PATH
Member
Never give up! Never surrender! We shall hang togehter or we most assuredly will hang seperately!
Antis beginning to concede defeat on AWB
- Thread starter Glock-A-Roo
- Start date
- Status
Diggler
Member
When I saw that quote, I just had to check out the story to see if it was a picture of us from last Saturday!
NPR Promo
The anti's got NPR to do a nifty piece this morning - basically how all the Congress is kissing the NRA's bottom and not bringing up this common sense legislation.
Once and a while NPR is balanced, not this morning.
The ban may expire, but after someone commits a high profile crime following the bans lifting, it may resurface.
We cannot let our gaurd down even after the ban expires.
JPM
The anti's got NPR to do a nifty piece this morning - basically how all the Congress is kissing the NRA's bottom and not bringing up this common sense legislation.
Once and a while NPR is balanced, not this morning.
The ban may expire, but after someone commits a high profile crime following the bans lifting, it may resurface.
We cannot let our gaurd down even after the ban expires.
JPM
Sunspot
Member
NPR
I heard that piece this morning also. They almost concede defeat on the AWB. They also stated that most of the politico's want the AWB but were "afraid" of the NRA. What crap!!!
I heard that piece this morning also. They almost concede defeat on the AWB. They also stated that most of the politico's want the AWB but were "afraid" of the NRA. What crap!!!
Brett Bellmore
Member
I don't think that's "crap"; I think the truth is that an awful lot of our supposed allies in Congress ARE closet gun controllers, who refrain from acting on their preferences because they want to keep their jobs. Because they're afraid of the NRA, or anyway, the NRA's influence over voters.
Add up the people who are openly anti-gun, and the closet gun controllers we've got cowed, and it does constitute "most" in the Senate, and maybe a majority in the House.
Add up the people who are openly anti-gun, and the closet gun controllers we've got cowed, and it does constitute "most" in the Senate, and maybe a majority in the House.
I've forgotten who first said that we can only lose, when it comes to our rights, but he was correct. Not pessimistic, simply correct.
Here's why:
If the antis lose, their lives are unchanged. If they win, their lives are unchanged. Oh, sure, they may *feel* somethings has changed, one way or another, but realistically, their lives are exactly the same tomorrow as they were yesterday.
For us, though, the difference is *huge*. When we lose, we lose the opportunity to exercise our personal, civil rights. Even when we win, we barely gain anything; we simply get back what was ours in the first place. When we lose, we lose; when we win, we barely break even. And, even if we won the ultimate lottery, it's doubtful that we'd ever get back to where the Second Amendment is observed exactly as it's written all across these United States. I can still hope, though.
JB
Here's why:
If the antis lose, their lives are unchanged. If they win, their lives are unchanged. Oh, sure, they may *feel* somethings has changed, one way or another, but realistically, their lives are exactly the same tomorrow as they were yesterday.
For us, though, the difference is *huge*. When we lose, we lose the opportunity to exercise our personal, civil rights. Even when we win, we barely gain anything; we simply get back what was ours in the first place. When we lose, we lose; when we win, we barely break even. And, even if we won the ultimate lottery, it's doubtful that we'd ever get back to where the Second Amendment is observed exactly as it's written all across these United States. I can still hope, though.
JB
DevilDog
Member
Agreed, a young man that size needs a flattop, tele-stock, and 16" lightweight barrel, preferably with a midlength gas system. Regular handguards as extra weight for a railed forearm is probably too much. A fixed front sight, folding rear sight, and a fixed power scope, acog or something else real tough cuz he'll probably drop it on occassion. But an aimpoint could work too.
Kudos to the kid for aiming it up, vs horizontally where someone could easily walk in front of the muzzle.
I don't think we have many closet anti-RKBA types in congress. I think most (70-90%?) of congress vote on RKBA issues based on what we'll get them re-elected. I'd guess maybe the rest would vote pro or anti all the time, regardless of reelection possiblities.
Congress is still stinging from the fallout of the anti-rkba legislation in the 90's. Hopefully the are fearful enough that it becomes a topic of rehetoric and posturing and not real legistlation.
Kudos to the kid for aiming it up, vs horizontally where someone could easily walk in front of the muzzle.
