[2dogs]

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/newsarchives/XcNewsPlus.asp?cmd=view&articleid=2834

Time For Traitors To Step Aside

By Michael Z. Williamson
October 21, 2003



KeepAndBearArms.com -- Folks, let’s start with some facts:

FACT: The Silveira vs. Lockyer case is at the Supreme Court now. Done deal.

FACT: The Silveira case is either going to be ignored or heard by the justices.

FACT: A lot of work has been done by a very competent attorney named Roy Lucas, who has an excellent track record at SCOTUS.

To that end, I’m puzzled what the current legions of detractors are trying to accomplish. No amount of complaining about it being “The wrong case at the wrong court” is going to stop the ball—it’s rolling downhill as we speak.

No amount of backstabbing and undermining is going to improve the case.

There’s a small, but vocal, group of critics getting in a peeing contest as to who can make the worst claims about the backers and attorneys involved. These people have been around politics long enough to understand the concept of caucus—once a platform exists, one puts disagreement aside and supports the party. Our party -- those who support the 2nd Amendment -- is going to have a day in court. Done deal.

In which case, I can only use a harsh term about those pecking at the corpse before it’s even dead.

That term is “TRAITOR.”

Yes, it’s a harsh term. It’s also accurate.

What in the hell are you trying to accomplish, folks? There are three possibilities here:

1: SCOTUS refuses to hear the case. It goes away, someone tries again. No actions on your part can improve this scenario.

2: SCOTUS rules against us. That seems to be the big fear here. “But what if we loooooooooose?” I hear people whine. Fact is, most District and lower courts are of the opinion that we don’t have a 2nd Amendment. Several of those judicial opinions are why this case exists, right? If you step into the arena, there’s a risk of losing. But if you refuse to fight, you have lost preemptively. And even among those courts that recognize it, the 2nd Amendment is not considered a civil right for purposes of civil law—one cannot sue anyone for “violating my Second Amendment rights.”

This case hopes to address that. We have good briefs, good clients, good attorneys and a plan. Give us more competent amicus briefs if you want to help.

3: SCOTUS rules in our favor. Do please assure me this is what you’d like to see! It would define keeping and bearing arms as a right, permanently. From there, we have a basis to HAMMER our opponents politically and socially as “bigoted extremists attempting to undermine our civil rights.” And make no mistake, we will.

Now, complaints, aspersions, second-guesses, death threats against our attorneys and ad hominem attacks and pejoratives will not accomplish possibility #3. THAT is what we’re here about, folks.

I’ve got friends supporting this case who are Trotskyites, neo-Conservatives, Libertarians, gays, Christians, Muslims, etc. If we define the 2nd Amendment as only applying to “right-thinking people of the right political and racial makeup,” we’ll not only be bigots, we’ll lose by our own divisiveness. Recall your Franklin. “We must all hang together, or we most assuredly will all hang separately.”

Frankly, I’m puzzled. It seems as if a certain cross-section of our community wants to say, “We Told You So! Neener, Neener, Neener! Your suit failed!”

Childish.

Not only childish, but it would mean they’d be gloating along with Sarah Brady, Chucky Schumer, Dianne Feinstein and other enemies of freedom.

Just whose side are these people on? They aren’t on ours, and they aren’t staying quiet and working in parallel on their own cases. Their only goal seems to be sabotage of the case we do have. That is traitorous. That makes the Brady Bunch cackle with glee.

The case is at SCOTUS. Support it, or step aside. But do everyone a favor, and keep your misgivings to yourself.

And please, no more death threats. Isn’t that one of the reasons our opponents give for “The need for gun control”?

[feedthehogs]

The term "destroying ourselves from within" comes to mind.

The anti-2nd amendment people have not been successful with a straight on attack.
We need to recognize that this strategy is now the adopted method.

[Augustwest]

I happen to agree with most of what was written there.

But words like traitor, treason, and "aid and comfort" get thrown around so often these days, and by so many sides of so many issues, that they're becoming meaningless.

[cuchulainn]

I'm rooting for Silvera to go our way.

That said....

Yes, it’s a harsh term. It’s also accurate. No it isn't.

