Even "Gun Rights" Judge Can't Stomach NRA Extremism

[ellisonz]

Posted: 01/30/2012 10:53 am
Dennis A. Henigan
Acting President, Brady Campaign; Author, 'Lethal Logic'

It is hard to find a federal judge more friendly to "gun rights" than Judge Sam Cummings of Lubbock, Texas. Yet even Judge Cummings refuses to follow the NRA off the cliff of Second Amendment extremism.

Judge Cummings achieved iconic status in the "gun rights" community in 1999 when, in U.S. v. Emerson, he became the first federal judge to rule that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to possess guns for private purposes. That ruling, literally, was unprecedented. It also was out of step with the Supreme Court's view of the matter, reflected in a 1939 opinion that since the "obvious purpose" of the Second Amendment guarantee was "to assure the continuation" of a "well regulated Militia," the Amendment "must be interpreted and applied with that end in view." At the time of his ruling, no federal Circuit Court had read the Amendment as conferring a right divorced from the militia purpose.

-------

The NRA's biggest problem, though, was that Judge Cummings was careful to read the Supreme Court's Heller opinion and understand that it does nothing to support the gun lobby's constitutional extremism. Much to the NRA's chagrin, Judge Cummings emphasized that the right recognized in Heller was, in his words "quite narrow," finding that "the Second Amendment does not confer a right that extends beyond the home." Judge Cummings cited the legion of other post-Heller rulings also confining Heller's scope to the possession and carrying of guns within the home. Not only did the NRA's handpicked federal judge find no constitutional right for an 18-year-old to carry handguns in public, he found no such right for anyone to do so. It is also worth noting that, four months ago, Judge Cummings rejected another NRA lawsuit and upheld the federal ban on gun dealer sales of handguns to persons under 21 years of ago, a restriction that obviously impacts the freedom of young people to have a gun inside the home for self-defense.

----------

These gun lobby legal defeats underscore how much the NRA and its gun industry funders are dependent for their success on the tactics of political threats and intimidation. In too many legislative bodies, including the U.S. Congress, those tactics have often prevailed. A federal courtroom, however, is a far different forum, in which threats of reprisal have no place and advocates are required to offer facts and reasoned argument in support of their positions.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dennis-a-henigan/even-gun-rights-judge-can_b_1241559.html

Ouch.

[krispos42]

1. Interesting two-faced approach tonight.

On the one hand, guns undermine democracy, and must be banned.


On the other hand, gun-owners threaten to vote out anti-gun politicians if they try anything, and this, too, is against democracy and, presumably, stopped.

[ellisonz]

2. Conflated analysis.

You're conflating effective regulation with a negation of gun rights. This ruling is actually consistent with what I've said all along which is that although there is a right to bear arms in the context of service in the militia, this right is in no way unlimited. For all practical purposes the supposed claim that there is a "individual right" is entirely rhetorical. Even Judge Cummings rejects the extremist views of those beholden to a dogma of "gun rights" that has no real basis in the Constitution.

You'll never see me objecting to democracy, what will you will see is me rejecting the *Judicial branch* bending to the whims of political attitudes of the moment in ways that are inconsistent with the Constitution. I'm no fascist, but I'm sure as a heck a Federalist.

[Clames]

4. Not even close.

This ruling is actually consistent with what I've said all along which is that although there is a right to bear arms in the context of service in the militia,

This ruling says no such thing nor even implies it. That not even a failure of logic but a complete misrepresentation of what was ruled in those cases.

[ellisonz]

6. I never said it did...

...I'm simply saying that the "individual right" can be so regulated that "gun rights" activists would cry wolf. Tough shit for them.

Are you enjoying DU so far?

[krispos42]

9. So now we get to the crux of it.

You don't like people that like guns, and you want to see them pay as much as possible for their "lifestyle" choice.

[ellisonz]

14. Not exactly...

...I want them to take responsibility for the regulation of firearm ownership. That's not the same thing at all. I have nothing against responsible gun owners who hold other gun owners to account and support policies to make responsible gun ownership a reality. I have the same issue with the police. I have the same issue with lawyers, doctors, and teachers. I support accountability and I believe government has a role in attempting to squash unlawful/irresponsible behavior

To me behavior such as this is unacceptable, illegal and something can and should be done about it:

[krispos42]

17. Most murders and nearly all assaults and violent crimes....

....are performed by career criminals with illegally-obtained guns.

And you're, once again, throwing around the word "reasonable", which I equate to the use of the word "reform" by politicians.



As to your video... I'm pretty sure you don't have there what you think you have there.

Let's break it down, shall we?


An investigator (presumably from New York City) is calling a private gun seller in Orem, Utah about a rifle. Excuse me, a deadly assault weapon.

The investigator (from NYC) tells the seller (from Utah) that he can't pass a background check.

The seller (2,500 miles and 8 states away) seems to laugh off the investigator's comment.

Ergo, the seller doesn't give a crap who he sells the rifle deadly assault weapon to.


EXCEPT FOR THE FOLLOWING:

It's an inter-state transfer. Unless the investigator is planning on driving 2,500 miles west across 8 states and hiding the fact that he's a "new yawker", the seller in Utah will have to take the rifle deadly assault weapon to a local gun dealer, who will ship it to a local gun dealer in NYC, who will then, before transferring the rifle deadly assault weapon to the investigator, RUN A BACKGROUND CHECK AS REQUIRED BY FEDERAL LAW.

As required by federal law.

Assuming, of course, that the gun in question doesn't fall afoul of New York State's assault-weapon ban.


The seller, in this case, doesn't have to do a damn thing regarding the suitability of the guy from NYC to buy a gun because the federal background-check system relieves him of this responsibility.

Furthermore, it is virtually certain that the website makes this fact abundantly clear. I know that Gunbroker.com does. They even offer a list of FFLs in your state so you can pick one that is convenient to you.



