Excerpts from George Herbert Walker Bush's letter to the NRA, May 3, 1995:
Dear Mr. Washington,
I was outraged when, even in the wake of the Oklahoma City tragedy, Mr. Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of N.R.A., defended his attack on federal agents as "jack-booted thugs." To attack Secret Service agents or A.T.F. people or any government law enforcement people as "wearing Nazi bucket helmets and black storm trooper uniforms" wanting to "attack law abiding citizens" is a vicious slander on good people.
...
I am a gun owner and an avid hunter. Over the years I have agreed with most of N.R.A.'s objectives, particularly your educational and training efforts, and your fundamental stance in favor of owning guns.
However, your broadside against Federal agents deeply offends my own sense of decency and honor; and it offends my concept of service to country. It indirectly slanders a wide array of government law enforcement officials, who are out there, day and night, laying their lives on the line for all of us.
You have not repudiated Mr. LaPierre's unwarranted attack. Therefore, I resign as a Life Member of N.R.A., said resignation to be effective upon your receipt of this letter. Please remove my name from your membership list.
Sincerely,
George Bush
* * *
35 comments:
The vast majority of gun owners are not members of the NRA.
James Old Guy
You should have seen the letter my uncle wrote, relinquishing his membership to the AARP. Scathing! He's still old, though.
Erin, Do you really think G.H.W. Bush's defense of "jack-booted thugs," and subsequent withdrawl of membership in the NRA, is actually noteworthy, or surprising in the least?
Well Einstein, I obviously found it notable or I wouldn't have posted it.
Surprising? Probably not. What would be surprising is any public statement against the NRA from today's conservative politicians.
I miss conservatives like Bush Sr. who had the balls to stand up to the bullies and loud-mouthed slobs of the far right. I also suggest you follow the link at the top of the post and read his letter in its entirety.
If what James said is true, it's disturbing that the NRA is the loudest voice representing gun owners.
Now then, Mr. Venlet, calm down. You're getting awfully emotional over this.
And a question, Mr. Venlet, when you were a submariner (as announced on your pages), were you working as an agent for the US GOV; and if so, did you consider yourself to be a "jack-booted thug?"
As for gun control, here is the question no one is asking: What would Nancy Lanza been charged with had she not been shot with her own gun?
That is the key: stringent laws that severely punish firearm negligence. Nancy Lanza should have gone to jail for a long time.
If you don't report a gun as lost or stolen and that gun is used in a murder, you damn well ought to be charged as an accessory.
If a little kid finds your gun and kills himself, you need to be charged with a crime that carries a very long mandatory sentence. No pleas. No paroles. Just jail.
Have all the filthy guns you want, but if something goes wrong you better be able to prove before 12 of your peers that you had exercised due diligence in keeping that gun out of the wrong hands and if you can't, welcome to massive fines and long long jail sentences.
Erin, per your suggestion, I read Bush's letter in its entirety. I do not doubt, that there are individuals employed in government service who are not jack-booted thugs, as Bush avowed, but I am not naive and fully realize that some individuals employed in government service would all too willingly assume the role of jack-booted thugs to maintain their positions, paychecks and to protect their families. Past and current World history, not just U.S. history, proves this point.
Is it disturbing that the NRA is the loudest voice representing gun owners? Only in the sense, in my opinion, that the right to keep and bear arms is an inalienable right, a right which is the possession of all humanity, and the NRA is not defending humanity's rights, only Americans', as related to the 2nd amendment. Every voice should be defending the right to keep and bear arms, every voice, but for the more basic and primary reason of the right to private property. Oh, and I am not a member of the NRA.
Mr. Venlet, when you were a submariner (as announced on your pages), were you working as an agent for the US GOV; and if so, did you consider yourself to be a "jack-booted thug?"