Hyperbole like this is the reason I no longer support KABA with my money and no longer go to the site. :(

Note to KABA editor: I'll bet that the majority of people stopped reading that piece at the headline, dismissing it a more hyperbole as soon as they got to the word "traitor." Translation: your message was lost, and you probably drove a number of fence-sitters into the non-Silvera camp :(

And before you KABA-ites get your britches in a snitch, consider this: I'm not saying this out of hatred or anger, but out of the sadness of someone who is watching the rantings of a friend spiraling out of control. :(

KABA needs to take a long, hard -- HONEST -- look at itself.

Again, I'm not trying to start a fight. This message truly is said out of concern and sadness about what KABA was and could have been. :(

[2dogs]

Hyperbole like this is the reason I no longer support KABA with my money and no longer go to the site

So you stopped supporting KABA not because you disagree with them, but because you don't like the way in which they are (assuming they are) presenting the truth?:confused:

[cuchulainn]

So you stopped supporting KABA not because you disagree with them, but because you don't like the way in which they are (assuming they are) presenting the truth Well, it isn't presenting the truth. People who disagree with KABA are not traitors.

Maybe I'm wrong, but it appears lost on KABA that many RKBA supporters with hesitation about Silvera might be hesitant out of honest, rational concerns. KABA isn't going to win them over by spewing invectives in lieu of calm, rational explanation of its case. Not only that, the spewing of invectives also drives away many people who are unfamiliar with the issue.

With all due respect, when KABA does things like calling people who disagree with the Silvera case "traitors, it truly becomes devisive to no purpose. What is gained by tarring potential allies? Nothing. All KABA does is drive away people who might have come to its side.

My sad opinion is that KABA is doing nothing but hurting KABA and Silvera. :(

[2dogs]

when KABA does things like calling people who disagree with the Silvera case "traitors,

Maybe I misread the article, but I don't see where it called people with honest, reasonable criticism of Silveira traitors- but it did imply that people who seem hellbent on attacking the case (based on reasons having nothing to do with the merits) or impugning the reputations of those involved in the case are traitors.

I guess that may be a correct observation or not- but really I don't see it as a reason to lambast the organization (KABA) and refuse to support them. Personal opinion though.
:)

[Boats]

To be completely accurate you should use the word truth in quotation marks when discussing KABA. There is reality and then there is KABA's version of it, euphemistically labeled the "truth."

I can live with being branded a traitor by the likes of KABA because I think Silviera is a bad legal case, poorly fought to date. However, before I am hanged, or shot, or exiled, or denounced, or re-educated, or whatever sentence is meted out to traitors in KABA's eyes, I'll take my few last words:

The first word is HYPOCRITES. The NRA, which can do no right in the eyes of KABA, is maligned far more by the junta at KABA than anything the NRA has done rhetorically to them. Perhaps this is because KABA is beneath the notice of the NRA, and KABA depends largely on disaffecting people from other 2A groups in order to exist? Whatever the motivation of the strident NRA bashers at the KABA soapbox, they are hypocrites for trafficking in the same ad hominem, quoting out of context, revisionism, and other sins they inveigh against.

The second word is POLLYANAS. Halbrook arguing that DC should honor their previously court upheld "Home Rule law" of firearm registration by accepting new admittees to the rolls is dangerous precedent that could extinguish the rights of law-abiding gun owners everywhere? That is the darkest view possible of what the NRA is trying to do in DC. OTOH, even as it is portrayed at the top of the thread, Silviera is above criticism, and everybody should just shut up and/or get onboard for the ride? Silviera, is optimistically framed to a fault by KABA, so that even the worst outcome, SCOTUS reading the 2A right out of the Constitution, is really no big deal. Uh, right, that wouldn't be problematic at all and wouldn't be nationwide precedent would it?

The last word is DELUSIONAL. The KABAites have convinced themselves that they know history, constitutional law, courtroom procedure, politics, you name it, anything that has anything to do with the 2A and its defense or promotion despite a lack of anyone being able to demonstrate it apart from Mr. Lucas. What the others at KABA pedantically "know" is rather limited to Silviera, primarily because they have sunk thousands of dollars into it, in part, for a shot at credibility, that quality which they singularly lack at the moment.

That lack of credibility results in displays just like the one above. Breathless hyperbole. Charges of sleeping with the enemy. Intimations of conspiracy to do them in. Fantastical assertions of death threats made.:rolleyes:

The talk of traitors, enemy sympathizers, and useful idiots ad nauseum stylistically reminds me of nothing less than the paranoid clique that brought the world the former Soviet Union. They too had a lot of traitors in "the movement" as judged by the "true believers."