Now, ask yourself this... why couldn't the NYC-based investigator find somebody in New York State to buy a gun from? If it was an intra-state sale, the investigator and the seller could have met in the parking lot of a McDonald's and done the sale while munching on a Royale with Cheese.

I'd bet at least a dollar that they tried it lots of times, and got hung up on pretty much every single time.

[ellisonz]

22. Criminals try lots of times too...

...the thing is it normally doesn't take that many times to succeed.

Hoping and praying for reform every night.

[rl6214]

27. "the thing is it normally doesn't take that many times to succeed. "

And you know this...how? You've done it yourself? You're just making it up? Yeah, I'll go with that one.

[ellisonz]

31. You tell me...

...I've seen a number of cases where criminals easily obtained weapons. How would you study such a question?

[PavePusher]

35. Via "mail order"? Cite, please. n/t

[iverglas]

68. I guess the seller didn't have call display

'Cause he didn't say "how you gonna get here from that area code?"

Yes, he knew all along that he was going to be making the sale through a licensed dealer or two, so it didn't matter what the guy on the other end said.

I assume that if it went that way, dealer to dealer, and the buyer didn't pass the check, the thing would be going back to the seller, no sale.

Certainly seems to be in his interests not to give a shit whether the buyer can pass a check in that situation!

[liberal_biker]

75. Just because he didnt say those words...

...doesn't mean he didn't know. Besides, many people these days (what with cellphones and number portability and all) have numbers out of the local area code.

But since we're playing the fantasy game, I think he knew not only that the caller was outside the state, but was in fact trying to set him up and he thought he'd have a little fun with him.

[iverglas]

76. let's run through this again

Just because he didnt say those words...
...doesn't mean he didn't know.


We have two scenarios.


IF he knew the buyer was in another state and the thing would have to be shipped, THEN he would have known that in order to ship the thing LEGALLY from his state to a buyer in another state, he had to do it through a licensed dealer at his end and a licensed dealer at the buyer's end.

IF the buyer said he didn't think he could pass a background check, then

(a) the seller was giong to go ahead and ship the thing as an exercise in futility (and some non-neglible expense)

or

(b) the seller was not planning to ship the thing legally i.e. through licensed dealers


So (a) suggests he's a fool, and (b) suggests he's a criminal.


IF he thought the buyer was local (which he had every reason to think, since the buyer spoke about arranging to meet), then

(a) he had reason to believe the buyer was not eligible to purchase the firearm and he planned to sell it to the buyer anyway

or

(b) ... oh wait ... (b) ... what's (b) again now?

So again, (a) suggests he's a criminal. And there is no (b).


Those scenarios are not "fantasy", they are the only two reasonable alternatives given the available facts.


But since we're playing the fantasy game, I think he knew not only that the caller was outside the state, but was in fact trying to set him up and he thought he'd have a little fun with him.

Yes, I'm very very sure you do think that.

The available evidence, of course, is all on your side.

[liberal_biker]

77. I accept that....

...the information itself is tainted and not presented in its entirety. I also make no assumptions about what the seller knew or did not know.

[iverglas]

78. no, you don't "accept" that

You posit it, you assert it, you pretend to believe it ... I don't know, do I?

But you don't "accept" it, because nobody's putting it on offer.

Except you, and you aren't offering anything to substantiate it.

[liberal_biker]

79. Considering the source....

...and the repeated attempts by said source to present legal behavior as illegal, yeah, I'd say it is a safe bet the information is flawed.


If you want to tell yourself it is 100% accurate and they have no reason to be inaccurate, while simultaneously making a judgement call on what the seller must have known based on something he did not say, that is your choice.

[iverglas]

80. oh woe is me

And where is the GENETIC FALLACY!1!!1 crowd???

I'd say the bias is on display, here, and it ain't in the source.

There you are. You had every opportunity to present facts and argument to make your case, and you presented ... nada.

[liberal_biker]

81. I'll freely admit bias.

I pretty much assume anything coming out of MAIG and the Brady Campaign is bullshit. If they said the sky were blue, I'd run outside for independent confirmation.

Its rather like the boy who cried wolf. When you've lied so much in the past, there's no reason to think that you're suddenly telling the truth.

[iverglas]

82. I know how it feels!!

When you've lied so much in the past, there's no reason to think that you're suddenly telling the truth.


And my only comment will be the jury-honoured response:

... oh, you get the idea.

[liberal_biker]

83. If you're suggesting it applies to you too....

...then I shall take all of your comments with a similar jaundiced view.

Thanks for clearing that up. I'm kinda new here, so I while I suspected that most of your posts were done merely to "stir the shit pot" as it were, I was never certain. Now I am, and I can treat your commentary as I would a press release from MAIG.

[iverglas]

84. excuse me???

You said -- referring to a source that you do not trust (and so feel free to dismiss its account on the basis of nothing but outlandish alleged beliefs of your own to the contrary, based on no evidence or logic):

Its rather like the boy who cried wolf. When you've lied so much in the past, there's no reason to think that you're suddenly telling the truth.

I said that applies to me to: I take the approach that when someone has lied so much in the past, there is no reason to believe that they are suddenly telling the truth.

That doesn't mean that I feel relieved of the obligation that rests on me, in civil and democratic discourse, to present a case for disbelieving it, if I am claiming to make a different case.

I might simply choose not to believe the source myself, and even to laugh at it.

But I won't make up wild and crazy shit and pretend that it's a more credible tale than the account I have been presented with.

But then I'm not ... everybody.

[krispos42]

88. He didn't have to.

Shipping service and FFLs take care of all that stuff.

And "I don't think I could pass a background check" said in a joking, casual manner isn't proof of a felony conviction or domestic abuse or whatever other conditions land you on the "no sale" list. It could be a simple joke that the guy was a Teabagger and hated by the eeeevil commie Obama or whatever.



If it was a face-to-face intrastate private transaction, I would hope the guy would react differently.

