on the Senate floor. Interestingly, the National Rifle Association (NRA) leaders initially supported the measures and even engaged in drafting Dodd's bill. Yet the NRA leadership did not wish to alienate its more radical rank and file, so they neglected to divulge this to their members. Instead, in a letter to each of its affiliates, the NRA claimed its executive vice-president testified against the bill and prevented it from being voted out of Committee. The NRA publication The Rifleman criticized the bill as a product of "irrational emotionalism," and the first four issues of The Rifleman in 1964 dedicated more than thirty columns to firearms legislation, never telling its members of the NRA leadership's support of the bill. These publications provoked the grass roots members to send off a great number of angry letters opposing the bill to Congress.
In 1965 President Johnson aggressively endorsed the cause of fighting crime and regulating firearms by spearheading a new, strict gun control measure that Dodd introduced in the Senate. But the Johnson administration's proposal suffered a string of defeats over the next three years because of heavy pressure from the NRA, key congressional leaders who supported them, the American Legion, and gun importers, manufacturers, and dealers. Adding to the administration's difficulties was the lack of an organized pro–gun control lobby to check the relentless onslaughts against the legislation by the NRA.
In 1968 President Johnson and his administration intensified their efforts. Johnson began using the bully pulpit of the presidency to chide Congress publicly to enact his gun control policy. In his 1968 State of the Union address, Johnson exhorted Congress to pass a gun control law that would stop "mail order murder." And months later, President Johnson conveyed to Congress, in no uncertain terms, his desire for crime legislation that required national registration of every gun in America and licenses for all gun owners. Both the House of Representatives and the Senate responded to the president's admonishment in short order. Congressional representatives carefully, and often vociferously, argued about the provisions of the president's crime legislation. The measure, titled the Safe Streets and Crime Control Bill, received stiff resistance from gun control opponents.

Anonymous said...

Support all three!

tjbbpgobIII said...

Yes, I have supported the NRA in the past and now too. However, if I see they deliberately screw this up they will get no more money from me and I will try to work to increase the membership of both the JFPO and GOA, two more gun groups I support now with dues. I can see the NRA doing something like this on purpose because if there are no more battles to fight then where would they get money to survive.

Anonymous said...

I didn't want to believe it at first, but it's becoming more and more like the quote in the side bar...Judenrat.

Pat H said...

This NRA treachery was covered last month on the Volokh Conspiracy blog, including some explanation about why the NRA was allowed to do what they're doing.

It goes much deeper than the above explanation goes. As many know the NRA was founded by former Union Army officers who were all wired into the corporate world that supported the Republican Party and the monster Lincoln way back when. They've always been the way they are today, they've always been inclined to compromise our intrinsic rights away for government.

In this case, the SCOTUS has allowed them time to make an argument that will give the justices an out to force boundaries on our right to keep and bear any weapon. The justices cannot themselves introduce an argument, but if an attorney introduces it for the plaintiff, then they can rule on it. That is why the NRA will be there, that is why the SCOTUS granted them time in a case for which they had no standing to be granted time.

tom said...

I cashed in my life membership when they tried to scupper Parker before it became Heller by wanting to tie it to a loser case, as they were afraid it wouldn't work out the way they wanted. This is, at minimum, Strike Two in "the Nonsensical Retreating Addled'es abuses of Gura and Cato". Doesn't surprise me a bit. When Jeff K's dad no longer had a significant say it all headed further downhill than it was already headed.

Uncle Lar said...

Up to now I have continued to pay a membership (5 years at a shot, cheapest price) to the NRA as I do like their efforts with the Eddie Eagle child safety training as well as their rangemaster certification program. I always ignore their whiney, fear mongering, beggings for additional donations and direct any spare cash towards other organizations.
If Gura wins the Chicago case I will probably continue current practice. If he loses I will place all the blame on this intrusion by the NRA and make sure they never again see a penny from me. I will also spread the word far and wide to encourage friends and acquaintances to do the same.

Unknown said...

I joined the NRA in the immediate aftermath of Daddy Bush's ban on imports of "assault rifles" in 1989. That was the beginning of my disillusionment with him, but it took me 18 years to become disillioned enough with the NRA to give them the heave-ho when I came up for renewal.