A very pertinent question, Erin. When, as a young man, I served in the U.S. Navy, from 1979 to 1984, I fully realized that I was employed in the service of protecting America's interests against foreign powers, an agent, as you say, of the US GOV, so the most direct answer to your question is yes, I realized I was, in a sense, a jack-booted thug. I was a jack-booted thug to foreign powers, but not to my fellow Americans. If, during those years of serving in subs, I would have been called upon, directly ordered, to act against my fellow Americans, I would have refused, regardless of the threats to my freedom or life for refusing.
I am not naive and fully realize that some individuals employed in government service would all too willingly assume the role of jack-booted thugs to maintain their positions, paychecks and to protect their families.
Same goes for the private sector. Welcome to human nature, John.
As for your "inalienable right" to bear arms. Says who? Jesus? The Pope? The constitution? Nope. Just ol' Jon Venlet. And "all humanity" is pretty inclusive. If you want to defend Adam Lanza's right to bear arms, good luck.
Now then, how's the atmosphere in your silly little ideological bubble?
Same goes for the private sector.
Very true indeed, Erin.
As for your "inalienable right" to bear arms. Says who? Jesus? The Pope? The constitution?...Just ol' Jon (sic) Venlet
Erin, even if I am the only individual, or being, in the universe declaring the right to keep and bear arms as an inalienable right; and you'll note that I stated that the more basic reason/right to own arms is the right to private property; I am not incorrect.
As for individuals such as the Lanzas of the world, well, all the gun restrictions promulgated by man in law, to date, have not been able to prevent such individuals from perpetrating the evils they have perpetrated.
"I stated that the more basic reason/right to own arms is the right to private property; I am not incorrect."-John Venlet
Dear John,
I'm a man who has everything and shopping for giftd gives my family and friends fits. I have requested a Neutron Bomb. Can you tell me where 1 might be obtained?
Yours,
RJ
By the way, since we're discussing history("Past and current World history, not just U.S. history, proves this point."JV)Do any you guns rights fellows happen to recall what happened to Fred Hampton and Mark Clark when they were asseembling an arsenal of firearms for their own defense back in 1969? I'm getting old but I don't recall the NRA rushing to their defense when THEY WERE MURDERED BY THE FBI.
How I'd love to see some American Moslems from the Mosque in Murfreeboro TN stage a march for gun rights. I bet the local Tea Publicans would turn out in force to support them-NOT!
Cliff Notes: The hullabaloo about 2nd Amendment Rights is nothing more than grandstanding by people who get more of a charge out of thumping their chests and shouting "I know my rights" than they would by figuring out how they are being manipulated by weapons manufacturers.
Amygdala I bow down to thee.
Randy Johnson
Randy Johnson
... all the gun restrictions promulgated by man in law, to date, have not been able to prevent such individuals from perpetrating the evils they have perpetrated.
Ah yes, the ol' law-are-meaningless argument. You no likey rule of law, move to Sudan.
While I might not have a right to a gun by anyone's standards, that I accept. But I do have a right and an obligation to defend myself and my family. That is basic to human nature, the issue becomes what level of defense is permitted. If I am attacked by someone who has a stick, if I also use a stick to defend myself am I wrong? What level of defense is permitted when a woman who is five foot tall and weighs less than 100 lbs is attacked by a six foot four ,two hundred and eighty pound man?
I agree with Erin in the fact that if you have a gun you have an obligation that comes with that ownership. The same holds true for an automobile, knife or a garden hoe. Nothing I read in what the President proposed radically upset me if the emphasis is placed where it needs to be placed. The fact that the only proposal that might have prevented the Sandy Hook murders deals with mental health. A background check today means nothing tomorrow, will it help, yes, is it a cure, NO.
James Old Guy
I still believe that if Nancy Lanza was as afraid of the words "firearm negligence" as any consumer of alcohol is of the three letters "DUI," she may have handled her firearms differently.
Yes that's pure conjecture, but DUI laws didn't outlaw alcohol, but they sure changed the way many people consume it.
As for laws not stopping any gun violence, I'm sure glad the cops shut these idiots down.
