"Gura tossed machineguns under the bus! What is he, a lawyer for the Bradys?!?"

[Kentak]

TexasRifleman--

I guess you didn't read post #43.

I repeat: Gura has it right. MGs are dead. (My opinion)

K

 

[madmike]

JohnBT said:

Now the wails are directed at the lawyer for the folks pursuing this case.

John, look at some of the other threads, wherein it's pointed out that Heller wants the right to buy and register his pistol.


There's a quote that's approximately:

"Who's this "Second Amendment Foundation" that supports registration? I believe I'd have to look very carefully at a "Second Amendment Foundation" that supports registration."

Apparently completely missing the point that ownership with registration, while sucky, is INFINITELY better than a ban.

One step at a time in court.

Of course, in the legislative arena, my position is that I'm allowed to own nukes.

I'm willing to "Compromise" and only take artillery, of course.

 

[kurtmax]

I think Gura did a good job. He argued well about the case at hand. The rest of the questioning was pointless and he brushed it off pretty well. His 'throwing machine guns under the bus' won't be dug up in future cases. This case is about handguns... period.

Of course, in the legislative arena, my position is that I'm allowed to own nukes.

I personally wouldn't want to own a nuke. It's not like I could take it to the range or anything I wouldn't be too worried if people were allowed to own nukes though. I mean with the high cost I don't see Bill Gates terrorizing the world with his personal nuke.

 

[Jamie C.]

I don't see Bill Gates terrorizing the world with his personal nuke.

He already is. It's called Windows.



J.C.

 

[madmike]

They demand a ban and "settle" for a "waiting period" as a "compromise."

We should demand nukes and "settle" for universal reciprocity of CCW as a "compromise."

Then we demand nukes again, and "settle" for re-opening the Registry as a "compromise."

Demand nukes and "settle" for legal silencers as a "compromise."

 

[Ergosphere]

The Second is already extended to MGs, everyone keeps leaving that one out.

You can buy and sell MGs all you would like under the current NFA.

While MGs are legal provided one complies with the NFA and 922(o), that doesn't mean they will be protected by the 2nd amendment, even if SCOTUS decides it is an individual right. The scope of the 2nd amendment will be decided by the court, though it's not clear if this will be done in the Heller decision.

Several people here seem to misunderstand what Gura wrote: "The solution to 922(o) will have to be political in the end." This Court is not going to strike down 922(o), ever. This is obvious from Kennedy's comment that Miller is defective.

 

[Vibe]

Another reason Miller was "deficient" (I don't think the term defective was used), is that Miller was a one sided decision with little, if any, proper representation on Millers side. And was decided upon, what the court termed as a "lack of evidence presented".

 

[alan]

madmike writes, referencing the tactics of our enemies, the anti gunners, whom I despise:

They demand a ban and "settle" for a "waiting period" as a "compromise."

We should demand nukes and "settle" for universal reciprocity of CCW as a "compromise."

Then we demand nukes again, and "settle" for re-opening the Registry as a "compromise."

Demand nukes and "settle" for legal silencers as a "compromise."
----------------------

Might it be that the anti's have been playing a smarter game that we have?

 

[madmike]

I think we've done a poor job in the PR department. Partly because they can always hold up a bloody shirt, wet their pants and scream, "A gun did this!!!!!!!"

It's easier to get people to hate than love.

Which is why I'm very vocal about owning guns, using them, carrying them. I realize a lot of shooters are worried about public perception. At the same time, if guns are something you keep hidden and locked away and don't talk about, it creates or exacerbates the kind of fearful mystique that leads to things like Australia's storage requirement--gun, bolt and ammo stored separately in safes that are bolted to the foundation.

We should carry openly more where legal, and talk about it widely, but casually.

One of the best answers I've found to "Why do you carry a gun?" is "Same reason I have a fire extinguisher in my car and carry field dressings. Disasters happen."

It comes across as casual, thoughtful and rational.

In the political spectrum, many groups seem to assume that gun control legislation is inevitable, and then work to make it as "pleasant" as possible. I feel that should be the last resort.

Brady has also managed to create such meaningless but media-popular terms as the "Uzi Triangle" and "Ring of Fire."

