They should be honest about what they want: $$ to do mailers and phone banks attacking NRA.
But, yes, they honestly believe you should believe two guys whose resume highlights seem to be experience in the College Republicans (in one case) almost 20 years ago over folks law professors, scholars, historians, etc. Why? Because obviously, they are all part of the gun-grabbing movement!
I could have fun writing their fundraising emails. :)
On the face of it, if we left things at Heller much of what he describes could come to pass. But we're not leaving things at Heller. Alan Gura is involved with a lawsuit challenging Chicago's gun ban. The NRA is helping with several other lawsuits. There already is a long-term strategy, of building on successive victories. Gura et al stated up front that they were seeking a specific answer to a relatively narrow question so they could build on that, and they got it.
I haven't forgotten that the NRA initially tried to spike the Heller case because they feared a loss. And I am a second amendment absolutist. But to back a start-up that doesn't even comprehend what's going on over the people who engineered a victory with some great potential is a little much.
Well, you believe the Second Amendment actually has nothing to do with the militia or standing armies.
You can believe whatever political shit you are thrown which agrees with your view of the world, as long as it's flat and you will sail off the edge.
Especially if it has some shithead Justice writing it.
Unfortunately, it was a 5-4 decision and the Community right/collective right theory is merely dormant.
We'll see what happens after people try to push the envelope too far.
Then you can see how much a good a rifle will do against a professional army.
"What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty." Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, I Annals of Congress at 750 (August 17, 1789) regarding the Second Amendment.
If you'd actually like to, you know, debate the topic, I'm game. But I see you've chosen a most apt nom de commenteur, so I doubt you'll engage.
Note:
All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost;
references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>
JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2008/07/this-guy-has-testicular-fortitude.html (8 comments)
Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.
I offered to donate all of my Nigerian lottery winnings.
They should be honest about what they want: $$ to do mailers and phone banks attacking NRA.
But, yes, they honestly believe you should believe two guys whose resume highlights seem to be experience in the College Republicans (in one case) almost 20 years ago over folks law professors, scholars, historians, etc. Why? Because obviously, they are all part of the gun-grabbing movement!
I could have fun writing their fundraising emails. :)
On the face of it, if we left things at Heller much of what he describes could come to pass. But we're not leaving things at Heller. Alan Gura is involved with a lawsuit challenging Chicago's gun ban. The NRA is helping with several other lawsuits. There already is a long-term strategy, of building on successive victories. Gura et al stated up front that they were seeking a specific answer to a relatively narrow question so they could build on that, and they got it.
I haven't forgotten that the NRA initially tried to spike the Heller case because they feared a loss. And I am a second amendment absolutist. But to back a start-up that doesn't even comprehend what's going on over the people who engineered a victory with some great potential is a little much.
And the San Francisco suit is moving forward too, causing some BayAryan pant-dampening among the Brahmins of SF.
When are they going to go after NYC?
National Association for Gun Rights? Sounds suspiciously like American Hunters & Shooters Association.
Well, you believe the Second Amendment actually has nothing to do with the militia or standing armies.
You can believe whatever political shit you are thrown which agrees with your view of the world, as long as it's flat and you will sail off the edge.
Especially if it has some shithead Justice writing it.
Unfortunately, it was a 5-4 decision and the Community right/collective right theory is merely dormant.
We'll see what happens after people try to push the envelope too far.
Then you can see how much a good a rifle will do against a professional army.
"What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty." Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, I Annals of Congress at 750 (August 17, 1789) regarding the Second Amendment.
If you'd actually like to, you know, debate the topic, I'm game. But I see you've chosen a most apt nom de commenteur, so I doubt you'll engage.
Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>