I don't think we have many closet anti-RKBA types in congress. I think most (70-90%?) of congress vote on RKBA issues based on what we'll get them re-elected. I'd guess maybe the rest would vote pro or anti all the time, regardless of reelection possiblities.
Congress is still stinging from the fallout of the anti-rkba legislation in the 90's. Hopefully the are fearful enough that it becomes a topic of rehetoric and posturing and not real legistlation.
Molon Labe
Member
The antis will take another approach. And it will be more effective.
After the AWB sunsets, they will lay awake at night praying for a nutcase to open fire on a school ground full of children. After it happens (and it will eventually happen) they’ll say, “See! See! This is what happens when assault weapons are allowed back on the street!â€
Do you see how such an event after the AWB makes their argument more powerful?
So here’s the plan for each of us: buy as many “assault weapons†as you can after the AWB expires. Because this window of opportunity won’t last long.
After the AWB sunsets, they will lay awake at night praying for a nutcase to open fire on a school ground full of children. After it happens (and it will eventually happen) they’ll say, “See! See! This is what happens when assault weapons are allowed back on the street!â€
Do you see how such an event after the AWB makes their argument more powerful?
So here’s the plan for each of us: buy as many “assault weapons†as you can after the AWB expires. Because this window of opportunity won’t last long.
madmike
Member
A lot of the problems are our own doing.
These freaks are suing every manufacturer on the planet, attempting to intimidate them into submission. They are attacking, and spending money to do so.
However, when I asked about a pro-2A attorney to help file a suit for defamation of character against Sarah Grabby (hey, people HAVE treated me like a criminal, because I "own weapons of mass destruction and am obviously unstable"), I got ONE response, and he quoted a price around $2000 for his time.
I said I was broke and was hoping to get such things started as a political statement, and lawyers to help push the issue out of solidarity.
"Oh, yes. Well, money would be a problem," he replied.
So let me get this straight: If I don't pay him more than I make in a month, he won't help push against the people he claims to hate.
No, the suit wouldn't win. That's not the point. The suits they're filing against small gun makers aren't winning. Except that some of those mfrs are now out of business.
THAT is the point.
83 milion gun owners X $2000 in discovery for a nuisance suit = $166 BILLION Sarah and her cohorts have to pay for. In order to "Win" and get the cases thrown out.
There's legal, there's moral and there's stupid.
Not lying about them is moral. Not resorting to special ops is "moral", and also STUPID. Because it IS legal to do so.
If there WERE any pro-2A attorneys, EVERY SINGLE PIECE OF LEGISLATION would have a constitutional challenge a week until it died. Every lie by Brady would be challenged as slander, libel and defamation of character. Every push by them would encounter a thousand nuisance suits that no one really intends to win, just intends to screw with them.
It's legal. It's effective. We aren't doing it.
Unless I pay a mercenary who's "on my side" $2000 for a couple of hours work.
With the exception of a few guys on staff with GOA, NRA and a couple of others, there ARE no pro-2A attorneys. Prove it to me. File some suits.
Find someone in a wheelchair in Shicago who has been assaulted, sue Mayor the Dick for violations of ADA for not letting a person who can't run, shoot back.
Sue any state or the feds for bullpup bans on the grounds that one-armed people need access to weapons they can grasp more easily (as some states allow switchblades. Incremental win, but a win nonetheless).
Sue the Million Morons for the illegal use of taxpayer $$$ it had. Find a shill to join, then sue them for violations of their charter when they refuse to let said member speak in opposition.
Sue, sue sue.
It's the American way.
There are MILLIONS of us, there are THOUSANDS of them. A THOUSAND pro-2A attorneys, if such existed, and a THOUSAND complainants could cost them MILLIONS of dollars. Dollars they couldn't milk from their soccer mommy members, and couldn't spend on other things meantime.
So...where are our pro-2A attorneys?
These freaks are suing every manufacturer on the planet, attempting to intimidate them into submission. They are attacking, and spending money to do so.
However, when I asked about a pro-2A attorney to help file a suit for defamation of character against Sarah Grabby (hey, people HAVE treated me like a criminal, because I "own weapons of mass destruction and am obviously unstable"), I got ONE response, and he quoted a price around $2000 for his time.
I said I was broke and was hoping to get such things started as a political statement, and lawyers to help push the issue out of solidarity.