"I still believe that if Nancy Lanza was as afraid of the words "firearm negligence" as any consumer of alcohol is of the three letters "DUI," she may have handled her firearms differently"-EO'B
I do not have an encyclopedic knowledge of this issue but as I read this it occured to me I hadn't heard any objections from a Plantiffs attorney to the new regs. I'm guessing there's a Personal Injury Atty out there somewhere that would have gladly pursued Ms. Lanza for damages had she lived.
RJ
Ah yes, the ol' law-are-meaningless argument. You no likey rule of law, move to Sudan.
Erin, I did not state that laws are meaningless. Be that as it may, to clarify my point, I ask you, clearly and directly, is the reason you do not murder another individual because of a law, as written and codified by man, or, do you not murder another individual because you fully realize that murdering another individually is morally wrong?
Is it the words on a piece of paper which are inhibiting you?
Wow, this was nice to read!
I'm a man who has everything and shopping for giftd gives my family and friends fits. I have requested a Neutron Bomb. Can you tell me where 1 might be obtained?
RJ, unfortunately, as far as I am aware, Neutron Bombs are not available on the open market due to various states holding a monopoly of force on this type of weapon, so, no, I do not know where you could obtain one. Russia might be a possibility though.
The hullabaloo about 2nd Amendment Rights is nothing more than grandstanding by people who get more of a charge out of thumping their chests and shouting "I know my rights" than they would by figuring out how they are being manipulated by weapons manufacturers.
Amygdala I bow down to thee.
RJ, if the weapons manufacturers are manipulating the people to buy more handguns and rifles, they certainly are going about in an interesting way, i.e. petitioning the state to further restrict sales by enacting more restrictive laws to retrict access to guns and thus decrease sales.
Yes, I believe people do not commit murder because of the words on a piece of paper. The words represent consequences.
Fear of consequences (most notably getting caught and going to prison), may be a more significant deterrent than morality with some people, probably more people than I imagine.
Again, it's just my conjecture, but I would wager that the suicide portion of a murder/suicide is often about fear of consequence.
Soldiers are given a license to kill every day. They kill plenty of people without consequence--at least the consequences we can see.
Are all soldiers who kill immoral? Because I promise you someone thinks those killings are immoral murder, particularly the ones we call "collateral damage" while mumbling ... um ... oops ... sorry ...
Hiroshima? Nagasaki? They weren't worth it to the people burying kin. The people burying kin didn't think we were on any moral high ground.
I'd also like to see a link demonstrating that weapons manufacturers are "petitioning the state to further restrict sales by enacting more restrictive laws to retrict access to guns and thus decrease sales."
I'd also like to see a link demonstrating that weapons manufacturers are "petitioning the state to further restrict sales by enacting more restrictive laws to retrict access to guns and thus decrease sales."
Erin, there will not be a link for that, it was simply a rebuttal statement to RJ's supposition that weapons manufacturers are manipulating the public in order to increase sales.
The NRA is a weapons manufacturers lobby. By evoking fear that gun nuts will lose their weapons they have created a domestic arms race and increased sales. AR 15's are on back order.
RJ
I love the intelligent comments here today, Erin. There are more than usual. It's refreshing.
I suppose that says nothing about which comments I think are intelligent.
Keep up the good work, Lady Erin.
"If you don't report a gun as lost or stolen and that gun is used in a murder, you damn well ought to be charged as an accessory.
If a little kid finds your gun and kills himself, you need to be charged with a crime that carries a very long mandatory sentence. No pleas. No paroles. Just jail.
Have all the filthy guns you want, but if something goes wrong you better be able to prove before 12 of your peers that you had exercised due diligence in keeping that gun out of the wrong hands and if you can't, welcome to massive fines and long long jail sentences."
I am curious about this one. If my 15 year old steals my car and runs someone over and kills them, am I liable? Or if my 5 year old takes my chef's knife to the neighbor's dog? Or the neighbor kid grabs a log from my wood pile and throws it through the neighbor's window, am I liable for all of those too?
