Date: Tue, 23 May 95 21:17:00 UTC From: [s--ts--v] at [genie.geis.com] To: [gr conf] at [mainstream.com], [n--b--n] at [mainstream.com] Subject: Political Apologies The following article is under submission. Reproduction on computer bulletin boards is permitted for informational purposes only. Copyright (c) 1995 by J. Neil Schulman. All other rights reserved. POLITICAL APOLOGIES by J. Neil Schulman I was in Phoenix at the NRA's 1995 annual meeting when I first learned that Wayne LaPierre had issued an apology for the NRA fund-raising letter which used the phrase "jack-booted thugs" in reference to federal law-enforcement agents at Waco, Ruby Ridge, and elsewhere. My first reaction was the same as most libertarians, as expressed by L. Neil Smith and Victor Milan: what on Earth does Wayne think he's doing? You don't apologize when you're RIGHT. You don't apologize when doing so will reveal your underbelly to your enemies. So, I introduced a resolution during the annual meeting on May 19th. It was one of my shorter works. The resolution was, "No more apologies!" I thought it would be quite clear to the NRA membership what this meant, in the context of recent events. NRA President Tom Washington read the resolution to the assembled members. There was applause. He called for a second and heard one. I didn't bother speaking for the resolution; I thought everyone understood it. The first person to come to one of the eight microphones offered an amendment, asking that all such resolutions, when passed, be published in the American Rifleman and American Hunter magazines. I accepted this as a friendly amendment with regard to this particular resolution. The second person to come to a microphone to speak regarding the resolution was perhaps the most respected man in the room: firearms philosopher and trainer, Jeff Cooper. He opposed it. Cooper said it was impossible to tie the hands of an organization's leadership so that they couldn't apologize when they made a mistake. The third person to speak on my resolution was Wayne LaPierre. He reiterated what he had said in an earlier address to the members, that his apology was to federal law-enforcement officers who might have thought that he was calling them ALL jack-booted thugs, not just the few who committed wrong-doings at Waco, Ruby Ridge, and so forth. By this point, there were about half a dozen people lined up at the AGAINST microphones to oppose the resolution, and no one at a FOR microphone to support it. If I had been more adept at parliamentary tactics, I might have asked to amend my resolution to something like, "There was nothing to apologize for!" But, I felt disheartened that so obvious a point had been missed by the thousand or so NRA members sitting in the hall -- or that they simply disagreed with my attempt to stiffen the NRA's spine. Fellow activists came up to me and asked me to withdraw my resolution so as not to give the media more fodder for claiming the NRA was divided and in disarray. I took their advice. Approaching a microphone and getting recognized by President Washington on a point of personal privilege, I said that having gotten a sense of the meeting, and because of Mr. LaPierre's eloquent words, I was withdrawing my resolution. My withdrawal received far louder applause than the resolution's introduction. Now, what are we to make of all this? The first thing that strikes me is that the NRA leadership has an excellent sense of what will play with the NRA membership and what won't play -- a far better grasp than I had, it seems, and by extension, a better grasp of it than other libertarian authors such as L. Neil Smith and Victor Milan. The leaders of a democratic organization have to speak for the organization. They can't be either more radical or less radical than the membership wants them to be -- or they will be out of a job. And, if I did nothing else, I demonstrated that Wayne LaPierre is almost precisely where the NRA membership wants him to be. The membership, as expressed in their treatment of various resolutions from the floor, want the NRA leadership to be politically activist in opposing infringements on the Second Amendment, but they want the organization to steer clear of privately organized militias, steer well clear of any sort of armed resistance to government authority, and they want the NRA to be perceived as generally supporting law enforcement. Wayne LaPierre's apology to federal law-enforcement, while refusing to back down on specific cases of abuse of power under color of authority by federal law-enforcement officers, appears to be exactly the balance that the NRA membership wants their leaders to take on their behalf. It's no secret that I'm a revolutionary, albeit one who believes revolution can be accomplished in the voting booth, who wants government power reduced and dispersed, and private rights and powers maximized. I'm a Liberal Republican: a 19th century liberal and an 18th century republican. But any revolutionary has to be aware that revolution is a POLITICAL effort, which requires winning the support of the people. A revolution without popular support is almost a contradiction in terms: it wouldn't be a revolution but a mere coup d'etat, a changing of tyrants. If, as it seems, the NRA is currently the largest organization in the United States -- about 3.5 million members -- that defends the ENTIRE Bill of Rights, that would explain why the NRA was successful in overturning four decades of Democratic Party rule of Congress because of the 103rd Congress passing a gun ban ... why the Republican Party leadership fears the NRA and supports their political agenda ... why the keynote speaker at the NRA annual meeting was Republican Presidential hopeful Phil Gramm ... why Wayne LaPierre and Tanya Metaksa had as many TV cameras, microphones, and notepads around them at the meeting as Johnnie Cochran does when he leaves Judge Ito's courtroom ... and why every newspaper I saw -- every TV news program -- featured the NRA convention as one of the lead stories of the weekend. It also means that the NRA goes about as far, in opposing the actions and policies of the federal government, as the American people are willing to go at this time. In politics, it does not pay to get too far away from the feelings of the people, no matter what your agenda. If you think that Wayne LaPierre and the NRA looked bad at the end of this brawl, look at the bruises on the other guy. Personally, I'm not particularly worried about the NRA apology. That will be forgotten by next week. What WON'T be forgotten is that the NRA was willing to call jack-booted thugs jack-booted thugs ... and the next time jack-booted thugs do their thing, everybody will start asking under their breath, "Hey, wasn't it the NRA who warned us?" ## J. NEIL SCHULMAN is the author of two Prometheus award- winning novels, Alongside Night and The Rainbow Cadenza, short fiction, nonfiction, and screenwritings, including the CBS Twilight Zone episode "Profile in Silver." His latest book is STOPPING POWER: Why 70 Million Americans Own Guns. Schulman has been published in the Los Angeles Times and other national newspapers, as well as National Review, Reason, Liberty, and other magazines. His LA Times article "If Gun Laws Work, Why Are We Afraid?" won the James Madison Award from the Second Amendment Foundation. Schulman's books have been praised by Nobel laureate Milton Friedman, Anthony Burgess, Robert A. Heinlein, Colin Wilson, and many other prominent individuals. Charlton Heston said of STOPPING POWER: "Mr. Schulman's book is the most cogent explanation of the gun issue I have yet read. He presents the assault on the Second Amendment in frighteningly clear terms. Even the extremists who would ban firearms will learn from his lucid prose." Reply to: J. Neil Schulman Mail: P.O. Box 94, Long Beach, CA 90801-0094 Voice Mail & Fax: (500) 44-JNEIL JNS BBS: 1-500-44-JNEIL,,,,25 Internet: [s--ts--v] at [genie.geis.com] Post as filename: APOLOGY.TXT