Fire away komrades! I am guilty as charged in your rhetorical showtrial held under the rules for "truth" at KABA.

[Quartus]

Fantastical assertions of death threats made.

I'm no fan of KABA, but I have to ask this question:

What is the factual basis for your accusing them of lying about death threats?

[Boats]

Well gee, it would be about the same amount of evidence that they have proffered that death threats had actually been made. What I wrote above is my opinion of their level of credibility, not a fact.

[2dogs]

To be completely accurate you should use the word truth in quotation marks

Um, just for clarity what I said was "..............don't like the way in which they are (assuming they are) presenting the truth?"

:)

[2dogs]

Boats

cuchulainn

I guess y'all didn't much like the "armedfemalesofamerica" post I made either?;)

[Silver Bullet]

If we define the 2nd Amendment as only applying to “right-thinking people of the right political and racial makeup,” we’ll not only be bigots, we’ll lose by our own divisiveness.
:confused:
Where did this come from ? I certainly don't see any of that around here, except maybe for some anti-liberalism on some off-topics. We've been a very all-encompassing group, very much promoting the "big tent" where everybody is invited in.

I support KABA in their court case, but the one thing that worries me is the shrillness of its spokespeople. Two individuals who post here not only advocate KABA's cause, but seem to ridicule others here who pose any questions about what they're doing. Something doesn't feel right here.

[Silver Bullet]

Oh, by the way, when I referred to the two posters, I'm not referring to anybody in this thread.

[Boats]

guess y'all didn't much like the "armedfemalesofamerica" post I made either?

I don't recall it, humor me with a link.

[2dogs]

Boats

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?threadid=45998

Enjoy! ;)

[Boats]

Well it does appear that the linked article got all of the attention it merited.

[cordex]

Maybe I misread the article, but I don't see where it called people with honest, reasonable criticism of Silveira traitors
Actually, it didn't seem to leave a whole lot of room for people with honest, reasonable criticism to exist.

In fact, it appears to equate complaints with threatening their lives ...

This case might be a good thing, but articles like this one do no more to help Silveira than KABA's detractors.

[2dogs]

Boats

Glad you liked it- I'll keep 'em coming.;)

[2dogs]

Just as an aside- alot of folks here seem to feel that there are "extreme" pro gun rights groups (KABA, JPFO, GOA- correct me if I'm wrong and these aren't no compromise) and "moderate" pro gun rights groups (NRA and, um .....ah, well the others) based on whether that organization feels there is room for "compromise" (see the armedfemalesofamerica article for a view on this).

So I'm wondering- which are the "extreme" and which are the "moderate" anti gun rights groups?

[Boats]

Personally, I'd make the distinction between effective and ineffective pro 2A groups.:D

[2dogs]

I'd make the distinction between effective and ineffective pro 2A groups

Good point, but I'd ask- what effect are they seeking?

[Daniel T]

I also stopped giving KABA money when I got sick of their brand of "if you're not 100% with us, you're against us!" extremism.

[Frohickey]

Just as an aside- alot of folks here seem to feel that there are "extreme" pro gun rights groups (KABA, JPFO, GOA- correct me if I'm wrong and these aren't no compromise) and "moderate" pro gun rights groups (NRA and, um .....ah, well the others) based on whether that organization feels there is room for "compromise" (see the armedfemalesofamerica article for a view on this).


I like this quote from Mr Barry (Goldwater, not White) :D

Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.

[Correia]

Well one thing about the article is 100% correct. Love it or hate it, the case is out of any of our hands. It is in the hands of the courts so we might as well root for it.

[Wildalaska]

Bravo Boats!

WildtraitortooAlaska

[2dogs]

Well, I'm finally convinced.

No more money to KABA unless they:

1. Swear to only say nice things about the NRA.

2. send someone scooting on up to SCOTUS to say [I]never mind .

:rolleyes:

[LawDog]

There are three possibilities here:

1: SCOTUS refuses to hear the case...
2: SCOTUS rules against us...
3: SCOTUS rules in our favor...

No, actually I believe there are five possible verdicts, given the history of this particular court:

4: SCOTUS rules in our favor on the first section (does the Second Amendment apply to the states in the same way that the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments apply?), and against us on the second (does it guarantee an individual right, in the same manner as those other amendments to the Bill of Rights?).