The fact that you refer to firearms as "Filthy Guns" tells me that you have these inanimate objects in a totally separate class from every other thing. Would it make you nervous to realize that someone next to you on the bus had a gun? If so, are you nervous sitting next to large men?
Thanks for dropping in, Woodman.
Suggestion: If your five-year-old takes a butcher knife to the neighbor's dog, you probably need to have him psychologically evaluated as he might be headed for Jeffrey Dahmer territory--and yes, you probably are liable at in that incident. Not sure about the others.
A gun is not a knife. A gun is not a car. A gun is not log. A gun is a gun. And just like we have regulations surrounding a bottle of Dewars that do not apply to a bottle of Dasani, we have regulations that apply to guns that do not apply to cars and knives and logs.
People use a lot of things to murder. You can't drive your gun to the grocery store or cut a steak with it or burn it in a campfire. You can only use a gun to shoot or look at, although I suppose you could bludgeon someone with a gun.
As for big men, I have always proudly asserted that I like big hairy guys with beer.
And some food for thought: if your five year old gets his hands on that bottle of Dewars and drinks enough of it to induce alcohol poisoning and dies, should the parent be held liable?
"As for big men, I have always proudly asserted that I like big hairy guys with beer."-EO'B
If I was on a bus next to EO'B and a big hairy guy with a beer I might be nervous Woodman. But not nearly as nervous as I would be sitting next to a big hairy man with Cheetah print shoes.
RJ
"And some food for thought: if your five year old gets his hands on that bottle of Dewars and drinks enough of it to induce alcohol poisoning and dies, should the parent be held liable?"
No, if that were to happen to my daughter there is not a damn thing that the government or any law could do that would make it worse. In fact, if they were to lock me up and put me away and or execute me that could be considered mercy.
I happen to have several guns in my house that aren't much good for anything but looking at. In fact, bludgeoning someone to death with one of them might be more efficient.
What people are talking about as solutions, are solutions to things that aren't problems. Blunt objects were used to kill more people last year than all murders by rifles, maybe only a couple were killed with actual assault rifles. More people were shot and killed with one bullet than were killed with any kind of magazine, more illegal gun owners killed people than legal ones.
A gun is apparently the only object that can be used in a crime and damn every object like it. Knives deal with some of this problem, but not as much as guns do. Guns are the only method of self defense that put the defender on the same level as the attacker.
Considering the fact that there are documented cases of people being shot multiple times and surviving, and even continuing their attack, I need as many bullets in my gun as I am comfortable with.
Do you have a problem with me carrying a six inch knife on my belt? Or me taking a martial art and getting a black belt? Or carrying a pair of brass knuckles?
All of these things are designed to even the odds if something happens that isn't supposed to happen. I can't think of one time where the police stopped someone from attacking someone else. The police are there to punish lawbreakers, not protect people.
All that being said. I believe that the individual who shot up Sandy Hook took his target rifle and shot his mother in the face with it, then he took her key and opened her safe to get her guns. There is no law that would prevent that.
I am not held back from killing someone because of the law against it, and I doubt many people are. I really don't understand the thinking that says the only reason some people don't kill each other is because of a piece of paper. If you look at individuals of low moral status, they do kill each other in droves, and whoever else happens to be nearby.
You know, Woodman, with all your several-gun-big-man-brass-knuckle-big-knife-killing talk, a person might think you're trying to be intimidating.
If so, it ain't working.
As for booze and the five-year-old, um ... make it worse? For starters they'd take away your other kids and no one would think that was a bad idea.
Speaking of kids, I'll bet the parents of those 20 dead first-graders wish Adam Lanza had been armed with brass knuckles. I bet they wish he didn't have as many bullets in his gun as he was comfortable with.
Intimidating, I apologize if I came across that way. I honestly wasn't trying to be. My point was if you are afraid of guns, then why aren't you afraid of all the other things that could easily kill people. Especially since you believe that there are people out there that only don't kill because it's against the law.