Who uses these "Common" terms? Why, they do.

I'm trying to come up with a more media friendly term than to call them "paranoid nanny-staters." Unfortunately, the most accurate term I can find is a bit obscure for most readers: "Animists."

Personally, I think there needs to be class action suits against the Brady Bunch after every mass shooting in a jurisdiction they supported legislation in.

"These people died because Sarah Brady disarmed them and made moral self-defense impossible. Sarah Brady supports the rights of criminals and rapists to attack innocent people undeterred."

Screw the statistics and argument over details. Just lay blame where it exists, briefly, loudly and often. We should not be on the defensive with crap about "if you look at other jurisdictions, etc, etc." It's true, but defensive. "No, the blame for this tragedy lies on those who conspire with murderers to keep victims helpless."

Compare the two quotes:
"The NRA likes criminals and wants to keep them armed."

Er...why? What motivation?

"The Brady Bunch are paranoid and consistently push to make victims more helpless in the face of murder and rape."

Ah, they do so because they're PARANOID. They FEAR GUNS. No reasonable person fears guns, only a PARANOID.

But if we don't say the latter, there's no dispute to the former. Even educated people will repeat cool-sounding soundbites without rationally deconstructing them.

EXAMPLE: I once heard a college chemistry professor friend repeat a quote from a paper about a guy who produced ricin poison. "It's like having your own nuke in your garage."

Well, no, TC. A NUKE could be detonated in my garage and take out part of the city. RICIN has to be DISTRIBUTED through food or injection. Ricin, as toxic as it is, is NOTHING LIKE having your own nuke.

We need more pics of little girls with big grins shooting particolored target rifles. See? They're having wholesome, supervised fun, and this EVIL, UGLY OLD HAG HATES THEM BECAUSE SHE IS PARANOID.

I already wrote to Gov Blagojevich and the President of VA Tech and (politely) accused them of conspiracy to commit murder. Quite a few others did, too. When it comes down to 10-20,000 people responding to these attacks and placing blame where it lies, people will finally start to believe it.

Hmm...I should probably write to the AGs of both states and ask when these criminal charges will be forthcoming. Certainly we shouldn't allow conspirators to premeditated mass murder to go unchallenged.

 

[ilbob]

I'm in the 10th circuit and have been thinking about this. I think you would want as plaintiffs a couple members of the national guard, a couple LEOs, a couple people in the unorganized militia, some girls (not in the unorganized militia), a couple people who already own NFA items, etc. Of course we will have to see what the Heller decision says

Why would LEOs and national guardsmen matter in the mix at all? They are already provided with whatever firearms their employer selects for them. There is no right involved with their possesion or use of firearms.

 

[Soybomb]

It comes across as casual, thoughtful and rational.

I already wrote to Gov Blagojevich and the President of VA Tech and (politely) accused them of conspiracy to commit murder.

I think you're right on track about thoughtful and rational arguments winning minds but those letters to me seem to be a deviation from what you're wanting.

 

[ctdonath]

They are already provided with whatever firearms their employer selects for them.

That's exactly the situation Mr. Heller is in: his employer selects & provides arms for his job, but he cannot keep & bear the exact same thing outside that job.

A National Guardsman can only have the M16 assigned to him, and must return it to the armory at the end of his shift. He cannot buy one for himself and keep it at home.

 

[madmike]

And a National Guard M16 is US PROPERTY, not state property, and under Art 1, Sec 10, Para III, cannot be loaded without consent of Congress or the President.

The Guard is not a "State militia." When it's recalled as a "state militia" with Fed approval, weapons are PROHIBITED, except for MPs.

My inquiries were polite enough. "Seeing as your law/policy enabled and assisted this felony murder, don't you think you should surrender yourself to authorities for a lawful trial to determine the level of your culpability?"

 

[madmike]

ilbob: My point in adding Guardsmen is that since an AWB would mean we could ONLY practice with our duty weapons, rarely and with little ammo, it would adversely affect our ability to retain our skillset.

Same as if you prohibited me from going to a gym or using exercise equipment and said, "Oh, you can do that one weekend a month."

 

[alan]

madmike:

re your #134, well said sir.