A ruling in this manner will give legal weight and credence to those who believe that the Second Amendment only applies to militias, and thus is the worst of all possible verdicts.

5: SCOTUS issues one of its famous "Yes, but..." rulings on one or both issues.

While not the worst possible verdict (see #4 above) it will still be pretty bad.

I may be wrong.

Going to be interesting to watch.

LawDog

[KMKeller]

NRA = ineffective.

[cuchulainn]

No more money to KABA unless they:

1. Swear to only say nice things about the NRA.

2. send someone scooting on up to SCOTUS to say [in an Emily Latella voice] never mind . That, my friend, is called a strawman argument.

[Zak Smith]

Having read what Roy Lucas has to say about this case, and his record for litigation, I think it's a winning strategy. Get a guy who has architected winning supreme court cases in the past, has studied the law completely, and has been researching for the last several years why justices decide how they do, and let him do his best.

There should not be so much conflict around this case. Every pro-RKBA organization should be helping us win it.

-z

[cordex]

There should not be so much conflict around this case. Every pro-RKBA organization should be helping us win it.
Flies. Honey. Vinegar.

You want people to support something, convince them. Don't brand everyone who disagrees even slightly as a traitor.

[Zak Smith]

Just to add, by "us", I meant everyone who is pro-RKBA.

[G-Raptor]

I wish I had the energy to join in the pissing contest, but I pretty tired right now - maybe some other time.

For now, I'll keep it short. I believe it was Ben Franklin who said "if we don't hang together, we will surely hang separately" - or something to that effect. It's the division in the "gun community" that has allowed the other side to keep winning over the last 40 years. Hunters against non-hunters, target shooters against defensive shooters, yada yada yada. This argument is just more of the same. The only difference is that it's the gun "lawyers" throwing rocks at each other now. It's all about who has the better case, the better strategy, or the better argument - I say WHO CARES, just do something!

Silveira has been petitioned to SCOTUS - is there another case there? If they accept, then that will be the basis of everything that follows. If they pass, then it's back to the drawing board. Whatever happens isn't going to be affected by the hissing, spitting, and name-calling in the gallery.

For the jocks in the crowd - The 2nd Amendment team is at first and goal; but it's a long ten yards to the end zone. The clock is ticking. Silveira has the ball. Do you block for him, or do you tackle him?

[Art Eatman]

Sorry, 2dogs, but Williamson's screed is a turnoff. The way it's written, anybody who doesn't fully agree with KABA is a traitor.

I figure I've put out a fair amount of effort for RKBA, these last 36 or so years. From my viewpoint, a bunch of mouthy Johnny-come-lately types who go to name-calling over honest disagreements just don't do a lot for me.

It's a matter of indifference to me whether or not the folks at KABA don't like the NRA. That's their prerogative. Childish behavior in the use of the language keeps me from granting credibility to the message that might be in the middle of all that yelling and screaming.

Folks have a right to talk, and I have a right not to listen...

Ain't it fun?

:D, Art

[Moparmike]

I simply hope that SCOTUS rules that the 2nd is an individual right, like everyone here knows it is.

I really have no opinion on KABA. I dont like the NRA's compromises though. It seems to be a little detrimental to its own cause.

[Gray Peterson]

https://www.keepandbeararms.com/newsarchives/XcNewsPlus.asp?cmd=view&articleid=2834 ( Time for the Traitors to Step Aside

Pretty harsh language, but I for the most part agree with it. All of the arguing now does not matter. It's in the NRA's and others interest to fund the Silveira case fully if it gets granted cert. So far they have not done so.

[LawDog]

Multiple threads merged.

LawDog

[Silver Bullet]

Silveira has the ball. Do you block for him, or do you tackle him?
I think it would be very strange to be in a game where one player had the ball in what he thinks is the only game in town, and then to see that player go out of his way to antagonize the players he hopes to block for him.

[Boats]

Pretty harsh language, but I for the most part agree with it. All of the arguing now does not matter. It's in the NRA's and others interest to fund the Silveira case fully if it gets granted cert. So far they have not done so.

So far it hasn't been granted cert, why should the NRA do anything more than the amicus brief that it has already filed? BTW, the NRA's amicus cert brief was the best of show in that regard. Yet they still suck.:banghead:

[2dogs]

why should the NRA do anything more

I don't know that they could do more at this point- but since it seems to be KABA who is handling Silveira, maybe the NRA could ask them. Or would it be an indignity for them to do so?

