Time For Traitors To Step Aside

[Tempest]

If you've got logic, reason and facts on your side, you don't need to resort to calling names. If Kopel was wrong, point that out. Show how and where he was incorrect. Provide information that he lacked or didn't account for.

Roy Lucas did just that. At length.

Consider the audience, friend. That article was written in a fashion that it only attracts those who already agree with you 100% and puts off those (such as myself) who are undecided.

I think that's kind of subjective, but given the bredth of views about this, I wouldn't expect it to be any other way.

 

[cuchulainn]

Outright smears and public attempts at humiliation are not equivalent to "protecting" in my book.

Where has this happened, except perhaps by a few individuals on internet bulletin boards (hardly worth coniptions at KABA)? Please give me examples where the players in this hoolabaloo have issued "outright smears and public attempts at humiliation." You know what? KABA keeps complaining about this stuff. But I haven't seen examples of it. Perhaps I missed it.

 

[cordex]

Roy Lucas did just that. At length.

In that case, was there a need for this kind of article?

I think that's kind of subjective, but given the bredth of views about this, I wouldn't expect it to be any other way.

Sorry ... I don't understand.
The goal was just to preach to the choir? So what was gained? Or more to the point, can you not see what was lost?

 

[Tempest]

Have you read Kopel's attack? He attacked Gary Gorski's abilities. He attacked the case because those HE wanted to lead it weren't the ones at the head. He attacked the merits of the case, when it was painfully obvious he didn't read the cert petition. This has nothing to do with KABA, I repeat. And it has everything to do with attempts to destroy this case.

 

[madmike]

As I clearly stated, and people keep choosing to miss, no one objects to "Silveira is a bad case because x, y, z."

Though there's little of it based on more than, "I don't like it!" or "THe NRA should do it because they're the experts!"

The objection, and that which I EXPRESSED AS AN OPINION, not being in any political position, not asking for any criminal charges, is to comments such as, "these people are secretly working for Sarah Brady" or "used to be PETA activists" or "want the 2nd Amendment to fail and are stealing money to do so" or "are paying themselves millions of your dollars to hide the truth..."

Or sending threats of harm.

If anyone wants to support such allegations with facts, please do so. If not, then kindly go away.

And that is all that was meant. Yes, I used harsh language to accomplish the job.

It appears to have worked.

 

[Tempest]

In that case, was there a need for this kind of article?

Obviously the author did. I happen to agree with him, because while Roy Lucas addressed the points Kopel made, no one said anything about the transparent attempt to destroy this case when it was already there.

The goal was just to preach to the choir? So what was gained? Or more to the point, can you not see what was lost?

Everytime we write an editorial, we are preaching to the choir for those who agree with us, cordex. I happened to like it, but that's just me. Could the author have been more clear in his intent and verbiage? Sure. But it's an op ed piece, no more no less.

 

[madmike]

Two more notes:

I didn't name Mr Kopel. He has raised legal objections. I think his objections are inaccurate. But he has documented his position.

2dogs: The NRA wasn't around for Miller. Did nothing. The NRA wasn't around for NFA. Supported it. The NRA wasn't around for GCA 68. Did nothing.

Now, maybe they've changed and are serious now, and yes, they wrote an excellent amicus brief for Silveira. But they weren't "key" to those cases. They weren't even in the house.

Interestingly, despite all the invective being hurled at Silveira, the ONLY organization I can find that has condemned it is CRPA. With vague and unsupported terms. Every other group I can find comments from, KABA, NRA, AFA, Liberty Belles, JPFO, Pink Pistols, Geeks with Guns...supports it.

Certainly, the detractors have free speech. I'm inviting them to use it with discrimination. As none of them have raised a credible objection. Someone yesterday emailed me and complained, "the District courts overwhelmingly support a collective Miller argument, therefore SCOTUS won't hear it." Opinion, and possibly correct, though I think that's inaccurate.

Then said, "So we need a better case." Interesting. If the above is true, what difference will it make what case you have?

Said individual "Demanded" I show him data, "Demanded" I show him the briefs, "demanded" I prove the case to him.

First, I'm not the attorney. Second, I am under no obligation to provide any data to anyone.

And that's merely a gadfly. There's people, and you've seen them here, doing much worse. As I commented, their goal seems to be to dance around saying, "Neener! Neener! Neener! Your suit faaaaailed!"

Yeah, that'll be a lot of help. Thanks.

 

[Correia]

Ok, I understand where everybody is coming from. Emotions are running high, and I'm going to close this one down before it gets too out of hand. (like 3 or 4 other Silveria/KABA related threads have in the last month).

The case is at the Supremes. It is out of any of our hands, and Monday morning quarter backing ain't going to do anything now except tick other folks off.

Closed.