I am a bit behind the curve on this one, but for those reactionary nitwits out there who are getting their panties in a twist over the NRA getting some time in front of the Supreme Court for the McDonald case, allow me to say two things.
First, yes, it was a grasp at relevance for the NRA, and a dive for the limelight they so thoroughly desire… and need.
Second, it turns out that both Alan Gura and the NRA are both arguing for the same thing, but from almost entirely different, yet complimentary, directions. Only a misguided fool would view that as a bad thing.
So just sit your hot-and-bothered asses back down, and let us see where this rabbit hole goes. Seems to me, “divide and conquer” has worked pretty well in the past…
related posts:
spending where it is worth it | thunderous silence | mirror image |
Linoge,
I don’t have a problem with the NRA arguing one way of incorporation as opposed to what Gura is arguing.
What I have a problem with is they could have brought a separate case to trial and argued it instead of cutting into Gura’s time.
Even if both cases had been folded together, it is my understanding that both attorney’s would have been given 30 minutes of time to argue their cases.
The fact that the NRA didn’t get behind the MacDonald case from the beginning and is ‘horning’ in at the last minute is what sticks in my craw.
I do have a slight concern that the dual arguments could be used to split the court and allow the ruling to go against our rights.
But, see, that is just the thing – both cases are arguing for our rights, but one case is using one argument that some judges will appreciate, and the other is using another argument that other judges will appreciate. I am not entirely sure how split-but-in-support rulings work in the Supreme Court, but that is what the NRA is aiming for. As it was, if some judges favored Due Process over P&I, they probably would have ruled against us if it was just Mr. Gura in the courtroom – now, they will have something else to consider.
I would, further, point out that the NRA did have a separate case (conveniently named NRA v. Chicago), and it actually got so far as the Supreme Court, but the Court refused to grant it certiorari – refused to hear it.
I completely agree that allowing both lawyers their normal amounts of time would have been far better for our collective cases, but given that the Supreme Court allowed no other option to the NRA, I am hard-pressed to find fault with forcing a “divide-and-conquer” strategy, at the cost of a fraction of Mr. Gura’s time, rather than barging forward with a single argument that may not necessarily convince all of the judges (no offense to Mr. Gura intended).
That is NOT the thing, Linoge. The NRA is barging in where it has failed. Gura’s argument won Heller despite the NRA’s meddling. Now they are again horning in with an attorney who thinks DC’s gun ban and Chicago’s gun laws are constitutional. The NRA is desperate for media attention because they have failed.
The NRA has had a tin ear to what is needed at the local and national levels many times before. For example, they endorsed incumbent Don Siegleman for Alabama governor when we had a very pro gun GOP candidate in Bob Riley back in 2002. Dandy Don like to say he was pro-2am, but in practice he was not. Dandy Don was later convicted for corruption.
Gura has proven that he knows how to win back our stolen natural rights. If the NRA were truly committed to that goal instead of being a money making business it would get out of his way.
The NRA is often wrong. Much of our fight to win back our rights is impeded by the NRA. They have had decades to get it right and haven’t. They are harming our cause. That is the thing.
Oh for the love of God, Steve, you are actually going to trot out that idiotic argument?
Yes, the NRA’s current attorney did argue that the DC’s handgun ban was constitutional…. BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT HE WAS PAID TO DO! I hate to break it to you, but attorneys argue what their employers pay them to do, and if they are letting their personal opinions and beliefs get in the way, then they are either doing something wrong, or they should stop looking for a paycheck. I fully expect that any attorney I hire will do his damned absolute best to do whatever he can to represent, support, and argue for my case, regardless of whether he personally agrees with that case or not, and if he cannot I will look for another attorney.
Now, if you want to put forward the argument that the NRA’s current lawyer is a poor choice simply because he lost his last significant rights-related case, more power to you – Heaven knows I like a winning record myself. But what you are bitching about now is just a stupid argument.
As I have already admitted (in this very post, no less), the NRA is doing this for the attention – there is absolutely no doubt. However, they are also doing this to better-represent a side of the argument that they feel that Mr. Gura is glossing over too much – there is absolutely no doubt of that either, to the point that even an impartial, no-horse-in-the-race fellow lawyer is able to admit to it. What is your problem?
Yes, the NRA has been wrong in the past. Yes, they have screwed up in the past. Yes, they are the evil organization everyone ever makes them out to be. But even when they are doing something borderline right, some people just cannot be bothered to see through their self-imposed blinders and offer up even the shred of support. If you have a better idea of how to fight against the political machine that has been tromping on our rights over those past decades, than get the hell up off your ass and form your own damned organization for doing that – but for frak’s sake, the NRADS of you and your fellow bitchers-and-moaners is doing damnably more damage than the NRA could ever hope to do to this case.