As for "Johnny-come-lately types "- yeah, so what. Who was around for "Miller"- the NRA. Who was around for GCA '68- the NRA. Who's been around the longest and watched over our gun rights as they slipped into the sewer- well guess who it wasn't. As I said before I'll stay a member of the NRA- and continue to be a member and give financial support to the "no compromise" guys.

Coincidentally the latest edition of America's 1st Freedom has Halbrook and Kopel on the cover- I don't think I've seen a single word in the magazine about Silveira. Wouldn't it be nice if the biggest pro gun lobby actually tried to pull everyone together to support Silveira if it goes to SCOTUS. Will that happen?

I find it interesting that the ink isn't even dry on the "partial birth abortion" ban and the lefties are already gathering their forces for a Supreme Court challenge. I doubt that they are spending alot of time infighting over who is or isn't a "johnny-come-lately". And you know what- more often that not they are winning and taking this country down a hole- they sure as hell don't compromise. They whine, scream, cheat, slander and probably would kill their own mother's to win- which they probably need to do since they have no principle on their side. Luckily we do have principle on our side and what do we do with it- p1$$ it away because we don't want to hurt big grandaddy NRA's feelings or because we don't want no "johnny-come-lately" to have the hubris to think THEY can take a case to the Supremes.

You know what- if we can't pull it together maybe we don't deserve 2nd amendment rights.:banghead:

[Art Eatman]

2Dogs, when SCOTUS heard U.S. v. Miller, Miller was already dead, and his attorney wasn't gonna go to D.C. pro bono for a dead man. In essence, only the Bad Guys showed up.

You say, "You know what- if we can't pull it together maybe we don't deserve 2nd amendment rights."

I can whole-heartedly agree with that. But it sounds just a bit odd, coming with the built in divisiveness of Williamson's name-calling. And, of course, some of the previous rhetoric from KABA...

"We're all trying to get to Heaven. The shame is the wasted time arguing about which road to take."

Art

[2dogs]

2Dogs, when SCOTUS heard U.S. v. Miller, Miller was already dead, and his attorney wasn't gonna go to D.C. pro bono for a dead man. In essence, only the Bad Guys showed up.

Who knows, maybe if there had been a "no compromise" GOA or JPFO or KABA around he wouldn't have had to go "pro bono for a dead man".

Let me get that old dusty time machine up and running..........................;)

Anyway I'd like to see at least as much of a hullabaloo from a unified gun community in support of Silveira if it's time comes as the left can muster for baby killing. (whoops- I mean "choice")

[Tempest]

"We're all trying to get to Heaven. The shame is the wasted time arguing about which road to take." That's an interesting quote, Mr. Eatman. I'm curious, however, if you believe the way to get to heaven is via a detour through hell.

Boats, I don't see anyone here having EVER denied that the NRA filed one hell of an amicus. Charles Cooper did a superb job, and KABA highlighted it prominently for quite a while.

Mike Williamson is a good friend of mine. I love him dearly. He's also an NRA member, as am I. Maybe I'm illiterate. Maybe English being my third language and all, I just misunderstood him. But I'm not seeing his article as an NRA bash. I'm seeing it rather as a wholesale (warranted) condemnation of those who would try to destroy a case that is ALREADY at SCOTUS awaiting a yea or a nay on cert. Regardless of what you may think of the case's merits, it's there. It's a Second Amendment case. It seeks clarification on the issue of gun rights ownership. If you don't think it's the right case, OK. You're entitled. But trying to kill it? Mike rightly describes it as treason, IMO.

[cuchulainn]

Tempest: If you don't think it's the right case, OK. You're entitled. But trying to kill it? Mike rightly describes it as treason, IMO. You're wrong :) They are no more traitors than they are murderers or rapists. Explain to me how people who fear that Silveira takes too big a bite and might backfire are treasonous? Misguided? Perhaps. Overly-fearful? Perhaps. But treasonous because (correct or not) they fear that Silveira is too weak on one end and overly ambitious on the other end, and thus they see it as a danger to the RKBA? No. Please explain to me how it is treason to try to stop something they think (perhaps incorrectly) is a danger to the RKBA.

