Time For Traitors To Step Aside

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, I'm finally convinced.

No more money to KABA unless they:

1. Swear to only say nice things about the NRA.

2. send someone scooting on up to SCOTUS to say [in an Emily Latella voice] never mind .

:rolleyes:
 
There are three possibilities here:

1: SCOTUS refuses to hear the case...
2: SCOTUS rules against us...
3: SCOTUS rules in our favor...
Click to expand...

No, actually I believe there are five possible verdicts, given the history of this particular court:

4: SCOTUS rules in our favor on the first section (does the Second Amendment apply to the states in the same way that the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments apply?), and against us on the second (does it guarantee an individual right, in the same manner as those other amendments to the Bill of Rights?).

A ruling in this manner will give legal weight and credence to those who believe that the Second Amendment only applies to militias, and thus is the worst of all possible verdicts.

5: SCOTUS issues one of its famous "Yes, but..." rulings on one or both issues.

While not the worst possible verdict (see #4 above) it will still be pretty bad.

I may be wrong.

Going to be interesting to watch.

LawDog
 
Having read what Roy Lucas has to say about this case, and his record for litigation, I think it's a winning strategy. Get a guy who has architected winning supreme court cases in the past, has studied the law completely, and has been researching for the last several years why justices decide how they do, and let him do his best.

There should not be so much conflict around this case. Every pro-RKBA organization should be helping us win it.

-z
 
There should not be so much conflict around this case. Every pro-RKBA organization should be helping us win it.
Click to expand...
Flies. Honey. Vinegar.

You want people to support something, convince them. Don't brand everyone who disagrees even slightly as a traitor.
 
I wish I had the energy to join in the pissing contest, but I pretty tired right now - maybe some other time.

For now, I'll keep it short. I believe it was Ben Franklin who said "if we don't hang together, we will surely hang separately" - or something to that effect. It's the division in the "gun community" that has allowed the other side to keep winning over the last 40 years. Hunters against non-hunters, target shooters against defensive shooters, yada yada yada. This argument is just more of the same. The only difference is that it's the gun "lawyers" throwing rocks at each other now. It's all about who has the better case, the better strategy, or the better argument - I say WHO CARES, just do something!

Silveira has been petitioned to SCOTUS - is there another case there? If they accept, then that will be the basis of everything that follows. If they pass, then it's back to the drawing board. Whatever happens isn't going to be affected by the hissing, spitting, and name-calling in the gallery.

For the jocks in the crowd - The 2nd Amendment team is at first and goal; but it's a long ten yards to the end zone. The clock is ticking. Silveira has the ball. Do you block for him, or do you tackle him?
 
Sorry, 2dogs, but Williamson's screed is a turnoff. The way it's written, anybody who doesn't fully agree with KABA is a traitor.

I figure I've put out a fair amount of effort for RKBA, these last 36 or so years. From my viewpoint, a bunch of mouthy Johnny-come-lately types who go to name-calling over honest disagreements just don't do a lot for me.

It's a matter of indifference to me whether or not the folks at KABA don't like the NRA. That's their prerogative. Childish behavior in the use of the language keeps me from granting credibility to the message that might be in the middle of all that yelling and screaming.

Folks have a right to talk, and I have a right not to listen...

Ain't it fun?

:D, Art
 
Silveira has the ball. Do you block for him, or do you tackle him?
Click to expand...
I think it would be very strange to be in a game where one player had the ball in what he thinks is the only game in town, and then to see that player go out of his way to antagonize the players he hopes to block for him.
 
Pretty harsh language, but I for the most part agree with it. All of the arguing now does not matter. It's in the NRA's and others interest to fund the Silveira case fully if it gets granted cert. So far they have not done so.
Click to expand...

So far it hasn't been granted cert, why should the NRA do anything more than the amicus brief that it has already filed? BTW, the NRA's amicus cert brief was the best of show in that regard. Yet they still suck.:banghead:
 
why should the NRA do anything more

I don't know that they could do more at this point- but since it seems to be KABA who is handling Silveira, maybe the NRA could ask them. Or would it be an indignity for them to do so?

As for "Johnny-come-lately types "- yeah, so what. Who was around for "Miller"- the NRA. Who was around for GCA '68- the NRA. Who's been around the longest and watched over our gun rights as they slipped into the sewer- well guess who it wasn't. As I said before I'll stay a member of the NRA- and continue to be a member and give financial support to the "no compromise" guys.