"Oh, yes. Well, money would be a problem," he replied.
So let me get this straight: If I don't pay him more than I make in a month, he won't help push against the people he claims to hate.
No, the suit wouldn't win. That's not the point. The suits they're filing against small gun makers aren't winning. Except that some of those mfrs are now out of business.
THAT is the point.
83 milion gun owners X $2000 in discovery for a nuisance suit = $166 BILLION Sarah and her cohorts have to pay for. In order to "Win" and get the cases thrown out.
There's legal, there's moral and there's stupid.
Not lying about them is moral. Not resorting to special ops is "moral", and also STUPID. Because it IS legal to do so.
If there WERE any pro-2A attorneys, EVERY SINGLE PIECE OF LEGISLATION would have a constitutional challenge a week until it died. Every lie by Brady would be challenged as slander, libel and defamation of character. Every push by them would encounter a thousand nuisance suits that no one really intends to win, just intends to screw with them.
It's legal. It's effective. We aren't doing it.
Unless I pay a mercenary who's "on my side" $2000 for a couple of hours work.
With the exception of a few guys on staff with GOA, NRA and a couple of others, there ARE no pro-2A attorneys. Prove it to me. File some suits.
Find someone in a wheelchair in Shicago who has been assaulted, sue Mayor the Dick for violations of ADA for not letting a person who can't run, shoot back.
Sue any state or the feds for bullpup bans on the grounds that one-armed people need access to weapons they can grasp more easily (as some states allow switchblades. Incremental win, but a win nonetheless).
Sue the Million Morons for the illegal use of taxpayer $$$ it had. Find a shill to join, then sue them for violations of their charter when they refuse to let said member speak in opposition.
Sue, sue sue.
It's the American way.
There are MILLIONS of us, there are THOUSANDS of them. A THOUSAND pro-2A attorneys, if such existed, and a THOUSAND complainants could cost them MILLIONS of dollars. Dollars they couldn't milk from their soccer mommy members, and couldn't spend on other things meantime.
So...where are our pro-2A attorneys?
Justin
Moderator Emeritus
That's why, if we are smart, we'd continue to push for the repeal of more gun laws after the AWB sunset. Off the top of my head, I can think of a couple of changes that could be pushed for without throwing the soccer moms into a panic:
-Pushing the FFL requirements back to the way they were before Clinton
-Getting rid of the 1989 import ban.
-Striking down the 'sporting purposes' clause in GCA '68.
Though I think that the one we should really push for is open acceptance of sound suppressors. In other words, getting rid of the tax stamp and making suppressors as mainstream as aftermarket grips. Off the top of my head, I can't think of a single crime committed with a suppressed firearm. On top of that, the benefits far outweigh any possible negative costs. There are several ways this could be argued without looking like a nut:
Point out that firearms use without proper hearing protection is damaging to one's health. As such, how many millions of dollars are spent every year on people who's hearing would otherwise be undamaged if only suppressors were legal?
Point out that it makes it easier to teach other people how to safely handle a firearm because you don't have to shout in order to be heard over ear plugs/muffs.
But the best part of the debate would come when illustrating that in Europe suppressors are not only easy to get and completely legal, but ownership of them is encouraged. For all of the so-called Progressives who are in love with everything European, they'd be a hypocrite not to embrace this!
Pushing for stuff like this gives us a two-fold advantage:
We might just get it passed.
But more importantly, it puts the anti's on the defensive. Suddenly they're faced with a war on two fronts, trying to get a new AWB passed, as well as trying to prevent the liberalization of other gun laws.
-Pushing the FFL requirements back to the way they were before Clinton
-Getting rid of the 1989 import ban.
-Striking down the 'sporting purposes' clause in GCA '68.
Though I think that the one we should really push for is open acceptance of sound suppressors. In other words, getting rid of the tax stamp and making suppressors as mainstream as aftermarket grips. Off the top of my head, I can't think of a single crime committed with a suppressed firearm. On top of that, the benefits far outweigh any possible negative costs. There are several ways this could be argued without looking like a nut:
Point out that firearms use without proper hearing protection is damaging to one's health. As such, how many millions of dollars are spent every year on people who's hearing would otherwise be undamaged if only suppressors were legal?
Point out that it makes it easier to teach other people how to safely handle a firearm because you don't have to shout in order to be heard over ear plugs/muffs.