I'm pushing 50 now, and one of the things that I've learned is that you always have to dig down a few layers to find out the true motivations of both people and organizations - because RARELY will the polished-up image of a person or organization actually square with what they DO. In the NRA's case, there have been quite a number of incidents over the years in which it has become apparent that they are in favor of some gun control, just enough to be able to shout, "Hey, the Boogeyman wants yours guns, give us some money to fight him." I just got tired of supporting that. When they loudly come out in favor of the repeal of at least the '86 full auto ban, I'll reconsider joining up again. Of course, that'd still leave the GCA and NFA abominations, but at least it'd be a good start.

Until then, whatever spare money I've got for pro-gun orgs will go to those that are actually, you know, PRO-gun.

Anonymous said...

For me, the last straw was when in a recent edition of Am. Rifleman, they pretty much stated that they wouldn't provide any support to anyone trying to test the waters with the new FFA's in Montana and Tennessee.

They love to toot their horn about "standing for our freedom" and all that. Then why isn't somebody David Olofson on the cover of every month's magazine?

When my membership expires, I'm done with these guys.


FF101 said...

I got BANNED from the 'official' NRA facebook group for posting links to Oath Keepers, This blog and the Absolved facebook fan page.

Screw the NRA and their false pro gun agenda

Anonymous said...

Check out the title of this missive from LaPierre:


Anonymous said...

Hi Mike & all:

I'm an NRA member, but not too proud of it. In a sense I have no choice as our local County shooting range here in Texas is an NRA sponsored range. One HAS to join the NRA in order to use the range.

Could Gun Owners of America or JPFO utilize the same wise tactic of sponsoring local shooting ranges ?

And yes I do support Gun Owners of America, and JPFO, they're far more aggressive than the 'mainstream & PC NRA'.

I know Larry Pratt (head of GOA) is a serious Patriot who has his 'fortress of First Principles' sorted out. Gun Owners of America reflects his firmness of Principle.

Mr Pratt spoke to our Constitutional Law School on the 'Biblical & Historical Significance of the 2nd Amendment' - powerfully insightful talk.

He wove an historically based argument that referenced Genesis, the Law of Moses, English Common Law, Magna Charta, early Colonial Law & Natural Law and how they all fed into the Founding Fathers enshrinement of them in the simple but profound 2nd Amendment.

It was the kind of talk that leaves you changed forever.

It would have scared the average NRA board of director out of the room !

Why ? It was - too searching, too foundational, too at odds with our shifting moral assumptions - which inevitably guide any collectivist, group think endeavor - which, sad to say, the NRA undeniably IS.

Group think isn't always totally wrong, but bold or innovative thinking NEVER originates from group think, exclusively.

It almost ALWAYS comes from individuals, first (the prophet) then that is used to 'steer' the group, who are directionless without his influence.

Is this not why our States being set back upon the proper course may depend upon even the most humble ones of us, taking a stand despite the cost ?

And likewise, this nation of States will never right itself, as a whole, until some bold States take a potentially costly stand against the compromising whole ?

We shouldn't expect widespread applause when embarking upon this course.

The lone prophet will ALWAYS feel like he is the only one left faithful.

(Recall that the Biblical prophet confessed to the LORD that & He replied he had "7,000 men yet in Israel who had NOT bowed the knee to idols...")

So, applying this, as a Christian Patriot I try to remember that, that the lone Prophet, the individual, was often used to steer the group, Israel then or the church & nation now, back towards the proper course.

Upon attempting this, the habitual compromisers in the larger group (NRA) will be scared of this display of rash boldness (their conscience is compromised), and refuse to support you, the crazy prophet.

(Let's see, like FF101 got banned for daring to tell NRA Facebook group where the real Prophets hang out....Oathkeepers.....SipseyStreet.......hmmmmm.....keep it up FF101...)

But stand, we must. You are not alone, not by a long shot - in fact the ONLY way the other 7,000 men can be gathered is by you or I standing up to be counted.

Let the evil ones rage - they fight in vain against Truth Himself !

LORD bless you Patriots...

David Alan - Texas