* Forwarded (from: PA-RKBA) by Roy J. Tellason using timEd 1.10.y2k.
* Originally from "njks.geo (1:270/615.77) to All.
* Original dated: Mon Dec 09, 13:07

From: "njks.geo "

Subject: PA-RKBA! Re: In defense of U.S. citizens

The following syndicated article was printed in yesterday's West Chester
Daily Local News, and no doubt other PA papers.

Please take this opportunity to point out to the masses that anything that
can be done to quiet the NRA can also be used to quiet the NAACP, AARP,
AAA, JDL, pro-life/choice, labor unions, you name it.  It may be about the
NRA *THIS TIME*, but will be used against any organisation with "too
much influence" eventually.

Larry, please submit to DLN, I already filled my quota this month.

Bengt


December 8, 2002

In defense of U.S. citizens
Jay Ambrose

There's a problem in the land, or so said the so-called reformers. Powerful
organizations, they told us, are taking over our politics. They are
drowning out the voice of the people. Democracy is in peril unless we can
reconstitute our campaign finance laws to shut these organizations up when
elections draw nigh. Need an example? They had one they loved to trot out
-- the National Rifle Association. There are many problems with the
analysis. One is that the
First Amendment's free speech guarantee applies to everyone, even the
powerful. Another is that the threat to democracy -- at least according to
any traditional understanding of democracy -- is not people speaking out,
but governmental attempts to control these people. And still another
problem with
the reformers' view is that many of the groups in question -- including the
NRA, their favorite whipping boy -- are nothing more than collections of
citizens exercising citizenship. They are the people.  It may serve the
purposes of those who don't like the NRA to portray it otherwise. Some
references make it seem a dark, menacing force of secretive conspirators.
The truth is that it is a group that operates in the open and has 4 million
members, some of whom are almost surely your neighbors and friends. These
people may join the NRA for lots of reasons, such as the training the NRA
provides in rifle shooting, but they also join to do what people are
supposed to do in a free, self-governing society. They are working together
for the
political ends to which they subscribe. Their dues are not much -- $35 a
year. And the average contribution to the political action committee's fund
ranges from $12 to $18, I was told. A powerful group? Yes. But why is it
powerful? Some of the answer has to do with passion, I suspect; these
people care about their beliefs. The money counts because it facilitates
research and communication and other activities. But the biggest reason for
the power is that the members and others -- including many of America's 70
million or so gun owners -- respond with their votes. Talking about the
connection between
the organization and voters, an NRA lobbyist once said in a speech,
"We flush 'em, you bust 'em." Once alerted, voters sympathetic to
the NRA will often vote the NRA way. I myself agree with the NRA more often
than I disagree with it. Even some constitutional experts of a
gun-controlling disposition now concur with what ought to be obvious to
anyone: The Second Amendment establishes a personal right of gun ownership.
Despite a dearth of attention to the fact, the legitimate ownership of guns
saves many lives each year. And,
as the NRA keeps observing, the chances are slim to zero that still another
gun law is going to accomplish what so many others have failed to do,
namely, prevent the murderous-minded from acquiring the means of their
mayhem. But suppose you disagree with the NRA. Suppose you think its
positions lead to bloody consequences. Would that justify you in silencing
the group? Obviously not. The NRA does not write the laws. Legislators do.
If you think the legislators are writing bad laws and that some are too
much under the influence of the NRA, vote against the legislators or start
your own group to fight back or do both. Don't do as Congress did in
passing the McCain-Feingold
bill. Among other provisions in this legislation, one says that when
elections get near, advocacy groups had better disappear. Mention a federal
candidate's name in a political ad on TV or radio close to a primary or
general election and, if you did not use political action committee money,
you could be
in violation of the law. The reformers' rationale, as best I can puzzle it
out, is that politics will be purer under this safeguard and that the
voters will be protected from critically voiced views that might cause them
to make wrong decisions. Call that democracy or liberty or sound policy if
you like,
but you will thereby show yourself up as someone who actually has qualms
about the people's capacity for self-governance, and if you are running for
re-election, you will demonstrate that you are less interested in free
speech than a free ride back to office. Court arguments began last week
that will likely lead to a Supreme Court decision deciding whether portions
of this law
live or die. Let's hope death is the verdict. We do not need to control the
speech of the NRA or any other association of citizens. We need to inhibit
politicians who have such huge disrespect for their fellow Americans.

Jay Ambrose is director of editorial policy for Scripps Howard Newspapers.


"Our Rights are not what's wrong in Pennsylvania"

The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania guarantees your right
to bear arms in Article 1 Section 21: "The right of Citizens to bear
arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."

To unsubscribe to this list, send a message to pa-rkba-unsubscribe{at}yahoogroups.com

H Howard Lewis Bloom takes no responsibility for the content of the message
as this is an unmoderated list.  ***All Rights Reserved***

___
 - Origin: TANSTAAFL BBS  Internet Gateway (1:270/615.77) 
---