But the best part of the debate would come when illustrating that in Europe suppressors are not only easy to get and completely legal, but ownership of them is encouraged. For all of the so-called Progressives who are in love with everything European, they'd be a hypocrite not to embrace this!
Pushing for stuff like this gives us a two-fold advantage:
We might just get it passed.
But more importantly, it puts the anti's on the defensive. Suddenly they're faced with a war on two fronts, trying to get a new AWB passed, as well as trying to prevent the liberalization of other gun laws.
Tamara
Senior Member
Maybe lawyers would take us more seriously if we learned how to spell "Sarah Grabby," "Shicago," "Mayor the Dick," "Million Morons," "Klintoon," "Repugnicans," "Democrats," and (my personal favorite) "Ahnban" (or is it "Ahnkennedy" this week? Get it? "Ahn-" the way he mispronounces his name, and "Kennedy" or "Ban", which is what we don't like about him.)
Perhaps if attorneys weren't so busy trying to figure out how to get our spittle off the inside of the monitor screen from our terms-o'-the-month, they might be willing to be seen standing next to us inside a courtroom.
Just a thought, folks.
Perhaps if attorneys weren't so busy trying to figure out how to get our spittle off the inside of the monitor screen from our terms-o'-the-month, they might be willing to be seen standing next to us inside a courtroom.
Just a thought, folks.
Let's see, "I wanted to hire an attorney, but I didn't have any money." I suppose even committed attorneys could thrive on not eating or being able to pay for an office in the name of solidarity.
Every court in the nation allows pro se filing. Do it yourself, show some conviction! We're behind you in spirit, but we're broke and we're hoping you'll do it out of a sense of solidarity.
Every court in the nation allows pro se filing. Do it yourself, show some conviction! We're behind you in spirit, but we're broke and we're hoping you'll do it out of a sense of solidarity.
madmike
Member
Please read my post entirely before commenting. That will make things go a lot more smoothly.
Name any case won pro se.
All attorneys are required to perform pro bono work. Where are ours? THEY have THEIRS. This is exactly what I'm talking about. "Oh, you can't expect them to donate their work for FREE!"
Got any idea how many hours of writing, how many words at 10-20c per word professional rate I donate to this cause? Yes, I @#$#&^^ DO expect them to put in a few hours a year for free. If they won't, they are NOT pro-2A, they're wannabes.
The antis get free legal help from "progressive" lawyers. Where are ours?
"Sure, I'm pro 2A. Now, for $200 an hour, I'll prove it."
Yeah, bloody lot of help that is. There is NO practicing attorney in this country making less money than I am. I don't want to hear any whining about the poor lawyers who can't feed their families.
I'm not asking them to not get paid ever, I'm asking them to donate a few hours of professional time to a cause they believe in.
If everyone who has my "Amazing Beliefs" article on their site (more than 600 of you, plus a few cads who took off my (c) notice and tried to claim it was their work) sent me a check at professional rates for the article I DONATED, I'd have $30K or so. Tell you what: If it's on your site, email me. I'll GIVE you the address of an attorney to send the check to. That way, I'll pay for the suit, and you'll pay me for MY work. Sound fair? Or else take it off your site. You don't expect me to work for FREE, do you?
Or do you?
The ONE attorney who responded to my request, which contained no epithets (You might imagine that, as a professional author dealing with SIX publishers at this point (HarperCollins, Baen/Simon and Schuster, DAW/ Penguin Putnam, KABA, the NRA and OP) I do have SOME idea how to express myself as needed for the occasion, and reserve the epithets for social occasions, like webboards) sounded very interested in a pro-2A case, right up to the point where I said I couldn't (not wouldn't--buy a million of my books and I'll finance a $50K lawsuit) afford it. All of a sudden it was, "Oh, well. it was a nice idea, gbye!"
Not even a "Well, we need to find a 2A group who will help fund and advise it."
No, his interest was the potential cash. That's all.
THAT, boys and girls, is why we are losing.
They have millionaire backers. They caucus as a team. They have lawyers throwing themselves on grenades.
We have people stabbing each other in the back and looking for a buck.
burbanite
Member
Mike,
glad to have you firmly (mass understatement...) on our side and in my State, thanks for what you do for us now and for your past service to the country.
glad to have you firmly (mass understatement...) on our side and in my State, thanks for what you do for us now and for your past service to the country.