Most of us here, including me, want Silveira to succeed, and, Tempest, you seem to be missing the core point. Most of the criticism is not directed towards Silveira, but at KABA’s destroying the possibility for allies. Did it occur to you that we are criticizing Williams and KABA because we want them to stop undermining Silveira?

They are at the Supreme-freaking-Court. It would behoove them to act in a professional and dignified manner. Why? Because like it or not, that’s part of the game. Yet they throw invectives. They appear to be breaking down -- name-calling is a sign of fear and weakness to most people whether KABA intends that or not. You expect people to come on board with a group that seems not in control of its emotions? They won't.

Treason, incidentally, is defined as a direct attack on the sovereign state -- in contrast to the way KABA uses it. Perhaps betrayal would be a the correct word ... but that's semantics.

In any event, emotional indulgences of the type KABA engages in -- even if it is correct about the supposed betrayal -- do nothing to help Silveira and perhaps hurt it. This is about the Silveira case, not about KABA's anger, but KABA seems to forget that. Silver Bullet: I think it would be very strange to be in a game where one player had the ball in what he thinks is the only game in town, and then to see that player go out of his way to antagonize the players he hopes to block for him. You got that right.

Actually, KABA reminds me of the kid who doesn't understand why some other kids don't like him, so he screams at them, "You stinky, ugly, dumb-dumb booger-heads, why aren't you playing with me? Poopy-heads, Poopy-heads, you’re nothing by smelly poopy-heads. Hey, stop running away! Play with me, you ugly, smelly poopy-heads!”

Yeah, maybe the other kids were mean first. But they'll just get meaner if he keeps calling them poopy-heads.

And you know what? There is probably a third group of kids who hadn't been involved but who now see nothing by a red-faced kid screaming insults. They probably won't play with him either.

And this with national attention and at the Supreme-freaking-Court.:( :( :(

[2dogs]

"You stinky, ugly, dumb-dumb booger-heads, why aren't you playing with me? Poopy-heads, Poopy-heads, you’re nothing by smelly poopy-heads. Hey, stop running away! Play with me, you ugly, smelly poopy-heads!”

Gee- has anybody ever really screamed that?:eek: ;) :D

[Tempest]

Explain to me how people who fear that Silveira takes too big a bite and might backfire are treasonous? cuchulainn, you misunderstand me. People who fear Silveira is too ambitious right now or are afraid that it's not the right case are NOT treasonous in any way. Those who are trying to kill it - a pure second amendment case - are.

Please explain to me how it is treason to try to stop something they think (perhaps incorrectly) is a danger to the RKBA. Because when you have pro-rights people trying to kill a pro-rights case it's betrayal and treason to the pro-rights cause. ESPECIALLY since it's already at SCOTUS! Why give our enemies any help in trying to defeat us?

Most of the criticism is not directed towards Silveira, but at KABA’s destroying the possibility for allies. Did it occur to you that we are criticizing Williams and KABA because we want them to stop undermining Silveira? Cuchulainn, do you really expect KABA to sit back and turn the other cheek when supposed allies are working feverishly and publicly to undermine this case? Would you? THAT's what this is about! Michael WilliamSON has been an ardent supporter and a vocal fighter for RKBA. How is his standing up for what he believes undermining Silveira?

I just wish people would stop trying to destroy it. Is that too much to ask?

Treason, incidentally, is defined as a direct attack on the soveriegn state -- in contrast to the way KABA uses it. Perhaps betrayal would be a the correct word ... but that's semantics. Yes, it is. And I'm sure most people are perfectly aware of the nuances of the language to understand it in the way it was intended.


This is about the Silveira case, not about KABA's anger, but KABA seems to forget that. NO ONE at KABA has forgotten this! Why do you think we are fighting so hard to rebuke every stupid, supercilious, dilatory attack on SILVEIRA? Dave Kopel didn't attack KABA. He attacked the case when it was already at SCOTUS. He publicly attacked the capability of Gary Gorski and the intelligence of the team involved in this case. Do you expect us to not rebut, when we have staked EVERYTHING on this case? Do you expect us not to publish a reply to this obvious smear? Kopel did nothing to help the Second Amendment in his slime attack. He tried to destroy a case that was already filed - publicly, grudgingly, and cowardly. THAT's what this is about. We have to defend this case with every weapon available to us, because it's right, and it's already there! It's not about KABA. It's about Silveira. Period.

