Comments on: “circular firing squad” indeed

By: i’m lovin’ it | walls of the city

i’m lovin’ it | walls of the city — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 21:20:03 +0000

[...] (even though the NRA dorked up their main brief)? And remember how I caught all manner of flack for daring to suggest that the NRA might be doing us a favor by reinforcing a potentially-underrepresented aspect of the [...]

By: Linoge

Linoge — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 02:08:58 +0000

“Shall Not Be Infringed”.

I.e. people who simply repeat that over and over again (or possibly various formulations and rearrangements of it) when the topic of Second-Amendment-related rights comes up, as if it were an argument that people would pay attention to.

GOA (Gun Owners of America) is probably one of the best examples of this mentality, and their sway (or lack thereof) in D.C. exposes how well it does not work.

By: Paladin

Paladin — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 02:06:16 +0000

SNBI ????

By: Linoge

Linoge — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 22:07:35 +0000

I certainly agree that the 14th Amendment should not have been necessary, but it became relatively obvious, even back when it was passed, that it unfortunately was. People tended to view the states and the nation as separate entities, with very little overlap, though that viewpoint has definitely diminished over the years.

These days, if it takes clubbing states over their respective heads with the 14th Amendment for them to honor the 2nd, I am ok with that.

As for “laying down and rolling over”, I would simply point out how well the SNBI argument does not work, as an alternative…

By: Paladin

Paladin — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 16:46:55 +0000

The 14th Amendment was never needed to impose the BoR on the States. It’s all legal quackery – period! If all executive officers, judges etc. of the U.S. and of the several states are obligated to uphold the US Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land, why is the 14th amendment needed? The ONLY reason is because of corrupt courts/judges that have not honored their Oaths of Office in the past and think they know what’s better than the founding fathers. As far as the NRA, I only belong because it’s required in order to remain a member of my local gun range. I tired of their laying down and rolling over to “reasonable” gun laws years ago.

By: Linoge

Linoge — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 21:57:30 +0000

It may not end the conflict, but it is certainly applicable in a disppointingly large number of cases.

I have no problems with suspicion, and as I said over your way and have indirectly stated here, I actually have no problems with the issues you brought up. Having concerns over the lawyer chosen by the NRA is valid… if he were as much of an “activist lawyer” as Gura is. In all reality, however, he is simply out for a paycheck – I am, however, somewhat concerned about his losing record in regard to firearm-related rights . Likewise, I have already agreed on here, many times, that the NRA shouldering in like they did was partially motivated by attention-seeking greed, and should be regarded as such – denial of that would be as dumb as denial of the fact that they were trying to (and apparently sucking at) covering another aspect of the case.

What I have issues with are the people who enthusiastically leap at the chance to tear the NRA a new one, regardless of the situation, details, specifics, or concerns at play; and, more specifically, people who do that nearly every time the NRA does something even obliquely viewable as “wrong”. The people who will be damned before they admit the NRA might, possibly, maybe have done something, or will do something, right. The people who simply rail at the organization because it gives them something to do.

Those are the “reflesively obstructionist nitwits”, and they, as you might have noticed, are getting on my nerves .

By: walls of the city | huh. lookit that. facts.

walls of the city | huh. lookit that. facts. — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 21:25:24 +0000

[...] comments Kevin S on “circular firing squad” indeedEseell on what color is my weblog?Weer'd Beard on quote of the dayWeer'd Beard on brownells [...]

By: Kevin S

Kevin S — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 21:20:28 +0000

Just a heads up… Calling people who disagree with you on this “reflexively obstructionist nitwits” may not be the best strategy to end the conflict. I myself was initially suspicious of NRA’s motives, but I’m not out to obstruct them, merely voicing my concern. At the end of the day, these guys are way more qualified than I to handle this stuff and I just have to assume as a member that they have my best interests at heart. Otherwise, why be a member? I certainly don’t believe that Gura going it alone would have been a dealbreaker, given his past experience and successes.