Well then, I'll take a moment or two from paid shystering and offer you some pro bono assistance.
Generally speaking, unless you have been slandered (spoken) or libeled (printed) by name, e.g. "Michael Z. Williamson is a psychopathic man who shouldn't be allowed to own a bullet let alone a gun." said Dennis Hennigan of the Brady Campaign on CNN, you don't have a case.
There must be specific damage to your reputation and standing in the community, as condemnation of a class of unspecified "gun nuts" is nonspecific enough as to not create any class of plaintiffs as none would likely be capable of showing the requisite harm.
There are other, more interesting avenues of attack, such as one I have contemplated from time to time, which would be to launch a civil rights complaint under federal law to the effect that by trying to disarm me the Bradys and others are conspiring to violate my civil rights. The problem here is that the Supreme Court has never explicitly ruled that the Second Amendment is a right of the individual and from the look of their recent rejection of Silviera is not going to anytime soon.
In any event, I would either have to file that one here in the Ninth Circuit where I reside, and where gun cases are all eventually well documented suicide missions to San Francisco, or in Washington DC, where many of the potential defendants are headquartered, which again would be akin to a kamikaze flight. Any such case would probably be subjected to a motion to strike, never even making it to discovery, and even if by some miracle at the complaint stage allowed it to proceed to discovery, would not make it past a summary judgement motion. Additionally, if some judge got his or her robe in a twist about how baseless the case seemed, you'd be paying the costs of the defense. That'd be showing them.
The advantage the antis have in court is the ability to judge shop looking for a liberal weenie who shares an expansive view of court power, or at the minimum, has a sensitive ear for their brand of elitism. Why do they file continually in front of one judge in Brooklyn do you suppose? The problem for conservatives is that the judges of that philosophy who do exist are usually at the first level, and even then, are not predisposed to take an expansive view of the law. Even if one could be found to get a friendly hearing in front of, he or she is definitely outnumbered the higher up one gets in the appellate process and any judgement would likely be remanded if not entirely thrown out by other liberals in black robes.
The third avenue of attack is against the laws themselves. Those are defended entirely by the government, so you aren't acheiving any collateral damage on the antis by going that route. Even Emerson which arose in Texas, our supposed victory for its affirmation of the Second, was really a loss, because they still found that Emerson could be deprived of his Beretta as he was subject to a restraining order and that was a reasonable restriction of his right. BIG DEAL. Sound and fury signifying nothing.
The antis use product liability and public nuisance theories to go after guns. We have no such available strategy to go after them. The only two promising ones are for civil rights violations, as I mentioned, like ones used by the Southern Poverty Law Center to bankrupt those Aryan Nations goofs in Idaho, and RICO suits, which would probably go nowhere and would be thrown out as I have never seen a RICO statute employed against a political organization that was not criminally (i.e. MOB) influenced.
There is a very valid reason that the NRA seeks to be the 800 pound gorilla of gun politics in Congress. We can't get a fair shake in front of almost any bench in federal court and in most states.
Save your time, money, and anger and put them all to more productive uses for the cause.
Generally speaking, unless you have been slandered (spoken) or libeled (printed) by name, e.g. "Michael Z. Williamson is a psychopathic man who shouldn't be allowed to own a bullet let alone a gun." said Dennis Hennigan of the Brady Campaign on CNN, you don't have a case.
There must be specific damage to your reputation and standing in the community, as condemnation of a class of unspecified "gun nuts" is nonspecific enough as to not create any class of plaintiffs as none would likely be capable of showing the requisite harm.
There are other, more interesting avenues of attack, such as one I have contemplated from time to time, which would be to launch a civil rights complaint under federal law to the effect that by trying to disarm me the Bradys and others are conspiring to violate my civil rights. The problem here is that the Supreme Court has never explicitly ruled that the Second Amendment is a right of the individual and from the look of their recent rejection of Silviera is not going to anytime soon.