[iverglas]

67. really

Should the group host not try to display a little less hostility, let alone to the point of misrepresenting and demonizing, to other members of the group?

[krispos42]

86. Somehow, the topic never came up.

And since I'm not banning members, nor locking threads I don't agree with, nor threatening to do either one of those things to anybody, I don't see you having a leg to stand on.

I don't throw my weight around, and I don't want people deferring to me or accusing me of treating them differently.

[ellisonz]

91. I'll defend krispos on that...

I've got a new found appreciation for hosts that don't throw their weight around. I think group hosts have way too much power in contrast to the forum hosts

[krispos42]

98. Thanks

As a mod and a representative of the board admins, with lots of powers and lots of access to private data, I (and all mods) were expected to avoid controversy and such. This was understood when a mod signed up, and the admins and other mods would keep people in line via discussions in the Hot Tub.

This is far more casual, and I didn't sign up to swap a few limited powers for my expressed opinions. I signed up to keep the Gungeon orderly.

Besides, if my opinions get too over-the-top, I'm still subject to the jury process, the same as everybody else!

[ellisonz]

100. You're welcome.

I think I'll declare you my hero of the week. Now where are those DUzys...deadlines, deadlines.

[krispos42]

119. I got them up... eventually.

It's been a rough couple of days. But on the plus side, my leg cramp is virtually gone.

[ellisonz]

120. Dude

I'm racking DUzys up. I think I'm at 3 already. Glad to hear your leg cramp is gone. I've been recovering from a lower back sprain the last month or so, pain sucks. Have a good Sunday!

[Tuesday Afternoon]

101. uh-oh

you and I agree about something . . .

Folks: Hell has frozen over.

Details at Six.

[ellisonz]

102. lol

We probably agree on more than you'd think.

Aloha.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

112. I will go as far as to say that I think Forum Hosts

are new and lost and are making mistakes. Am trying to be patient with this new system but, I am seeing a lot things that need tweaking - -

[Simo 1939_1940]

105. I'd swear I saw a flock of pigs fly across the highway a couple of hours ago. NT

[Tuesday Afternoon]

113. they earned their wings

indeed!

[iverglas]

114. I am still absolutely failing to see

how this exchange:

ellisonz
6. I never said it did...

...I'm simply saying that the "individual right" can be so regulated that "gun rights" activists would cry wolf. Tough shit for them.

Are you enjoying DU so far?


Response to ellisonz (Reply #6)
krispos42
9. So now we get to the crux of it.

You don't like people that like guns, and you want to see them pay as much as possible for their "lifestyle" choice.

demonstrates good faith, let alone the higher level thereof that is reasonably to be expected from a group host.

Post 9 is a pure ... it isn't even a misrepresentation of post 6, it is a total fabrication.

[Straw Man]

115. Really?

Post 9 is a pure ... it isn't even a misrepresentation of post 6, it is a total fabrication.

I think it's a pretty accurate analysis.

Alert on it if you don't like it. That's the way the game is played. Or complain to the management. Maybe they'll change the rules for you.

[iverglas]

116. really

I think it's a pretty accurate analysis.

No, I didn't think so.

Maybe wiki has an article on "good faith" you could consult.

... Well, not really, but it does have this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_faith

In ordinary usage, bad faith is equated with being of "of two hearts", or “a sustained form of deception which consists in entertaining or pretending to entertain one set of feelings, and acting as if influenced by another” ...

If there were anything in the "community standards" against that, DU would be an empty place.

Alert on it if you don't like it. That's the way the game is played. Or complain to the management. Maybe they'll change the rules for you.

Or hey, you could try responding to what I said, instead of pretending I said something else.

.......

[Straw Man]

117. I see.

Or hey, you could try responding to what I said, instead of pretending I said something else.

So yours was really just a "good faith" expression of bewilderment, rather than a complaint. And I totally misread you as suggesting that perhaps one of the group hosts was not appropriately fulfilling the role. How foolish of me. How sorry I am that I doubted your good faith and ever presumed to think that you might have ulterior motives. I'm so sorry. I'll never do it again. I swear on the graves of my ancestors.

[iverglas]

122. well hmm

You do actually seem to have a better grasp of the situation this time around, except for your decision not to recognize literary devices ...

[Straw Man]

124. What's that in the sky?

Is it a bird? Is it a plane? No, it's a literary device.

[krispos42]

118. Then you missed the exchange...

...where ellisonz thinks that $2,000 worth a training a year is an acceptable cost to own a $700 handgun.

Try looking for that thread.


It's POSSIBLE that both he and I know what I'm referring to. Furthermore, it's POSSIBLE that we had a civil exchange on this previously, where both of our positions were clearly stated and understood by both sides.

[iverglas]

121. yeah, and it's POSSIBLE

that this

You don't like people that like guns, and you want to see them pay as much as possible for their "lifestyle" choice.

is still a characterization of another poster, posted for the world to see in this thread, that still doesn't have a factual basis.

I mean, unless ellisonz said, somewhere, "I don't like people who like guns, and I want to see them pay as much as possible for their 'lifestyle' choice."

[krispos42]

123. It's also possible

That this is my opinion of the aggregate of reading ellisonz's postings on DU.


But I must remember that I'm dealing with you, and when I do that I'm not allowed to condense anything, nor use any analogies whatsoever.

[Clames]

18. Re-read what you posted...

...about a thousand more times. You might understand it yourself after that.






I like DU so far. People like you make it humorous.

[ellisonz]

23. Aww...thanks buddy!

[one-eyed fat man]

32. You have a poor memory

Former Brady mouthpiece, Paul Helmke, before the Court granted certiorari, pleaded with D.C. that it modify its gun laws rather than appeal to the Supreme Court.

He understood that the collective rights theory of the Second Amendment was tenuous, at best. The foundation of most gun control arguments was that the Second Amendment only protected the States' right to arm militias.