Coincidentally the latest edition of America's 1st Freedom has Halbrook and Kopel on the cover- I don't think I've seen a single word in the magazine about Silveira. Wouldn't it be nice if the biggest pro gun lobby actually tried to pull everyone together to support Silveira if it goes to SCOTUS. Will that happen?

I find it interesting that the ink isn't even dry on the "partial birth abortion" ban and the lefties are already gathering their forces for a Supreme Court challenge. I doubt that they are spending alot of time infighting over who is or isn't a "johnny-come-lately". And you know what- more often that not they are winning and taking this country down a hole- they sure as hell don't compromise. They whine, scream, cheat, slander and probably would kill their own mother's to win- which they probably need to do since they have no principle on their side. Luckily we do have principle on our side and what do we do with it- p1$$ it away because we don't want to hurt big grandaddy NRA's feelings or because we don't want no "johnny-come-lately" to have the hubris to think THEY can take a case to the Supremes.

You know what- if we can't pull it together maybe we don't deserve 2nd amendment rights.:banghead:
 
2Dogs, when SCOTUS heard U.S. v. Miller, Miller was already dead, and his attorney wasn't gonna go to D.C. pro bono for a dead man. In essence, only the Bad Guys showed up.

You say, "You know what- if we can't pull it together maybe we don't deserve 2nd amendment rights."

I can whole-heartedly agree with that. But it sounds just a bit odd, coming with the built in divisiveness of Williamson's name-calling. And, of course, some of the previous rhetoric from KABA...

"We're all trying to get to Heaven. The shame is the wasted time arguing about which road to take."

Art
 
2Dogs, when SCOTUS heard U.S. v. Miller, Miller was already dead, and his attorney wasn't gonna go to D.C. pro bono for a dead man. In essence, only the Bad Guys showed up.

Who knows, maybe if there had been a "no compromise" GOA or JPFO or KABA around he wouldn't have had to go "pro bono for a dead man".

Let me get that old dusty time machine up and running..........................;)

Anyway I'd like to see at least as much of a hullabaloo from a unified gun community in support of Silveira if it's time comes as the left can muster for baby killing. (whoops- I mean "choice")
 
"We're all trying to get to Heaven. The shame is the wasted time arguing about which road to take."
Click to expand...
That's an interesting quote, Mr. Eatman. I'm curious, however, if you believe the way to get to heaven is via a detour through hell.

Boats, I don't see anyone here having EVER denied that the NRA filed one hell of an amicus. Charles Cooper did a superb job, and KABA highlighted it prominently for quite a while.

Mike Williamson is a good friend of mine. I love him dearly. He's also an NRA member, as am I. Maybe I'm illiterate. Maybe English being my third language and all, I just misunderstood him. But I'm not seeing his article as an NRA bash. I'm seeing it rather as a wholesale (warranted) condemnation of those who would try to destroy a case that is ALREADY at SCOTUS awaiting a yea or a nay on cert. Regardless of what you may think of the case's merits, it's there. It's a Second Amendment case. It seeks clarification on the issue of gun rights ownership. If you don't think it's the right case, OK. You're entitled. But trying to kill it? Mike rightly describes it as treason, IMO.
 
Tempest: If you don't think it's the right case, OK. You're entitled. But trying to kill it? Mike rightly describes it as treason, IMO.
Click to expand...
You're wrong :) They are no more traitors than they are murderers or rapists. Explain to me how people who fear that Silveira takes too big a bite and might backfire are treasonous? Misguided? Perhaps. Overly-fearful? Perhaps. But treasonous because (correct or not) they fear that Silveira is too weak on one end and overly ambitious on the other end, and thus they see it as a danger to the RKBA? No. Please explain to me how it is treason to try to stop something they think (perhaps incorrectly) is a danger to the RKBA.

Most of us here, including me, want Silveira to succeed, and, Tempest, you seem to be missing the core point. Most of the criticism is not directed towards Silveira, but at KABA’s destroying the possibility for allies. Did it occur to you that we are criticizing Williams and KABA because we want them to stop undermining Silveira?

