It is with a heavy heart that I write my column this week. I write it as a columnist for Armed Females of America – a tireless proponent of the principle of “no compromise” when it comes to our freedoms. I write it as a Featured Writer and Newslinks Director for – an organization dedicated to the principles of defending our Second Amendment rights fully, completely and without negotiation, concession or conciliation. And I write this column as a member of the National Rifle Association . It is this last membership that makes it so painful to convey this story, but I feel I need to convey it to all of you – whether you are NRA members or not. You need to know the truth about the largest organization of and for gun owners in the country. You need to understand that the biggest doesn’t necessarily mean the best, and that the political clout of an organization that allegedly claims to support and defend gun owners in the United States, doesn’t necessarily work in your favor or to protect your rights. When I first joined the NRA, I did so because I felt they were the best suited to represent my interests. As the biggest organization dedicated to the rights of gun owners in the United States, I felt they had the most political influence and were in the best position possible to achieve our pro-freedom goals. I thought they served a terrific purpose – to mainstream the views of gun owners. And even though I disagreed with some if their political moves, I felt we all supported the same cause – to ensure the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not infringed – even though we took different roads to that goal. I was wrong. The National Rifle Association does do a lot of good. Their training programs, gun owner and children’s education programs are hard to beat. But their Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) and the NRA’s Political Victory Fund (PVF) are nothing but a horde of sycophantic, power-hungry compromisers, who aim to preserve their jobs – not to preserve your freedoms. The ILA’s website unequivocally states he following: “For 130 years the National Rifle Association of America has stood in opposition to all who step-by-step would reduce the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms to a privilege granted by those who govern. NRA continues to fight against those who would dictate that American citizens should seek police permission to exercise their constitutional rights.” Let’s examine this particular lie “step-by-step.” A few weeks ago I wrote in my column that the NRA supports unconstitutional gun laws and that it takes credit for victories in battles not its own. I even provided a link to their own website to support this fact. The NRA, after getting irate phone calls and emails from numerous gun owners and members, immediately took action. Did they admit this fact? No. Did they take immediate steps to change that policy? Not that I’ve seen. No. They altered the link on their website so that anyone who tries to access it receives this message . Not to worry, however, you can still access this particular information via the NRA-ILA’s website . All you need to do is access “Fable III: NRA opposes all ‘reasonable’ gun regulations.” And you will see the following: (As this article was published the NRA removed the above link from their web site. The author had taken a screen shot of the page in order to preserve the truth.) Click Here to view the screen shot. AFA Editor The truth is, NRA supports many gun laws, including federal and state laws that prohibit the possession of firearms by certain categories of people, such as convicted violent criminals, those prohibiting sales of firearms to juveniles, and those requiring instant criminal records checks on retail firearm purchasers. NRA has also assisted in writing gun laws. The 1986 federal law prohibiting the manufacture and importation of “armor piercing ammunition” adopted standards NRA helped write. When anti-gun groups accuse NRA of opposing the law, they lie. NRA, joined by the Justice Department and Treasury Department, opposed only earlier legislation because that legislation would have banned an enormous variety of hunting, target shooting and defensive ammunition…. … NRA only opposed a bill that would have banned millions of commonplace handguns, and instead supported an alternative, the Hughes-McCollum bill. That 1988 legislation prohibited the development and production of any firearm that would be undetectable by airport detectors, and enhanced airport security systems to counter terrorism. In the end, the NRA-backed legislation passed Congress with wide bipartisan support and was signed into law by President Reagan. At the state level, NRA has worked with legislators to write laws requiring computerized “instant” criminal records checks on purchasers of firearms and those who carry firearms for protection in public… How bizarre that an organization dedicated to the preservation of the right to keep and bear arms which claims that it “has stood in opposition to all who step-by-step would reduce the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms to a privilege granted by those who govern” would not only support unconstitutional gun legislation, but help write it as well. How strange that an organization that claims to support the rights of all gun owners favors creating an elite class – law enforcement officers – who would be privileged enough to use ammunition suitable for any type of encounter, while you – the ordinary peon and employer of said elite class – are not to be trusted with such “dangerous” bullets. How odd that an organization which supposedly supports the idea that gun ownership as an inalienable right would support legislation to check if those wishing to practice that right are “fit” to do so – especially since the NRA claims that it “continues to fight against those who would dictate that American citizens should seek police permission to exercise their constitutional rights.” The NRA supported the National Firearms Act of 1934 which taxes and requires registration of such firearms as machine guns, short-barreled rifles and sawed-off shotguns. It supported the Federal Firearms Act of 1938, which regulates interstate and foreign commerce in firearms and pistol or revolver ammunition. It supported legislation to amend the Federal Firearms Act in regard to handguns when it was introduced as S.1975 in August, 1963. Among its provisions was the requirement that a purchaser submit a notarized statement to the shipper that he was over 18 and not legally disqualified from possessing a handgun. In 1965, the NRA continued its support of an expansion of the above legislation to include rifles and shotguns, as well as handguns. Additionally the NRA supported the regulation of the movement of handguns in interstate and foreign commerce by: · requiring a sworn statement, containing certain information, from the purchaser to the seller for the receipt of a handgun in interstate commerce; · providing for notification of local police of prospective sales; · requiring an additional 7-day waiting period by the seller after receipt of acknowledgement of notification to local police; · prescribing a minimum age of 21 for obtaining a license to sell firearms and increasing the license fees; · providing for written notification by manufacturer or dealer to carrier that a firearm is being shipped in interstate commerce, and; · increasing penalties for violation. All of these facts have been carefully and meticulously documented by Founder and Executive Director Angel Shamaya in an article entitled,