Time For Traitors To Step Aside

Status
Not open for further replies.

2dogs

Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2002
Messages
1,865
Location
the city
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.â€

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.â€

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.â€

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!â€

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.

Ad please, no more death threats. Isn’t that one of the reasons our opponents give for “The need for gun control�
 
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.
 
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.
 
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. :(
 
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:
 
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. :(
 
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.
:)
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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?"

:)
 
Boats

cuchulainn

I guess y'all didn't much like the "armedfemalesofamerica" post I made either?;)
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
Personally, I'd make the distinction between effective and ineffective pro 2A groups.:D
 
I'd make the distinction between effective and ineffective pro 2A groups

Good point, but I'd ask- what effect are they seeking?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top