In any event, I would either have to file that one here in the Ninth Circuit where I reside, and where gun cases are all eventually well documented suicide missions to San Francisco, or in Washington DC, where many of the potential defendants are headquartered, which again would be akin to a kamikaze flight. Any such case would probably be subjected to a motion to strike, never even making it to discovery, and even if by some miracle at the complaint stage allowed it to proceed to discovery, would not make it past a summary judgement motion. Additionally, if some judge got his or her robe in a twist about how baseless the case seemed, you'd be paying the costs of the defense. That'd be showing them.
The advantage the antis have in court is the ability to judge shop looking for a liberal weenie who shares an expansive view of court power, or at the minimum, has a sensitive ear for their brand of elitism. Why do they file continually in front of one judge in Brooklyn do you suppose? The problem for conservatives is that the judges of that philosophy who do exist are usually at the first level, and even then, are not predisposed to take an expansive view of the law. Even if one could be found to get a friendly hearing in front of, he or she is definitely outnumbered the higher up one gets in the appellate process and any judgement would likely be remanded if not entirely thrown out by other liberals in black robes.
The third avenue of attack is against the laws themselves. Those are defended entirely by the government, so you aren't acheiving any collateral damage on the antis by going that route. Even Emerson which arose in Texas, our supposed victory for its affirmation of the Second, was really a loss, because they still found that Emerson could be deprived of his Beretta as he was subject to a restraining order and that was a reasonable restriction of his right. BIG DEAL. Sound and fury signifying nothing.
The antis use product liability and public nuisance theories to go after guns. We have no such available strategy to go after them. The only two promising ones are for civil rights violations, as I mentioned, like ones used by the Southern Poverty Law Center to bankrupt those Aryan Nations goofs in Idaho, and RICO suits, which would probably go nowhere and would be thrown out as I have never seen a RICO statute employed against a political organization that was not criminally (i.e. MOB) influenced.
There is a very valid reason that the NRA seeks to be the 800 pound gorilla of gun politics in Congress. We can't get a fair shake in front of almost any bench in federal court and in most states.
Save your time, money, and anger and put them all to more productive uses for the cause.
Last edited:
madmike
Member
Thanks. That is informative and helps form strategies.
Several years ago, a group called (IIRC) the Cult Awareness Network, took it upon itself to accuse pretty much every religious group they didn't like of being a "Cult."
Now, that's an opinion, and therefore cannot be found against under libel or slander laws.
However...
Assorted individual members of the Church of Scientology started filing suits.
Every single suit, of course, failed.
In the end, CAN went bankrupt from discovery and legal costs.
At the bankruptcy, the CoS bought them out for a pittance and acquired their mailing list.
You can imagine how that went over.
Now, does anyone mind of we "lose" in such a fashion?
Wars don't go to the side with the best soldiers or best equipment. Wars go to the side with the best LOGISTICS.
I can spend a million dollars on engineering equipment in a matter of minutes. No counterpart in a foreign military can do that. So I will win, no matter how many casualties they inflict. I will literally bury them in very pricey equipment they are welcome to blow up as often as they wish. I've got more. And more. And still more.
In '91, Brokaw claimed the air war over Iraq was a failure because 50% of their flightlines were restored to operation after a month. I fell out of my chair laughing. The US requirement is 100%, 24 hours. And I've done it.
It's not that the case loses. (The charged for expenses bit is an issue to resolve, yes). It's that WE can spend more money than THEY.
Every case they "win" at a cost of $2000 or so in discovery hurts them. We have a multibillion dollar, multimillion member, dispersed operation. They'fe got 6 freaks in an office in DC for HCI/Brady, VPC and MMM.
Any time one of them makes a statement that is provably false in a friendly state, we should sue. Get them defensive. Get them cautious. Get them as polite as the NRA always is, and we have facts and they don't. They're winning because they hold up bloody shirts, claim an AR15 is an M16 and designed to be "Spray fired from the hip."
Sue. Sue the individual. Make them go away. It worked on the MMM. Where are they now? Merely another Brady press release. We KILLED them with pressure, mostly bookkeeping. (Was that Jim March? Whoever it was in CA was awesome.)
Attack their bookkeeping, attack their charters, attack their bylaws, attack, attack, attack. Make them be not. If we were REALLY as organized and powerful as they claim, we'd crush them like bugs.
I'm willing to forego buying a gun a year. That's all it takes. Everyone buy one less gun and throw money and lawyers at them. Bury them in lawyers.
Now, how do we go about it?