The very underpinning, the most basic tenet of faith for every gun banner, has always been that the Founders never intended for the "people" to own arms. He clearly understood that by going to the Supreme Court, the District ran the risk of the court finding for an "individual right." That would drive a stake right through the heart of the most earnestly cherished notions of gun control proponents.

He ruefully admitted that after the court ruled in Heller that the door had been shut, "the path to a complete ban on gun ownership is now gone."

Oh, that kinda lays bare their bogus claim of "we're not for gun bans."

[ellisonz]

34. I think you're probably simplifying arguments...

...but I'm not going to go take the time to disprove you, and I don't agree with such notions as a complete ban on gun ownership, so please, don't lump me in with other peoples notions that I didn't state. Can you show me any post where *I* called for a complete ban on gun ownership?

[one-eyed fat man]

45. You support those that do.

The whole anti-gun movement has been based on shifting goalposts and changing rules. Time and time again they redefine what they claim are "reasonable" or "common sense" prohibitions while in all cases every one of the organizations' charters calls for the complete elimination of civilian gun ownership.

"The position of the National Coalition to Ban Handguns is very clear... We support banning the manufacture, sale and possession of all handguns" Michael K. Beard, testimony before the Committee of the Judiciary (Mar. 22, 1989)

Their idea of "compromise" is creeping incrementally.

"We're going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily - given the political realities - going to be very modest. Of course, it's true that politicians will then go home and say, `This is a great law. The problem is solved.' And it's also true that such statements will tend to defuse the gun-control issue for a time. So then we'll have to start working again to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen the next law, and maybe again and again. Right now, though, we'd be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal - total control of handguns in the United States - is going to take time. My estimate is from seven to ten years. The first problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second problem is to get all handguns registered. And the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition - except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors - totally illegal." Pete Shields, Handgun Control Incorporated, 1976-The New Yorker

They ridicule the notion of a "slippery slope."

"[NRA] claimed that they vigorously fought [the Brady bill] at every turn and every step...because it was the nose of the camel [under the tent]....Today we would like to tell you what the rest of the camel looks like." - HCI President Richard Aborn, Dec. 8, 1993

"We're here to tell the NRA their nightmare is true..." - U.S. Representative Charles Schumer, quoted on NBC, 11/30/93

They even outlined a few of the intentional deceptions they planned on using to achieve their eventual goal.

"Handguns should be outlawed. Our organization will probably take this stand in time but we are not anxious to rouse the opposition before we get the other legislation passed." - Elliot Corbett, National Council For A Responsible Firearms Policy, 1969, Washington Evening Star.

"The semi-automatic weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons — anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun — can only increase that chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons." — Josh Sugarman, 1988, Violence Policy Center.

Their apologists piously bleat about gun crime, yet their leaders boldly proclaim:

"I don't care about crime, I just want to get the guns." - Senator Howard Metzenbaum, 1994

"No, we are not looking at how to control criminals, we are talking about banning the AK47 and semi-automatic guns!" - Senator Metzenbaum (D-OH)

"Passing a law like the assault weapons ban is a symbolic — purely symbolic — move in that direction. Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation." - Charles Krauthammer, 1996, Washington Post

Leaders of the gun control movement have unashamedly and publicly proclaimed how they intend to reach their goals. They have shown themselves to be complete, total and absolute liars, except for ONE TRUTH:

"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal." - U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno, December 1993

Nice crowd you hang with.....

So my question to you is: "Were they all lying then or are they lying now?"

[krispos42]

7. You object to democracy every single day, I believe.

Gun owners are in the minority, yet somehow they achieve political goals by being better organized, better financed, more unified, and more motivated than people that want more regulation.

This makes you unhappy. You complain about "bullies" and "political threats", when your side would do the exact same thing if positions were reversed.



People vote for lots of reasons, from in-depth analysis and research to "I like his name". The gun-rights block gets enough people voting a certain way for a specific reason, which gets a certain electoral result after the votes are tallied up. But since it doesn't go your way...




Nobody is saying the right to keep and bear arms is unlimited. YOU'RE saying that other people are saying it, which is not the same thing at all.

HOWEVER, neither is militia service tied to gun ownership. If this was true, then only women on active duty, in the Reserves, or in the Guard, would have the right to own a gun, while tens of millions of men would.

The 'militia' clause has been used by the courts to justify federal limitation of types of weapons sold. It's why I can't own a shotgun or rifle with a 12" barrel unless I get a very special permit... such a gun is not in common use among the military, thus having one does not prepare a man for military service, nor give him a militarily-useful gun should he be called up.

[iverglas]

69. good god, man

Gun owners are in the minority, yet somehow they achieve political goals by being better organized, better financed, more unified, and more motivated than people that want more regulation.

That's about the funniest thing I've heard all day.

If non-gun owners are a majority, what does that make the 99%? One of those super duper majorities?

And yet they're losing their homes and jobs in droves.

There must be something just, oh, better organized, better financed, more unified, and more motivated about that other 1%, eh? I dunno ... but I kind of don't think that makes them good, or makes the process by which they get their own way one that most people think of when they think "democratic".

[gejohnston]

70. not the same thing

the pro gun side has grass roots machine made up of 99 percent type people. Much of the NRA-ILA, SAF et al donations are a lot of small donations from the same middle and working class that make up the 99 percent.

The anti gun side in the US is all astro turf. No grassroots, funded almost exclusively if not exclusively by a foundation and a couple of billionaires and celebrities. Some of those one percenters lean right like Bloomburg, Stallone, the Bradys; while some lean left like like (shit can't think of one off hand outside of congress.). Maybe Rosie O'Donnell, really don't know her politics.

Also, gun control enthusiasts are an even smaller minority.

[iverglas]

73. I didn't SAY it is the same thing.

It is an ANALOGY.

The two groups SHARE the characteristics that SOMEONE ELSE, not I, posited.

The two groups may be DIFFERENT on other points.

