I was wondering if examples of this can be found.
I know in politics a number of fake fronts are created to argue in favor of the very things founders and financial backers are against. They can then intentionaly present poor arguments or be in favor of compromises through the front organizations. Some of the fake fronts even get many real supporters that buy into the fake front and support it as thier voice.
This thread reminded me of that:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=393743
So my concern is that it could be easier to defeat gun rights by pretending to be pro gun. Anti gunners could provide cheap legal services, or otherwise help out in gun cases with the intention of making the case go poorly. Clearly a lawyer intentional and clearly involved in that could lose thier license to practice law, but they would not have to be open about it and could say they argued the case to the best of thier ability.
Antis could also bring lawsuits against gun control bills, and the intentionaly set precedents in favor of that gun control.
It really is not that hard to imagine when they spend large sums and effort to create fake fronts and organizations already.
So what would be the best way to combat antis pretending to be pro gun in lawsuits and losing to set legal precedents intentionaly?
Clearly that could be an effective tactic for them (as it could be for us, who hired Fenty?) and would allow them to choose favorable jurisdictions and judges more readily than cases that naturaly arise. It is also much easier to intentionaly lose a case than to win one and to steer it in a direction that allows other legal statutes to prevail against you.
I know in politics a number of fake fronts are created to argue in favor of the very things founders and financial backers are against. They can then intentionaly present poor arguments or be in favor of compromises through the front organizations. Some of the fake fronts even get many real supporters that buy into the fake front and support it as thier voice.
This thread reminded me of that:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=393743
So my concern is that it could be easier to defeat gun rights by pretending to be pro gun. Anti gunners could provide cheap legal services, or otherwise help out in gun cases with the intention of making the case go poorly. Clearly a lawyer intentional and clearly involved in that could lose thier license to practice law, but they would not have to be open about it and could say they argued the case to the best of thier ability.
Antis could also bring lawsuits against gun control bills, and the intentionaly set precedents in favor of that gun control.
It really is not that hard to imagine when they spend large sums and effort to create fake fronts and organizations already.
So what would be the best way to combat antis pretending to be pro gun in lawsuits and losing to set legal precedents intentionaly?
Clearly that could be an effective tactic for them (as it could be for us, who hired Fenty?) and would allow them to choose favorable jurisdictions and judges more readily than cases that naturaly arise. It is also much easier to intentionaly lose a case than to win one and to steer it in a direction that allows other legal statutes to prevail against you.