Several years ago, a group called (IIRC) the Cult Awareness Network, took it upon itself to accuse pretty much every religious group they didn't like of being a "Cult."
Now, that's an opinion, and therefore cannot be found against under libel or slander laws.
However...
Assorted individual members of the Church of Scientology started filing suits.
Every single suit, of course, failed.
In the end, CAN went bankrupt from discovery and legal costs.
At the bankruptcy, the CoS bought them out for a pittance and acquired their mailing list.
You can imagine how that went over.
Now, does anyone mind of we "lose" in such a fashion?
Wars don't go to the side with the best soldiers or best equipment. Wars go to the side with the best LOGISTICS.
I can spend a million dollars on engineering equipment in a matter of minutes. No counterpart in a foreign military can do that. So I will win, no matter how many casualties they inflict. I will literally bury them in very pricey equipment they are welcome to blow up as often as they wish. I've got more. And more. And still more.
In '91, Brokaw claimed the air war over Iraq was a failure because 50% of their flightlines were restored to operation after a month. I fell out of my chair laughing. The US requirement is 100%, 24 hours. And I've done it.
It's not that the case loses. (The charged for expenses bit is an issue to resolve, yes). It's that WE can spend more money than THEY.
Every case they "win" at a cost of $2000 or so in discovery hurts them. We have a multibillion dollar, multimillion member, dispersed operation. They'fe got 6 freaks in an office in DC for HCI/Brady, VPC and MMM.
Any time one of them makes a statement that is provably false in a friendly state, we should sue. Get them defensive. Get them cautious. Get them as polite as the NRA always is, and we have facts and they don't. They're winning because they hold up bloody shirts, claim an AR15 is an M16 and designed to be "Spray fired from the hip."
Sue. Sue the individual. Make them go away. It worked on the MMM. Where are they now? Merely another Brady press release. We KILLED them with pressure, mostly bookkeeping. (Was that Jim March? Whoever it was in CA was awesome.)
Attack their bookkeeping, attack their charters, attack their bylaws, attack, attack, attack. Make them be not. If we were REALLY as organized and powerful as they claim, we'd crush them like bugs.
I'm willing to forego buying a gun a year. That's all it takes. Everyone buy one less gun and throw money and lawyers at them. Bury them in lawyers.
Now, how do we go about it?
Madmike,
You're right. But your "How do we go about it" is the crux of the problem. It seems nobody on our side goes after the enemy through litigation as you suggest. The NRA is a powerrfull lobby group we're told, yet they don't resort to these tactics. They could and they should! With all the cash flow the NRA has, they could be as dangerous and powerfull using the same tactics that the UCLA uses. People and towns cave into the demands of the UCLA because folks know they can't afford to fight them! It's ashame that I have to preach using sleazy lawyer tactics and the courts to attack and just plain harass to get things accomplished. But welcome to America 2004! But, conservatives by nature don't survive as well and as long. When you're of the grain that has a natural tendency to act sane, and try to play fair and clean you get slaughtered by those who stop at nothing to win and use any means at their disposal!
Brett B.,
I absolutely agree with you that there are few in congress who really believe in the RKBA. I believe at $146, 000 a year they make, that they believe more in the RSGC (Right to swing golf clubs).
We didn't lose our rights in 1994 because they stood by us!
You're right. But your "How do we go about it" is the crux of the problem. It seems nobody on our side goes after the enemy through litigation as you suggest. The NRA is a powerrfull lobby group we're told, yet they don't resort to these tactics. They could and they should! With all the cash flow the NRA has, they could be as dangerous and powerfull using the same tactics that the UCLA uses. People and towns cave into the demands of the UCLA because folks know they can't afford to fight them! It's ashame that I have to preach using sleazy lawyer tactics and the courts to attack and just plain harass to get things accomplished. But welcome to America 2004! But, conservatives by nature don't survive as well and as long. When you're of the grain that has a natural tendency to act sane, and try to play fair and clean you get slaughtered by those who stop at nothing to win and use any means at their disposal!
Brett B.,
I absolutely agree with you that there are few in congress who really believe in the RKBA. I believe at $146, 000 a year they make, that they believe more in the RSGC (Right to swing golf clubs).
We didn't lose our rights in 1994 because they stood by us!
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