And this with national attention and at the Supreme-freaking-Court. Exactly! So why throw around public smears? We were perfectly thrilled at the amicus NRA filed! Everything was going well. And then Kopel attacked, on a public forum, without provocation and knowing very little about the merits of the case. I don't believe in turning the other cheek when it could destroy a case that could be the beginning of something really great. Do you?

[cuchulainn]

Exactly! So why throw around public smears? The only smears are coming from KABA: "treason" :( Criticism is not a smear, and KABA is not above criticism, especially when its actions undermine support for Silveira.Cuchulainn, do you really expect KABA to sit back and turn the other cheek when supposed allies are working feverishly and publicly to undermine this case? Yes. That's their responsibility, like it or not. There are other ways to comment on the disagreements without indulging in emotionally-charged invectives like "treason." And I'm sure most people are perfectly aware of the nuances of the language to understand it in the way it was intended.Spare me. Williamson was using the word as more than a mere synonym for betrayal, and you know it.Because when you have pro-rights people trying to kill a pro-rights case it's betrayal and treason to the pro-rights cause. Not necessarily. AFAIK, they are doing it in an attempt to protect the RKBA -- perhaps they are misguided, but you cannot call a disagreement over the proper course for protecting a right treason.

Hey, perhaps you are wrong and Silveira will backfire in the worst possible way and the RKBA will be utterly stripped from us. You will have destroyed the right. Does that make you "treasonous" to the pro-rights cause? By your definition it would seem to. But, no, you wouldn't be. Neither does it make those with the same goal but different opinions on how to get there "treasonous."

[Tempest]

Criticism is not a smear, and KABA is not above criticism, especially when its actions undermine support for Silveira. There's a difference between smearing KABA and trying to destroy Silveira. No one at KABA is afraid of criticism. No one is afraid of public debate. But attempts to unilaterally destroy Silveira are quite another story. :(

Yes. That's their responsibility, like it or not. There are other ways to comment on the disagreements without indulging in emotionally-charged invectives like "treason." No, our responsibility is to answer each and every attack on this case, as we have staked everything on it.

Spare me. Williamson was using the word as more than a mere synonym for betrayal, and you know it. Tell ya what -- why don't you ask HIM? I'll IM him right now to come over here and tell you what he meant. If I'm wrong, I'll say so. OK?

Not necessarily. AFAIK, they are doing it in an attempt to protect the RKBA -- perhaps they are misguided, but you cannot call a disagreement over the proper course for protecting a right treason. Outright smears and public attempts at humiliation are not equivalent to "protecting" in my book. Attempts to destroy this effort are NOT equivalent to trying to protect the RKBA. Maybe you have slightly different definitions. I don't know.

Hey, perhaps you are wrong and Silveira will backfire in the worst possible way and the RKBA will be utterly stripped from us. You will have destroyed the right. Does that make you "treasonous" to the pro-rights cause? By your definition it would seem to. But, no, you wouldn't be. Neither does it make those with the same goal but different opinions on how to get there "treasonous." Slight difference in intent, isn't it? We have staked EVERYTHING on this case, and we are doing what we believe is right. We aren't stupid. None of the people involved are, and we truly believe this case will be a step in the right direction. Are you really going to begrudge us that? Big difference between that and trying to submarine it.

[cordex]

Everything was going well. And then Kopel attacked, on a public forum, without provocation and knowing very little about the merits of the case. I don't believe in turning the other cheek when it could destroy a case that could be the beginning of something really great. Do you?
If you've got logic, reason and facts on your side, you don't need to resort to calling names. If Kopel was wrong, point that out. Show how and where he was incorrect. Provide information that he lacked or didn't account for. Win us over by rebutting his points, not by calling anyone with doubts a traitor. It wasn't the intent to call anyone who had doubt or criticisms a traitor? Well that was certainly the way it came across to me.

There's nothing wrong with responding to direct attacks, but calmly rebut the attackers instead of immediately resorting to personal attacks and insults.

Consider the audience, friend. That article was written in a fashion that it only attracts those who already agree with you 100% and puts off those (such as myself) who are undecided.

[Tempest]

If you've got logic, reason and facts on your side, you don't need to resort to calling names. If Kopel was wrong, point that out. Show how and where he was incorrect. Provide information that he lacked or didn't account for. Roy Lucas did just that. At length.

