From David M. Bresnahan's Feb. 8, 2000 WorldNetDaily article, Congressman gives away free guns:
"What's it going to solve?" asked NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre regarding the Clinton-Gore proposal to license gun owners. "The criminals could care less. They're not going to stand in line; they won't comply with it," he said. The NRA has warned that Clinton's proposal to track every gun and bullet used in a crime means that all guns will be registered.
So true. But then why, should these new laws pass, does LaPierre want to enforce them?
Through "Project Exile," LaPierre wants to "enforce existing gun laws" with "zero tolerance" and a 5-year stay in the Federal Gulags that he's helping build, despite the unconstitutionality of most existing gun laws and our bitter struggles against their enactment. Predictably, Clinton & Co. are buying in: "Enforce existing gun laws, huh? Hey, that sounds pretty good. How about 500 more ATF agents?" (Which, of course, LaPierre had to swallow, though as usual he didn't seem to mind). Anti-gun enthusiasm for Project Gun Gulag should be no surprise, considering that LaPierre partnered with the likes of anti-gun Philadelphia Mayor Ed Rendell to grease this sucker deal.
And yet, this from the "NRA Winning Team" web site:
"Readers of the FAX Alert may be surprised to read about the latest politician taking credit for "Project Exile." A Buffalo News article (8/10/99) quoted none other than Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), as saying, "Before Project Exile, committing a crime with an illegal gun could mean only a slap on the wrist. But now those wrists are slapped with handcuffs." (CREDIT WHERE CREDIT IS DUE? NRAÂ*ILA FAX ALERT, Vol. 6, No. 32, 8/20/99)
Actually, only a cretin should be surprised by any of this, including NRA's "surprise" that the enemy is wholeheartedly jumping on their bandwagon. Can anyone truly believe that Schumer doesn't see this as a vehicle to turn decent gun owners into political prisoners, one by one? Is NRA's "Winning" Team really that dense, or, like the corrupt police official in Casablanca, are they "shocked, shocked, to discover that there is gambling in this institution" (as they collect their winnings)?
I've little doubt that when pressed, LaPierre will say something like, "I meant real criminals; you know, violent felons." But while LaPierre's "Winning Team" drones the "enforcement" chant, they rarely bother limiting the focus of Project Exile propaganda to previously convicted criminals; even more rarely to felons or violent criminals. Not that these finer distinctions would help anyway. "Convicted Criminals," or "Convicted Felons" will include victimless gun criminals, decent folks who get busted for CCW or refusing to turn in "illegal" guns, then get busted again after doing their time. And as gun laws become increasingly complex and numerous, decent Americans will become victims of Project Gulag due to unknowing, unintentional violations.
Moreover, since anti-gunners are designing and implementing Project Exile, even the phrase "Violent Criminals" will include decent, victimless offenders. For example, say the police come to confiscate your "assault weapon," which respectable sport shooter Charlton Heston says you have no legitimate reason to own. Maybe you're not enthusiastic enough about giving it up. Maybe you even mouth off something about your "rights." Let's assume you're luckier than Don Scott, the Weavers, and the little kiddies at Waco, so the police merely beat you and claim you attacked them. Besides being convicted of a gun "crime," you're also convicted of a "violent crime" -- resisting arrest, assaulting an officer, or some such charge. Later, after doing time, you're arrested & convicted for exercising your "inalienable human right" to carry for self-defense, and you do 5 years in the Gun Gulag on Strike 2. Later still, "free" again, you get your 3rd strike for incorrigibly exercising your "RKBA." Thanks again to LaPierre's "Winning" Team, big supporters of 3 Victimless Crimes & You're Out, massive prison-building programs, and other cornerstones of the Police State and the Prison Industrial Complex, you go to the Gun Gulag for life.
Here. In America. As a political prisoner. Even though you never hurt a soul.
It doesn't matter what LaPierre's "Winning" Team really meant by "enforce existing gun laws." The mindless, simpleton chant is what's catching on. Perhaps NRA's "Winning" Team merely was not careful what it wished for or how it wished for it. But they pried open Pandora's Box, and the focus of what comes out will not be limited to "real" criminals. Project Exile will be used against all citizens who violate gun laws, and it will work the way the anti-gunners want it to.
So when they pass gun owner registration (as if we don't largely have it already thanks to Heston's Gun Control Act of 1968), LaPierre will help enforce it. Isn't it wonderful? We fight new laws today, help the police state enforce them tomorrow.
And if LaPierre is really worried about registration, why is he pushing InstaCheck rather than an alternative program that would enable dealers to check backgrounds without the government knowing who's buying guns? Of course, the government is not supposed to keep background check records. That would be wrong! But it was wrong when the government murdered Don Scott, then shot little Sammy Weaver in the back and sent a sniper to kill his infant-carrying mother, then machine-gunned, crushed, gassed, and incinerated scores of men, women and children at a religious retreat, then whitewashed and covered it up, cheered on by bloodthirsty, news media ratings-******. The perpetrators were never punished. Instead, they received extensive public approbation, and they are in charge of InstaCheck. Does LaPierre believe that murderers would think twice about keeping records of gun buyers? What are they afraid of, the law? Far as they're concerned, they are the law.
"Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?", asked Juvenal, some two millennia past. "But who shall guard the guards?" Isn't that why the Framers wanted the People to be the guards? To be primarily responsible for our own defense and the defense of our families and communities, and not to delegate these basic rights and responsibilities? Over the generations since our right to self-defense was paid for in blood, we foolishly ignored Franklin and Washington, trading liberty for an illusion of safety; hiring a dangerous servant and getting a fearful master.
To score quickly forgotten public relations points, or to appease our oppressors, should we help expand the Police State and the Prison Industrial Complex, leaders of which will surely come to view the unorganized militia as a political threat, citizen self-defense as an economic threat, and victimless criminals as resources? Shouldn't we be trying to reverse this secular mistake, the incremental quitclaiming of our ultimate power? Shouldn't we delegate to or share with government only those functions which enhance our ability to defend ourselves, withholding those which supplant it? Shouldn't we aim to become the guards again?