The two groups are VIRTUALLY IDENTICAL on the points raised.

... are in the minority, yet somehow they achieve political goals by being better organized, better financed, more unified, and more motivated than people ...

THAT is what I was addressing. I was not the one laying them out as if they were of great importance to the discussion, as if they proved some point.

Being in the minority, being better organized, being better financed, being more unified, being more motivated ... it all says nothing about their nature or the nature of their goals.

Those same points could be made about the Taliban in Afghanistan or extremist right-wing Jews in Israel.

You can assert differences all you like. The ones you have asserted are either not as relevant as the similarities or plain inaccurate, in my submission.


The anti gun side in the US is all astro turf.

No, the pro-firearms control segment of the population in the US is NOT all astro turf.

A MAJORITY of voters, especially Democratic Party voters, favours firearms control that is more stringent than at present in various aspects.

Because they are not motivated by SELF-INTEREST to the extent that the 1% and the anti-firearms control elements of US society, for example, are, it is not surprising that they are not highly organized and well-funded, etc. etc.

THAT is the relevant distinction here.

The 1%, and the anti-firearms control segment of the population and their supposed mouthpieces, are driven by extreme self-interest in this regard -- and, I would submit, by other interests as well, but since (in their perception) those interests coincide with their self-interest in relation to firearms control, when it comes to voting choices, that issue makes a good proxy in any event.

The pro-firearms control segment of the population are motivated, in making their electoral and other choices, by a host of interests, and in recent years have had nowhere to put their vote that represents both their interest in firearms control and their interests in those other matters. Since they perceive their interests in, say, having health insurance or not funding wars for oil as paramount, they are left with no choice but to put their vote somewhere that is antithetical to their interest in firearms control.

Some of us do have to hold our noses when we vote. I did it in my past two provincial elections, when I voted Liberal, since I perceived it to be in my interests to ensure that my MPP and my provincial government were not Progressive Conservative, for a gazillion reasons associated with my perceived interests (which included self-interest only in the most enlightened way, since I would personally benefit from things like tax cuts on high incomes).

Perhaps large portions of the anti-firearms control segment of the population hold their noses when they vote for right-wing candidates and parties.

I have never seen any evidence of that.

[gejohnston]

85. If you say so

but that is what you implied. It is all astro turf.

Here is a question, how can the majority of USAmericans for more stringent federal firearms regulations when they don't have the slightest fucking clue what current federal firearms regulations are? and that is you get to the half-assed arguments and hypocritical.

[krispos42]

87. The only legitimate way to control the legislative process...

...is through elected representatives.

I agree that it's disgusting that the top 1% is able to do what it does. However, 30 or 40% or more of the people that are NOT in the top 1% are on the side of the 1%, or at least the party that is so pro-top-1% that they nakedly pander to them.

Of course, money is power, so both parties are far more beholden to the top 1% than they should be.

But this does not change the assumption that the 40% of Americans that own guns control about 40% of the wealth, because gun ownership is NOT tied to wealth. Your analogy to the top 1%'s political power is not a good one, in my opinion.

[rhett o rick]

3. The NRA favors profits by gun manufactures over all else. Profits over humans. Where have I heard

that?

[oneshooter]

5. The last time you said it? n/t

[rhett o rick]

11. Maybe so. Well then, maybe I should say it again. the NRA is more concerned with profits

of gun manufactures than safety of American children. Guns, are they a substitute for masculine deficiency?

[PavePusher]

16. Really? Is that why they sponser childrens safety training?

Why don't the Brady Buffoons run any training programs?

[rhett o rick]

21. Please dont try to rationalize this. The NRA is funded and backed by gun manufacturers.

Just because they give some training to children doesnt lessen their responsibility for trying to get more and more guns into the hands of Americans. It's about profits.

[PavePusher]

26. Cite to their funding sources, please. n/t

[friendly_iconoclast]

40. Your interlocutor seems to have gone missing after your awkward question.

Not a bit surprising...

[DonP]

42. Typical gun controller behavior pattern

Show up in the Gungeon every few months or so to officially abhor all things and people gun related, go back to their "hidey hole" feeling all smug that you "told those gun nuts off".

Then they do absolutely nothing about it.

I embrace and rejoice in that behavior pattern.

That's why gun control now is nothing more than a punch line politically and practically. All they do is talk about it. And fewer of them are even doing that lately. That recent Leonard Pitts column drew a ratio of about 15 to 1 pro gun versus gun control commentary.

The controllers weep and wail, but don't join any groups and they don't even support the gun control groups that are out there.

A handful of 1%ers at the Joyce Foundation, that agewise are all much closer to eternity than activity, are all that stands between Gun Control evolving into a single humorous line in a history book.

... And I like it that way.

[X_Digger]

46. +1

It's annoying, but I'd rather put up with seagull posters (swoop in, dump shit, fly away) than people who actually put their time and money where their collective mouths are.

[DonP]

47. I've been asking them that question for around 2 years now. Always the same reaction.

"What, beyond whining online, are you actually doing about gun control?"

In two years I had one poster, long since sent to the DU Granite Garden, claim he had sent Brady $2,500 as proof. That year Brady listed a total of $2,000 in member contributions, so it was obviously another gun grabber lie. Another alerted that I was "calling him out" by daring to ask a simple question. But the majority just ignore the embarrassing question and go back to GD for another month or two.

it almost seems to have an inverse reaction. The louder and more radically they squeal about gun control online, the less they actually do in the real world about it. I guess it's easy to foam at the mouth in Mom's basement or at the coffee house in Grad School and be all self righteous, but another thing to actually do anything.

I guess they haven't really figured out that the '90's are long gone and no one is impressed by your Che T-Shirt, little Red Mao book or your gun control bumper stickers. They are now all as antique a notion as you could find.

Hell, none of them even brag about belonging to a gun control group or working on petition drives to repeal CCW.

