The New "Provos"

by Andy Barniskis
[email protected]

Special to The Libertarian Enterprise

          Near the end of last week I received (and forwarded to many of you) a very cogent essay that suggested that "NRA" stands for "Not Relevant Anymore." Reflecting on that over the weekend led me to the conclusion that, while I agreed with the spirit of the essay, the real problem is that, regrettably, the NRA is relevant.
          Quite simply, the relevance of the NRA is that it is widely recognized as the entity authorized to sign our agreements of surrender.
          I say it is not. I did not authorize a surrender, you did not authorize a surrender, and, I doubt even a simple majority of the NRA board of directors authorized an agreement of surrender. But, what we say at this moment is unimportant. Our "decommissioning" is underway, and calling it a non-surrender is merely playing with words, a face-saving that nobody is going to fall for, and that our enemies are revelling in.
          Because it surrendered, and its surrender is being widely celebrated by our enemies, in that way the NRA most certainly is relevant.
          (Even if you do not agree with me that it already has surrendered, I think you must agree that politically, it IS the entity that has been placed in the position enabling it to issue our surrender. In that, it is relevant!)
          My premise is that our job now is to make it irrelevant.
          As I have written in several ways in several venues over perhaps several years, the NRA as viewed by the public is a largely mythical organization, in several ways. First, it plays the role for American liberalism that the mythical "Great Zionist Conspiracy" played for Adolph Hitler and Nazism -- a mythical monolith that lies behind any and all resistance to the totalitarians coming to power. There is scarcely a firearms rights initiative in North America, no matter how spontaneous or independently organized, that is not credited to "the NRA." About as close to semantic accuracy as we see is credit to "the gun lobby," though decades of careful crafting have made that synonymous with "the NRA," so the effect is the same. (Don't babble in defense of GOA, JPFO, et al, because I can mount a better defense of them than you can -- the problem is that roughly 200 million Americans have not been allowed to know they exist, because there was political value in maintaining the image of a fearsome, single-minded monolith.)
          The second part of the myth is the continual references by pundits to the NRA's "radical" and "extremist" policies -- even after, as it did here in Pennsylvania, the NRA joined arm in arm with HCI in endorsing "reasonable" anti-gun legislation, or, when it played political hard-ball to stop major, local pro-gun initiatives such as "Vermont Carry" legislation in several states. Those instances may have been testing grounds for the tactics that led to their federal-level surrender, but that is a subject for another essay. I merely call to mind that, in Orwell's novel "1984," even the resistance was operated by Big Brother.
          Third -- and this perhaps is a subset of points one and two above -- the NRA for obvious reasons basks (and banks) in these myths, and by so doing, within the tenuously pro-gun camp of hunters and target shooters, it remains a credible source of information and opinion on gun rights and legislation. It filters and spins virtually all information reaching the trapshooter or birdhunter, so that (for example) in the fall of the 1995, the adoption of major new gun control legislation in Pennsylvania earlier that year was presented to most of its members as one of a list of great "pro-gun victories" for that year. (The gun control legislation had first been labeled by them the "Sportsmen's Omnibus Anti-Crime Bill" because, while placing new restrictions on gun acquisition, use and ownership, it also imposed strict punishments for violations -- thus becoming "anti-crime," in the best CrimeStrike NewSpeak.)
          If you doubt the fineness of their filter, may I refer you to the outcomes of the last several NRA board elections? Or the way they were cheered by the throng for squelching dissent in Philadelphia in 1998?
          But, I go on too long flogging dead horses. The bottom line is the result: The NRA is being recognized in song, verse, and political cartoon as being variously "defeated", "seeing the light", "overpowered by public opinion", or "moving toward the mainstream". It recently published full-page advertisements in major newspapers declaring "we will not surrender on [certain issues] unless we are given guarantees ..."
          In other words, they signaled surrender, and the Senate accepted that surrender. The Official NRA line now will supply cover for most of those Senators (and the Representatives who will vote with them) in coming elections -- as they have now for at least three decades.