Consider the audience, friend. That article was written in a fashion that it only attracts those who already agree with you 100% and puts off those (such as myself) who are undecided. I think that's kind of subjective, but given the bredth of views about this, I wouldn't expect it to be any other way.

[cuchulainn]

Outright smears and public attempts at humiliation are not equivalent to "protecting" in my book. Where has this happened, except perhaps by a few individuals on internet bulletin boards (hardly worth coniptions at KABA)? Please give me examples where the players in this hoolabaloo have issued "outright smears and public attempts at humiliation." You know what? KABA keeps complaining about this stuff. But I haven't seen examples of it. Perhaps I missed it.

[cordex]

Roy Lucas did just that. At length.
In that case, was there a need for this kind of article?
I think that's kind of subjective, but given the bredth of views about this, I wouldn't expect it to be any other way.
Sorry ... I don't understand.
The goal was just to preach to the choir? So what was gained? Or more to the point, can you not see what was lost?

[Tempest]

Have you read Kopel's attack? He attacked Gary Gorski's abilities. He attacked the case because those HE wanted to lead it weren't the ones at the head. He attacked the merits of the case, when it was painfully obvious he didn't read the cert petition. This has nothing to do with KABA, I repeat. And it has everything to do with attempts to destroy this case.

[madmike]

As I clearly stated, and people keep choosing to miss, no one objects to "Silveira is a bad case because x, y, z."

Though there's little of it based on more than, "I don't like it!" or "THe NRA should do it because they're the experts!"

The objection, and that which I EXPRESSED AS AN OPINION, not being in any political position, not asking for any criminal charges, is to comments such as, "these people are secretly working for Sarah Brady" or "used to be PETA activists" or "want the 2nd Amendment to fail and are stealing money to do so" or "are paying themselves millions of your dollars to hide the truth..."

Or sending threats of harm.

If anyone wants to support such allegations with facts, please do so. If not, then kindly go away.

And that is all that was meant. Yes, I used harsh language to accomplish the job.

It appears to have worked.
:D

[Tempest]

In that case, was there a need for this kind of article? Obviously the author did. I happen to agree with him, because while Roy Lucas addressed the points Kopel made, no one said anything about the transparent attempt to destroy this case when it was already there.

The goal was just to preach to the choir? So what was gained? Or more to the point, can you not see what was lost? Everytime we write an editorial, we are preaching to the choir for those who agree with us, cordex. I happened to like it, but that's just me. Could the author have been more clear in his intent and verbiage? Sure. But it's an op ed piece, no more no less.

[madmike]

Two more notes:

I didn't name Mr Kopel. He has raised legal objections. I think his objections are inaccurate. But he has documented his position.

2dogs: The NRA wasn't around for Miller. Did nothing. The NRA wasn't around for NFA. Supported it. The NRA wasn't around for GCA 68. Did nothing.

Now, maybe they've changed and are serious now, and yes, they wrote an excellent amicus brief for Silveira. But they weren't "key" to those cases. They weren't even in the house.

Interestingly, despite all the invective being hurled at Silveira, the ONLY organization I can find that has condemned it is CRPA. With vague and unsupported terms. Every other group I can find comments from, KABA, NRA, AFA, Liberty Belles, JPFO, Pink Pistols, Geeks with Guns...supports it.

Certainly, the detractors have free speech. I'm inviting them to use it with discrimination. As none of them have raised a credible objection. Someone yesterday emailed me and complained, "the District courts overwhelmingly support a collective Miller argument, therefore SCOTUS won't hear it." Opinion, and possibly correct, though I think that's inaccurate.

Then said, "So we need a better case." Interesting. If the above is true, what difference will it make what case you have?

Said individual "Demanded" I show him data, "Demanded" I show him the briefs, "demanded" I prove the case to him.

First, I'm not the attorney. Second, I am under no obligation to provide any data to anyone.

And that's merely a gadfly. There's people, and you've seen them here, doing much worse. As I commented, their goal seems to be to dance around saying, "Neener! Neener! Neener! Your suit faaaaailed!"

Yeah, that'll be a lot of help. Thanks.

[Correia]

Ok, I understand where everybody is coming from. Emotions are running high, and I'm going to close this one down before it gets too out of hand. (like 3 or 4 other Silveria/KABA related threads have in the last month).

The case is at the Supremes. It is out of any of our hands, and Monday morning quarter backing ain't going to do anything now except tick other folks off.

Closed.