In the meantime ... every order I send to Midway USA, Cheaper Than Dirt, Brownell's etc. gets rounded up for the NRA. A few cents here and there, times several million other orders every year and pretty soon you're talking real money.

[ellisonz]

49. Pretty soon...

Last edited Tue Jan 31, 2012, 06:18 PM - Edit history (1)

...you'll be a true NRA Patriot™ shooting bullet holes in a poster of Obama down at the range with the good old boys!

P.S. No one is impressed by your gun toting either, in fact, I think you would find that most posters at this site believe it to be a bit "illegal gun proliferation enthusiast."

[Straw Man]

51. Kind of ironic ...

... that you're painting the NRA as Democrat-haters over a sig line about Howard Dean, whom they endorsed eight times for governor of Vermont.

Yes, they skew to the right and oppose Obama, but their single-issue focus is gun rights, regardless of party affiliation.

[ellisonz]

52. Kinda ironic that your name is Straw Man...

Watch the video...

[Straw Man]

62. Yes, isn't it?

OK, watched your video. Howard Dean has some criticism for the NRA in the wake of the Loughner. Neither surprising nor relevant. The issue was whether the NRA supports Democrats. Remember? And they did support Howard Dean. Eight times.

[ellisonz]

63. Ancient history at this point.

Their PAC money almost exclusively now goes to Republicans.

[Straw Man]

65. Ancient history?

Like the 2010 midterm elections?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/06/nra-endorsing-democrats_n_752790.html
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/House/2010/1008/Why-the-NRA-is-rallying-behind-endangered-Democrats
http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2010/10/06/130393162/nra-endorses-14-house-democrats
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/06/14/strickland-picks-up-nra-endorsement/

[X_Digger]

66. To someone around 25, two years ago is 'ancient history', I suppose. n/t

[ellisonz]

92. The American political clock moves in steadily, but surely every 2 years.

Which side has the NRA been on oh let's say the last 20 years

[X_Digger]

93. They've been on the side of the second amendment for 130+ years

They endorse and give money to candidates who support the second amendment.

[DonP]

53. We'll all continue to give your POV all the respect it deserves

You, and both of the other gun grabbers we seem to have at this point, seem to be struggling.

Once again, I live in Illinois remember, we can't "tote" it's against the law. But don't let your little head be bothered with details and facts.

Now, why don't you take your backpack, your Psych 101 book, Che T-shirt and head off to the local coffee shop where the other grad students and Barristas will all be terribly impressed with what passes for your soaring rhetoric.

I also kind of doubt that you can speak for "most posters" on DU or any other group for that matter.

I'm sure everyone has also noticed that you have no answer for the question either. Funny, but not surprising. Once again, another one that's nothing but talk.

But ... I'd be a little careful of referring to other DU members "wing nuts". We've lost some of our best ever "gun control enthusiasts" that way, when Skinner demanded more civility in this forum. In fact, after he did, we lost a bunch of gun control supporters that couldn't abide by his rules and control themselves.

[ellisonz]

54. lol

Maybe you should move to Indiana or Michigan where you can tote to your hearts content?

"I also kind of doubt that you can speak for "most posters" on DU or any other group for that matter."

Please make sure to chime in the next time your arguments get the light of day at DU.

"But ... I'd be a little careful of referring to other DU members "wing nuts". We've lost some of our best ever "gun control enthusiasts" that way, when Skinner demanded more civility in this forum. In fact, after he did, we lost a bunch of gun control supporters that couldn't abide by his rules and control themselves."

You're probably right, I'll go with "illegal gun proliferation enthusiasts"

Aloha to you and yours, just please don't do what this guy did:

[DonP]

55. So what have you done in the real world for gun control?

Fourth or fifth time I've asked you, never get an answer. But I guess that is the answer.

No point in moving, we'll have CCW here in the next year or two and I can wait.

It's probably safe to assume that you really have made no real world contributions to gun control, aside from your online screeds. And since you primarily use other people's material, you can't even publish a collection of them without violating copyright law.

With no visible support, no grass roots organization, a dwindling number of supporters and no funding sources besides a handful of corporate foundations, how do you expect to ever achieve your political goals re: gun control?

[ellisonz]

57. Really?

All my money goes to paying bills, I don't have money to give to *any* charities. I wish I did. You know what I do, I stand up for what I believe in and I don't take no for an answer. I write my Congresscritters and I sign every petition I can. You have a very narrow minded view of our democracy if you think money = power = right.

Also, if you think I'm violating copyright law, feel free to alert and click the copyright violation button, otherwise you're just showing how truly ignorant you are of copyright law. It's called *fair use* ever heard of it, and there is no prohibition on using images, and especially since just about every single on of those has a signature and a publication name.

I expect reason and the basic principle of one-person one-vote in a free and fair election to carry the day. That right now, the right-wing in this country has had some success in pushing their radical anti-gun control agenda is a tragedy, and is hardly something to be proud of given that it is anti-public safety and inconsistent with the Constitution.

[gejohnston]

58. I expect reason and the basic principle of one-person one-vote in a free and fair election to carry

the day.

It is, just not the way you like. There are more affluent gun control fans, and only a couple of billionaires pony up. Some on the right like Sly Stallone, the Bradys, and Bloomburg. Some on the left, who do not much.

[DonP]

59. That's pretty much what I thought. Good for you.

You might want to share your high minded attitude about money - power - influence et. al. with the DNC that sends me begging e-mails every day or two. The party doesn't seem to share your enthusiasm for money being the root of all political evil, neither does K-street or the AFL-CIO, the Teamsters, AFCSME, NEA etc.

The real world is ... No money, no grass roots organization no political results.

But you keep thinking all those good thoughts about more gun control.

[ellisonz]

64. Unsubscribe from the DNC mailing list?

Seems to me you're almost saying "Corporations are people too, my friends..."

