🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <5k81gf$4pnk$1@rs7.loc.gov> rrneREMOVE@loc.REMOVEgov writes:
>
>In <5k3gcv$rhg@portal.gmu.edu>, jbragg@mason2.gmu.edu (John W Bragg) writes:
>>
>> ... but I do own a copy of this month's American
>>Spectator, rightwing investigative magazine.  There's a long
>>piece on the current power plays within the NRA, and Executive
>>Vice PResident (Head Honcho) WAyne La Pierre is under siege 
>>metaphorically from pro-militia elements. 
>                (snip)
>>Page 83, referring to La Pierre speaking at the annual convention
>>in I think 1995. 
>>"Unlike Knox, who panders to the extremes, 
>                (snip)
>
>        Please post enough more excerpts to make it a little plainer 
>         what the A.S. is calling extremes, and whether it is their 
>         error or yours to equate them with "pro-militia" elements.

The immediately preceding paragraph reads:
  "Knox, in fact, appeared to defend the prospect of ties between
the NRA and the militias in an APril 1995 interview with the
Washington Post: "Unless those people have committed a violation
of the law, I'm not going to say we can't have anything to 
do with these people."
  Unlike Knox...."

>          
>      It is possible to consider the NRA soft on gun control
>         (as Knox certainly does) and still differ with other 
>         "extreme" positions: one can be pro-choice, for instance, or 
>         pro-term limits, etc. and still believe the Bill of Rights 
>         ought not to be a menu. Also, many of those supporting Knox 
>         (and, I think, he himself) have taken the position that La 
>         Pierre has been solid on politics but wrong on method -- 
>         spending too much money, for instance, and needing in the 
>         woeful Beltway Bandit phrase to "work smarter" instead of so 
>         expensively.
>         
>       In particular, if Knox or any other NRA Board member 
>         has been espousing particular groups presently calling 
>         themselves militias, we should have specific references to 
>         those espousals, so that we can check them. Talk of "a 
>         militia" in the Constitutional sense, and talk of one of 
>         these, is just the sort of thing I'd hate to trust any 
>         reporter to get straight, especially against a deadline, 
>         whatever his or her own politics.
>

Looking through the articlle quickly, I note that the only cites
to Knox-militia links are non-specific statements by LaPierre 
about who LAPierre doesn't want the NRA to be associated with.

Calling the anti-LaPierre activists pro-militia was an 
innaccuracy on my part.  I was makingtwo points:
1) Current NRA policy, as expounded by LaPierre, is not
supportive of militias.
2) LaPierre is currently facing a leadership challenge, 
which might change this.  



>      TIA.
>
>                R.R. Neuswanger, Ph.D., NRA-L
>                 Balto-Fennic, Germanic, Romance
>AcqBibSuppProj (ABSP)                 There are no good spammers.
>Library of Congress                     Dead ones just dry up and
>Washington, DC 20540-4120          stink less.
>rrne@loc.gov            I speak for me.Only.
>
>