          I did not authorize them to surrender. I did not state conditions for surrender. But how do I -- and the hundreds of thousands like me -- declare our non-surrender?
          The little individual symolic acts -- the resignations and switchings of allegiances to better organizations -- are necessary, but not sufficient, and can be spun the wrong way by the enemy. Over the weekend, I heard Schumer claiming that recent NRA member resignations were because of "dissatisfaction with the NRA's radical positions" (see above). Nor do I propose what you would call, strictly speaking, "a new organization," since it could not possibly offer anything more than our existing, excellent, alternative organizations, and a new organization would spend months floundering before it achieved anything worthy of press or legislator attention -- if ever.
          What I -- an NRA Life Member -- would like -- love -- to see, would be the formation of a "Provisional" NRA, formed by at least a handful of dissidents from the present board of directors declaring that the "Official" NRA has become unrepresentative of the wishes of most of its oldest and (in the past) most faithful supporters.
          Let me acknowledge that I am aware of all of the legalistic and bureaucratic problems attached to such an action. The advantage I see to it would be to capitalize on the years of propagandists' conditioning that brings immediate attention to what "The NRA" is doing. Whether the declaration of a "Provisional NRA" was strictly adherent to corporate bylaws or not, it would immediately get attention to the fact that a significant body of significant people had not surrendered.
          There also is the advantage that it would lead at least some of the uninformed NRA members to questioning where their allegiances should lie -- since, after all, the protagonists would still be identified as "NRA," to which knees are conditioned to jerk. Admittedly the Officials would still have an unchallenged upper hand with the propaganda channels in the house-organ publications, as they do with the board elections, but a firm and unambiguous pro-gun position, reported in the mainstream media, might lead people to think for themselves, about which faction is truest to pro-gun principles.
          It also might lead legislators to doubt whether the Official NRA will have the ability to cover for them in the future, and might take away the credibility of Official NRA lobbyists' assurances that if they vote for this tiny, little, reasonable, anti-gun amendment, that they will be able to smooth it over with the boys. Hopefully, a goodly percentage of the boys (and girls) will be listening to alternative opinions, or at least have greater access to them.
          Finally, I am aware that I suggest a deliberately provocative and metaphoric name for my wished-for dissident group. Perhaps some of our legislators will be led to doubt the boundary conditions of their playing field, if "Provisional NRA" representatives approached them to make their more militant wishes known. Instead of the smiles and winks and drinks from non-ideological, mercenary lobbyists, they will need to wonder what levels of discomfort the Provisionals-not-bearing-gifts will be able to muster against them.
          For those who recognize my rather obvious metaphor, taken from the world political situation, let me explain that some time ago I saw a little lapel pin originating from that source, with the image of a phoenix taking flight, and the legend, "Up from the ashes. . . rose the Provisionals!" Recalling that those other Provisionals have some very hard-nosed and intransigent people representing their political position at negotiating tables -- coincidentally taking a "no disarmament position" against a sea of world propaganda -- while we have no one representing our political position at any negotiating tables, anywhere -- I found the sentiment rather inspiring.
          And damn, do we ever need something to inspire us, right now!

          By now, surely you all know about the brou-ha-ha over Rosie O'Donnell, and the subsequent informal boycott of K-Mart (have you shopped WalMart or Target this week)? (See: http://www.fulton-armory.com/Rosie.htm -- Webmaster)
          What you may not have heard yet is that K-Mart just launched a new ad campaign for a product so stupid it could only have come from the inconsistent pea-brains at K-Mart. It's a hose device for your yard that you can use to water the lawn or entertain the kids. It's in the form of a cow with a stake that you stick in the ground. The "tail" is a short length of hose that whips about under water pressure.
          And the name of this marketing "hot flash"?
          "Hosie Cow". <pause for dramatic effect>
          H-m-m-m-m. <pause>
          Hosie Cow ... <pause>
          Rosie Cow ... <pause>
          Coincidence?
          We think not!

Next to advance to the next article, or
Previous to return to the previous article, or
Table of Contents to return to The Libertarian Enterprise, Number 48, June 15, 1999.