[GreenStormCloud]

28. The NRA if funded by over 4 million dues paying members.

Contributions by gun manufacturers is quite minor compared to the over $150 million in dues paid by members. On top of that are the voluntary contributions by members to the NRA-ILA.

You really don't know what you are talking about.

[rl6214]

30. "The NRA is funded and backed by gun manufacturers."

You gonna back this up with some sort of proof? If this is the truth you must have some sort of proof of this huge conspiracy.

[DonP]

36. That would be the NSSF (National Shooting Sports Foundation) that represents Mfrs.

But don't let a messy thing like actual facts get in the way of your childish ranting and temper tantrum.

Funny, I don't see you protesting the profits of Apple, making over 100 times what a company like Ruger does. So it's not really about corporate profits, you just hate guns and gun owners.

What really pisses you off is the fact that there is a dwindling handful of sore losers that still support gun control and whine like you, about the movement's impotency while there are around 4.5 million voting citizens that support the NRA with a $35 check every year.

The only contributions to the NRA that come from manufacturers or retailers I'm aware of, are the "round up" contributions. When I order an accessory I have the options of rounding the purchase up to the nearest dollar. The extra money goes directly to the NRA, not the NRA-ILA. You do know the difference right?

Give us a few examples of what you're personally doing to put your money where your mouth is on gun control? We hear a pitiful handful of gun grabbers going on and on about how evil the NRA is, but they never really seem to do anything besides whine about it. Funny, no Brady memberships or contributions, no participation in gun control efforts and no attempts to repeal current gun laws like concealed carry.

Are you just another online "warrior" for gun control?

Gun control is a dinosaur that doesn't know it's extinct yet. But pretty soon the smell will be obvious to all, even the politicians conning you for donations, to support their "gun control" efforts that never seem to produce any results.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

50. Ratoinalize??? ... It's simple math: 4,000,000 members x $20 = $80,000,000 per year.

Each of thier 4,000,000 members pays about $20-$30 on average in annual dues.
And the NRA has been making tens of millions of dollars for DECADES.

Given the pile of cash they have they could probably fund THEMSELVES using just the interest they earn on their holdings.

[Simo 1939_1940]

74. "The NRA is funded and backed by gun manufacturers."

President Obama's campaign was supported primarily by many (relatively) small donations, and is perceived universally by Dems as a righteous grassroots movement. (which it obviously was)

The NRA is supported primarily by the many small membership dues, and is perceived largely by Dems as "the evil gun lobby".

Sorry, but you can't have it both ways. The virulent contempt for guns (and gun owners) by many Democrats creates the (in)famous reality distortion field that destroys the self-awareness needed to recognize blatant hypocrisy when it is displayed/practiced. I don't believe I've ever thanked you for serving the interests of the Democratic Party by helping to step on the remaining embers glowing in the "gun control" movement.

[rl6214]

29. The NRA is not at all concerned with gun manufacturers profits, that's just something you made up

As far as this comment:

"Guns, are they a substitute for masculine deficiency? "

Just show how juvenile you are and that you really have nothing to back your arguement.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

103. ?!

[liberal_biker]

104. Nope - you're wrong

The NRA doesn't really care about the profits of gun manufacturers. Not their job and in point of fact, manufacturers are not allowed to be part of the NRA.

Thanks for playing, we have some nice parting gifts for you on the way out....

[Simo 1939_1940]

106. "Guns, are they a substitute for masculine deficiency?"

No. But your snarky little question serves as irrefutable proof of your integrity deficiency.

[baldguy]

8. Profits over people? Sounds like a standard RW objective.

[rhett o rick]

10. I agree. NRA is a right wing organization. nm

[rhett o rick]

12. Guns are an important part of right wing existence. nm

[Nuclear Unicorn]

43. You have the avatar of a sectarian terrorist who planted a bomb.

just sayin'

[rhett o rick]

44. Yes I have an avatar, but no gun. nm

[Nuclear Unicorn]

72. The avatar of a man who wanted to use a bomb to impose his religion.

Sure you claim there's no gun pictured but, you know, "dog whistles" and all. Maybe that's not you. Maybe you just like creepy imagery despite the fact it has a violent subtext.

Maybe Timothy McVeigh masks will one day be cool too.

[2ndAmForComputers]

96. No. He has an avatar of the group Anonymous.

[friendly_iconoclast]

107. Which uses a mask of Guy Fawkes, attempted terrorist, as used by Alan Moore:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Fawkes_mask

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunpowder_Plot

[2ndAmForComputers]

109. Anonymous doesn't want to kill anybody.

And they took the mask from the V movie.

Insinuating that the poster (or Anonymous) is endorsing mass murder because of a V/Anonymous avatar is beyond ludicrous.

[friendly_iconoclast]

110. Who to believe, you or the guy that created it? I'll go with the creator:

http://www.freewebs.com/vforvendettagallery/BehindTheSmile/behindthesmile.htm

(emphasis added)

"Re. The script; While I was writing this, I had this idea about the hero, which is a bit redundant now we've got [can't read the next bit] but nonetheless... I was thinking, why don't we portray him as a resurrected Guy Fawkes, complete with one of those papier mache masks in a cape and conical hat? He'd look really bizarre and it would give Guy Fawkes the image he's deserved all these years. We shouldn't burn the chap every Nov. 5th but celebrate his attempt to blow up Parliament!"
The moment I read these words, two things occurred to me. Firstly, Dave was obviously a lot less sane than I'd hitherto believed him to be, and secondly, this was the best idea I'd ever heard in my entire life. All of the various fragments in my head suddenly fell into place, united behind the single image of a Guy Fawkes mask.

I don't think Anonymous or our fellow DUer seek to blow up anybody, but pretending the image is entirely a benign one is pretty ahistorical.
A little more historical awareness will serve you well, I think...

[2ndAmForComputers]

111. In which way does that prove Anonymous wants to kill people?

Or that they didn't take the mask from V for Vendetta?

