As I said earlier, there are reasons why some of Gura's statements could have been phrased better without hurting his case at all but that is just my opinion and neither here nor there. You can restate your argument again, but I think you are missing an important point. The statements he made, which I think most people understood are a footnote in the case toy ou, still matter despite your ascertations otherwise. Maybe you don't care because you only want to discuss the legal angle but to do so is naive given the history of gun control or any other big issue that hit the court. The fight over gun rights isn't going to be won in the court alone and is actually, IMO, probably the worst place to be fighting for those rights. Why then are the arguments Gura made important? Well, those statements turn into fodder for antis later and are used. The soundbites that get played and the snippets that get printed in papers are the ones that will sell papers. How many times have soundbites from Fenty and his police chief hit the news? Nothing they said is law, but it matters in the real world. The courthouse does not exist in a vacuum. Those statements influence people, their positions, and ultimately their vote. They'll back candidates strong on gun control, who will push for legislation, and who will push for judges that will use every twisted legal argument possible to keep gun control laws in favor. The court system is hardly pure on either side of the spectrum. Despite your ascertation that the courts are insulated and thus have the moral backing to affect public opinion that is hardly reality. Brown v. Board hardly eliminated racism and if anything stoked it. Roe v. Wade has not calmed the fires there. This isn't a case involving a nuance of the law concering a contract, this is an emotional issue. Racism was not put down in America because of Brown v. Board, it was put down by people standing up for their rights and enduring punishment that was broadcast all across America. IT was influential citizens changing the minds of other citizens which led to a change in the way people operate. Public opinion will not be changed because of a ruling, it will be changed because of people working on the ground to change hearts and minds. If they don't, you'll get an amendment nullifying the 2A making your court decision useless. I'll point out that the public elects the people that can make amendments and appoint judges. If enough people are pissed about how this ruling goes, on either side, why couldn't they push for an amendment to favor their position? Then all the legal wrangling is moot. Further, it doesn't matter that Gura can retract them later to support another case, that will never get printed. It doesn't matter how many people claim Gura said what he did just to get his case ahead, that won't be broadcast. If anything, it will discredit him if he tries to retract them later. The only thing that will be broadcast are the things he said that support many schemes that antis have tried using for years. Again, I realize why he did what he did and understand the legal distinctions you keep making, however, I think you are so caught up in the legal side of your argument that you miss the soft side of it. Don't think that rhetoric is effective? Look at the change in numbers over time thanks to rhetoric. 22% drop in people favoring stricter laws, even after the AWB sunse. 12% rise in people who believe guns make homes safer. http://pewresearch.org/pubs/443/the-nras-image-improves-as-support-for-gun-control-slips There are other studies as well, that is just one of many that had a decent graph. There are others showing less support for the banning of handguns, lowering of women demographic that favors banning guns, etc. MY main point is that if public support for gun control is non-existent, then you won't get gun control laws passed. If laws aren't passed you don't have to fight them in court. Going to court is expensive and time-consuming and it is smarter to head off the problem at the pass. Would you rather treat the symptoms or cure the disease? There hasn't been any major legislation since the AWB that has hit despite multiple public shootings. It would be nonsensical to ignore the effect of public opinion, which translates into voting patterns, in keeping legislation at bay despite some horrific shootings recently. I understand your poistion and arguments, I think you are shortchanging the human aspect because it interferes witht he precision of your legal bent on the issue.