So, yes, that is the thing, and the cause for me writing this post – the NRA is actually doing something to cover the flank of one of our strongest and staunchest supporters, and frakwits are doing their damnest to ensure that flank remains uncovered, unprotecte,d and available for attack. Forgive me if I seem significantly less than impressed.
Goodbye, Linoge. Your insults only illustrate the errors in your position. Have a nice life.
Same to you, Steve – your inability to see past your own prejudices has been a tremendous problem in the past, and I see that you still have not managed to overcome that issue. Best of luck with it.
But, hey, if you ever want to get off your blindered horse and point out where I was factually wrong (as I did with your comment), feel free… But you and I both know that is not likely to happen.
“your inability to see past your own prejudices has been a tremendous problem in the past,”
Now you are simply engaging in prevarication. We haven’t had enough interaction for anything to have been a “tremendous problem” and you know nothing about any prejudices on my part.
“point out where I was factually wrong”
You did that for me when you made the stretch that the NRA wanted their attorney to argue that DC’s gun ban could be constitutional. No less than Chris Cox himself cringed when that was asserted according to what he said on a local radio show.
The fact is that the NRA is taking away time from a winning attorney to have a losing attorney argue in this landmark case. That is bull headed and wrong. Sadly, it is pretty much par for the course for the NRA. The refused to listen to the troops on the ground in Illinois on CCW, they refused to listen to the troops on the ground in Alabama’s election as I pointed out above, they did their utmost to bumble Gura’s Heller win away, and now they are screwing with Gura’s McDonald case after bungling their own.
As for you, I perceive that you are – at best – a person of juvenile influences who seeks to snark at anyone who may be handy in what seems to be a form of blogging masturbation. It does no one any good other than you. From the links I have been sent by another in the online 2AM society this seems to be a habit of yours. The 3per/Prag issue is but one example.
I understand that flame wars can be fun when they are harmless to the cause. However, this habit of your of engaging in friendly fire is something in which I don’t wish to be any further entangled. Life is too short. As before, have a nice life and the final word. I’m shaking the dust from my feet.
Really? Because, you see, I remember an instance of complete and utter lack of reading comprehension on the part of someone who was commenting under the chosen moniker of “Steve in TN” – if that was not you, I retract the “tremendous problem” statement. But something tells me it was…
Bulldren. You made your prejudices abundantly clear in your previous comment on this very thread.
… which factually disproves nothing I said in my original post, or have said since. Hey, look, a pony!
Really? Because a “winning attorney” with far more experience in this field than both you and me and the bedpost put together happens to disagree with you. A lot. What is bull headed and wrong is to not only turn down the support of someone looking for the same goal as you are, by similar-but-disjoint methods that may appeal to people your methods might not reach, but also kick that someone in the nuts for their trouble. Oh, wait, that is exactly what you and people like you are doing. Funny, that.
Thanks for that armchair psychoanalysis – when you actually get a degree in the field you are wielding like a limp noodle, I might actually give a flying squirrel’s left testicle what you have to say.
Is that kind of like the “sources” that the media always seems to be referencing? “My sources say you are an jackarse.” Good for your “sources”.
Yes, because calling self-righteous blowhards “self-righteous blowhards” is such a horrible thing.
Ahh, hypocrisy, delicious hypocrisy, spiced with a dash of projection to boot… This, coming from an individal hysterically jumping at the chance to tear the NRA a new one – even when the NRA is doing something quantifiable as “good” – is just all manner of amusing, especially when you already have a documented history (as mentioned above) of lashing out against fellow Second Amendment activists over non-existant perceived slights. Thanks for that sentence – I needed a good laugh.
Somewhat more topically, did you somehow completely miss the fact that I wrote this original post in response to the circular firing squad you and people like you are currently engaged in? Guess so. Irony, hypocrisy, and projection, all rolled up into one – good stuff.
Seriously, Steve, if you want to leave already, just leave. No one is forcing you to read what I write here, no one is forcing you to apply fingers to keyboards, and no one is forcing you to comment. I write this weblog for me (if that qualifies as “blogging masturbation”, then so be it), and if you honestly believe that threatening to retract approval (which is exactly what you are doing) is going to convince me to change my topics, style, or writings, then you are barking up the wrong tree, in the wrong forest. This repeated, “Ooh, look at me, I am leaving you now! But I am back… and leaving you again!” nonsense is… well… just that – nonsense (and quite juvenile to boot, amusingly).
In short, live up to your word already, and shoo. You are right – life is too short for me to waste time on backstabbing, projecting hypocrites like you. Well, apart from thorough fiskings always being good for the soul.
[...] indeed A few days ago, a particularly cranky individual got his panties in a twist over me calling people like him out for being reflexively obstructionist nitwits in regards to the NRA selfishly tacking themselves onto Alan Gura’s McDonald vs. Chicago [...]