"Speaking of kids, I'll bet the parents of those 20 dead first-graders wish Adam Lanza had been armed with brass knuckles. I bet they wish he didn't have as many bullets in his gun as he was comfortable with."
And how many bullets in a magazine would have prevented the tragedy? He had 30 rounders and left most of them half full, so we know 15 is too many right? 10 is what people call for a lot. Don't think that would matter when he had 20 minutes. A single shot rifle would have been as deadly, especially backed up with a second weapon.
There was nothing at all in that school that could stop him. Nothing, and no one. It took the police 20 minutes to cover the 2.3 miles to the school. And as soon as people with guns showed up he killed himself. The press response is to make it so it takes longer for a gun to show up, not less time.
And since you bring it up, I bet there are parents of those kids that wish someone had been there to save their kids instead of just huddling with them in the dark trusting that he'll kill someone else instead. I believe each of those teachers did the very best to help their kids, including giving their own lives, but not one of them had a chance of actually stopping him because "gun free zone".
Imagine if one teacher had been armed, just one. Is there any result that would have been worse than what actually happened?
I am not afraid of guns and never have been.
One armed teacher, eh? From a comment I posted over at Hoose's place:
The guns the Secret Service agents were carrying as they surrounded Ronald Reagan on March 30, 1981 didn't protect the President and three other people from John Hinckley's six bullets.
Good thing he only had a revolver.
Gee, I wonder how much damage Hinckley could have done with a semi-automtic.
That attack lasted seconds, I think if it had lasted 25 minutes someone might have been able to do something.
And maybe he would have done more damage with a semi, though the time involved to take aimed shots starts stretching out into the Secret Service response time real quick. In any case it's the response of armed men that stop him.
If the Newtown shooter had had a couple revolvers and a bolt action rifle do you think the body count would have been less? Everyone still would have been as helpless and he still gets to play God until the cops get there.
I'm pretty sure people will start running away from an eighteen wheeler as it's speeding toward them.
If the Newtown shooter had had a couple revolvers and a bolt action rifle do you think the body count would have been less?
I have no idea, but depending on his skill it may have been. How many of these cheezdicks today can load and fire a muzzle loader with any speed?
I do love it, however, when the gun camp defends a murderers right to convenience within his craft. Do you guys throw in a complimentary blow job as well?
Thanks for letting me spout my opinion on your post.
I don't think we have enough common ground on this topic to reach an agreement. Our base values are on different angles that may meet on other issues but just aren't reconcilable on this one.
My two younger daughters both had shooter response drills last week, and in one of their cases there is a door leading outside in the actual classroom but the correct response is to hide in the corner of the room with the lights off. As long as that is the solution to an armed attacker then there isn't much anyone can do. The older one was told to hide in the Cafeteria, which has all glass walls, again, up against the wall on her knees in a line with all the other kids. Any organization that thinks this is the best response to an active shooter is in serious need of some rethinking. For schools to require that students assume the very posture and location that a gunman would want them in is the definition of insanity, especially to anyone who has watched the Columbine video or listened to the Virginia Tech survivors.
"I do love it, however, when the gun camp defends a murderers right to convenience within his craft. Do you guys throw in a complimentary blow job as well?"
Like I said, no common point of reference.
I'm not sure why you've decided to make your comments personal attacks against me. I said something on this topic because it interests me and it seemed pretty level headed conversation.
I joined this conversation because it seemed pretty reasonable, making your argument that I want to give mass murderers fellatio takes it out of the "reasonable" column and into the "I insult the other side because they aren't really human" land.
You're welcome any time here, Woodman and thanks for the polite comments.
Yes, the blowjob comment was flippant and probably undeserved. I apologize.
I'll try to make my point more articulately: The gun camp is constantly reiterating how magazine capacity does not matter and changing a magazine is practically effortless.
If it is so meaningless, why is there such resistance to limiting it?
Also, the throw-up-your-hand-because-there's-nothing-we-can-do argument just doesn't get it.
Post a Comment