Sunday, December 23, 2012

1995: George H.W. Bush Resigned Lifetime NRA Membership Over La Pierre Fanaticism

 The New Civil Rights Movement

“On April 13, less than a week before the Oklahoma City bombing, Mr. LaPierre signed a fund-raising letter asserting that President Clinton’s ban on assault weapons ‘gives jackbooted Government thugs more power to take away our constitutional rights, break in our doors, seize our guns, destroy our property and even injure and kill us,’” The New York Times reported in May of 1995:

From a “special report” in “The American Rifleman,” the N.R.A. magazine, June 1994 edition, written by Wayne R. LaPierre Jr., the association’s executive vice president. It is titled, “The Final War Has Begun.”

“How long are the American people going to put up with this sort of thing? It is popular at this time to compare the behavior our uncontrolled Federal agents to that of the Nazis in the Third Reich. It may be that this is a valid comparison, but the Nazis are long ago and far away, whereas the ninja in the U.S. are right now in full-cry and apparently without fear of any sort of control. The move mainly at night. They conceal their faces. They use overwhelming firepower and the make almost no effort to identify their targets. They are scarier than the Nazis — who at least never concealed their faces.”
The first President Bush's response, final two paragraphs of his letter:

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, [ signed ] George Bush


  1. The NRA is filled with insane klowns who should be jailed for their wack ideas. All normal people should resign.

    1. You would lock people up for their ideas? How is that permitted in the American system of law?

      What we see here is an illustration of what I've said all along. If we throw out the protections of one amendment, all the others are at risk. Anonymous wants to jail members of the NRA for supporting gun rights--in other words, advocating that free expression, and by implication, free thought, must be sacrificed.

      Mikeb, this is where your ideas lead.

    2. Greg:

      "You would lock people up for their ideas? How is that permitted in the American system of law?"

      Supreme thoughtcrime is a capital offence, my comrade.

    3. You are not my comrade, E.N. We're enemies. Your bullshit assertions are just the babbling of someone desperate to control the lives of others.

    4. Ah, Campy, you're a fool.

      People who threaten others should be put in jail. Nutjob Nugent is lucky not to be there now. That is not the same thing as locking up people for ideas; it is locking up people who pose a threat.

      No one wants to jail anyone for supporting actual gun rights, which are extremely limited - guns in homes, sort of, kind of, unless future SCOTUS decisions overturn Heller, which is distinctly possible.

      La Pierre doesn't represent the rank and file of the NRA as evidenced by the various polls of gun owners and specifically of NRA members who want things like universal background checks and who support a lot of other gun control laws. Your gun culture is a massive failure Campy, like your attempts at logic. You overstretched here.

      Just keep drooling out the gun nut hysteria -- and we will keep laughing at you. I can't wait until you are required to do background checks before selling or trading your little gun fetish objects in future.

    5. Dog Gone, years ago, reading and writing were seen as separate skills. You illustrate that distinction. Anonymous said that NRA "insane klowns" should be jailed for their "wack ideas." Not for threats, not for actual acts--for their ideas. That's what I objected to here. You swoop in to blither about gods know what with your box of Instant Comment (TM)--just whip and serve.

    6. I have made the statement that a repeal of the Second Amendment ought to be accompanied by a provision which would allow ex post facto prosecutions of the more sinister gun owners, and therefore serve as a deterrent against future incitement of treason.

    7. Greg, I don't think Anonymous meant that literally, and you don't either. You're doing what you often do, jumping on some little thing, exaggerating it out of proportion and pretending to be outraged.

      What's your opinion of the NRA rhetoric? That's the issue.

    8. E.N., no one gives a damn what statements you've made. Deal with it.

    9. Mikeb, given the actions of Federal law enforcement at various incidents during the time in question, the rhetoric is understandable. But, in your view, your side never uses extreme rhetoric?

  2. Replies
    1. Forgot to mention - since HW didn't ever rejoin, so far as I can tell, he must still think La Pierre and the gun nuts are, to borrow a song lyric, still crazy after all these years.

    2. No accounting for taste, I suppose.