All that says is that the drawer of the comic (not the writer) was, in the words of the writer, "a lot less sane than (he)'d hitherto believed him to be."

I think you're trying to refute a point I didn't make.

[krispos42]

15. Oh, I'll bet in the threads about Apple Computer.

And that interesting article in the New York Times last week.


Apple Computer: $26,000,000,000 profits in 2011
Sturm, Ruger, & Co: $28,000,000 profits in 2010.

26 billion versus 28 million. If the NRA wanted to make buttloads of money, they'd buy Apple stock with their member's dues, not support gun companies that make middling profits (Ruger's earnings were $1.48 a share) or privately-owned companies that don't pay dividends and don't trade on the stock market.

[aikoaiko]

13. Its not the pro-RKBA side that got spanked by the Heller decision.

Henigan and his ilk are still butt hurt from said spanking over this particular loss.

The pro-RKBA side always knew there were limitations to Heller and often argued that when anti- RKBA types said that Heller would be catastrophic.

[Clames]

20. Hennigan...

...is still walking tenderly from the striking down of San Francisco's 2005 Prop. H. He needs a 55-gallon drum of Prep. H now.

[aikoaiko]

48. I am thrilled that the Brady Bunch lunatics are forced to accept Heller as a victory.

I think about how hard they fought against it and not they have nothing left but to claim it as authoritative.

Keeping and bearing arms is an individual right unrelated to militia service at very least in the context of one's own home.

[X_Digger]

19. Mission Accomplished: Strawman Demolished!

And how much popcorn will you be chewing when a case like this makes it to the SCOTUS?

[ellisonz]

24. Depends on...

...the amount of salt and butter.

Oh, I feel a heart attack coming on...

[rl6214]

25. Oh come on, henigan from the brady bunch?

Ouch is right, that's scraping the bottom of the barrel when it comes to "sources".

[Bloberman1959]

33. Ha Ha Ha. NRA nuts!

Reminds me of my gunnut neighbor.

[DonP]

37. "NRA Nuts", ummm, does that include you fellow DU members that belong to the NRA?

More than a few of us belong to the NRA as well as our state rifle and pistol associations. You got a problem with that?

So, do you have anything cogent to add, or are you just reading off the graffiti on your neighbor's garage door?

[Bloberman1959]

125. It includes my gun nut neighbor that got banned from DU. Ha Ha Ha.

Boy was he pissed

[Simo 1939_1940]

61. Sounds like hoplophobe gibberish to me. NT

Edited to add: If "gun nuts" is acceptable for use in discourse at DU, then so is "hoplophobe".

Goose, gander --- and all of that.

[Bloberman1959]

126. I'm sure it does.

[ManiacJoe]

38. The Brady Campaign as a source??!?

They make the NRA look good.

[friendly_iconoclast]

41. Notice Henigan's backhanded acknowledgement of Heller's validity in that piece.

Nice of him to finally realize how reasonable and common-sense it was.

It also leads me to believe that the Bradys are washing their hands of Chicago, albeit quietly...

[Hoyt]

56. Yep, the judge be right. Heller was "quite narrow," despite what the NRA told their minions.

[S_B_Jackson]

89. Unfortunately for those on the pro-gun control side, McDonald was not "quite narrow"...

in fact, it opened the door wide to a broad latitude of challenges that going to have significant ramifications for states like California, Illinois, and New York whose laws are written with a very obvious weakness - they allow some municipality's residents to be treated unequally under the law.

The 2nd Amendment is now subject to the court's Incorporation Doctrine under the 14th Amendment and reading the dicta in both Heller and McDonald makes it clear that a minimum of intermediate scrutiny is coming down the pipe.

Kwong v. Bloomberg has already been filed challenging the legal scheme of NYC and NY state where just because one is a resident of NYC, the price for a home premises permit is 3400% greater than the same permit for a resident of Albany, White Plains, or Elmira. That type of non-uniform application of the law is not going to pass constitutional muster.

And in California the wide variance of standards at play on a county-by-county basis in the issuance of concealed carry permits - some counties being effectively "shall-issue" and other counties being "only the politically connected, the rich, and celebrities need apply" - means that house of cards is teetering too.

[Hoyt]

90. You better hold em tight.

[S_B_Jackson]

94. Do you disagree that states and municipalities who are intent upon infringing

or seriously impeding the ability of their citizens to avail themselves of their right to firearms is going to run afoul of the 14th Amendment requirement of equal protection (and application) of the law?

If so, please provide your reasoning. or is snark the full content of your thought?

[pipoman]

71. Yep, Heller was narrow

but a resounding answer to the individual rights v. collective rights question. ALL SCOTUS decisions are narrow, ALL SCOTUS decisions are answers to very case specific questions.

It is hi-lar-ious to see the Brady's flogging Miller as if it was some broad ruling, answer to anything. :ROFL: I love how Miller is paraded out considering that Miller was dead at the time the case went to SCOTUS, and SCOTUS didn't hear any argument from Miller's side, since nobody showed up to argue his side.

Oh, and posting Brady opinions have as much impact in these parts as posting NRA opinion pieces. None.

This piece is sour grapes that Brady will never recover from..

[Hoyt]

95. Just shows how easily precedent is reversed -- especially 5/4 decision on issues like guns.

[pipoman]

97. What, pray tell, was reversed?

[liberal_biker]

99. You have many examples....

...of the Supreme Court reversing itself? You have ANY examples of the Supreme Court reversing itself on unanimous decisions that are supported by at least 15 other cases with the same outcome?

Hoyt, you can tell yourself it was a 5-4 decision all you want, but the plain painful (for you) fact is, all 9 justices agreed the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right.

Ignorance and stupidity are nothing to be proud of Hoyt. These facts have been made clear to you many times, yet, like a faith-blinded fundamentalist Christian, you simply refuse to accept them.

[SteveW]

108. oh. more GOP-founded, GOP-led stuff. false alarm. nt