They are at the Supreme-freaking-Court. It would behoove them to act in a professional and dignified manner. Why? Because like it or not, that’s part of the game. Yet they throw invectives. They appear to be breaking down -- name-calling is a sign of fear and weakness to most people whether KABA intends that or not. You expect people to come on board with a group that seems not in control of its emotions? They won't.

Treason, incidentally, is defined as a direct attack on the sovereign state -- in contrast to the way KABA uses it. Perhaps betrayal would be a the correct word ... but that's semantics.

In any event, emotional indulgences of the type KABA engages in -- even if it is correct about the supposed betrayal -- do nothing to help Silveira and perhaps hurt it. This is about the Silveira case, not about KABA's anger, but KABA seems to forget that.
Silver Bullet: I think it would be very strange to be in a game where one player had the ball in what he thinks is the only game in town, and then to see that player go out of his way to antagonize the players he hopes to block for him.
Click to expand...
You got that right.

Actually, KABA reminds me of the kid who doesn't understand why some other kids don't like him, so he screams at them, "You stinky, ugly, dumb-dumb booger-heads, why aren't you playing with me? Poopy-heads, Poopy-heads, you’re nothing by smelly poopy-heads. Hey, stop running away! Play with me, you ugly, smelly poopy-heads!â€

Yeah, maybe the other kids were mean first. But they'll just get meaner if he keeps calling them poopy-heads.

And you know what? There is probably a third group of kids who hadn't been involved but who now see nothing by a red-faced kid screaming insults. They probably won't play with him either.

And this with national attention and at the Supreme-freaking-Court.:( :( :(
 
Last edited:
"You stinky, ugly, dumb-dumb booger-heads, why aren't you playing with me? Poopy-heads, Poopy-heads, you’re nothing by smelly poopy-heads. Hey, stop running away! Play with me, you ugly, smelly poopy-heads!â€

Gee- has anybody ever really screamed that?:eek: ;) :D
 
Explain to me how people who fear that Silveira takes too big a bite and might backfire are treasonous?
Click to expand...
cuchulainn, you misunderstand me. People who fear Silveira is too ambitious right now or are afraid that it's not the right case are NOT treasonous in any way. Those who are trying to kill it - a pure second amendment case - are.

Please explain to me how it is treason to try to stop something they think (perhaps incorrectly) is a danger to the RKBA.
Click to expand...
Because when you have pro-rights people trying to kill a pro-rights case it's betrayal and treason to the pro-rights cause. ESPECIALLY since it's already at SCOTUS! Why give our enemies any help in trying to defeat us?

Most of the criticism is not directed towards Silveira, but at KABA’s destroying the possibility for allies. Did it occur to you that we are criticizing Williams and KABA because we want them to stop undermining Silveira?
Click to expand...
Cuchulainn, do you really expect KABA to sit back and turn the other cheek when supposed allies are working feverishly and publicly to undermine this case? Would you? THAT's what this is about! Michael WilliamSON has been an ardent supporter and a vocal fighter for RKBA. How is his standing up for what he believes undermining Silveira?

I just wish people would stop trying to destroy it. Is that too much to ask?

Treason, incidentally, is defined as a direct attack on the soveriegn state -- in contrast to the way KABA uses it. Perhaps betrayal would be a the correct word ... but that's semantics.
Click to expand...
Yes, it is. And I'm sure most people are perfectly aware of the nuances of the language to understand it in the way it was intended.


This is about the Silveira case, not about KABA's anger, but KABA seems to forget that.
Click to expand...
NO ONE at KABA has forgotten this! Why do you think we are fighting so hard to rebuke every stupid, supercilious, dilatory attack on SILVEIRA? Dave Kopel didn't attack KABA. He attacked the case when it was already at SCOTUS. He publicly attacked the capability of Gary Gorski and the intelligence of the team involved in this case. Do you expect us to not rebut, when we have staked EVERYTHING on this case? Do you expect us not to publish a reply to this obvious smear? Kopel did nothing to help the Second Amendment in his slime attack. He tried to destroy a case that was already filed - publicly, grudgingly, and cowardly. THAT's what this is about. We have to defend this case with every weapon available to us, because it's right, and it's already there! It's not about KABA. It's about Silveira. Period.

And this with national attention and at the Supreme-freaking-Court.
Click to expand...
Exactly! So why throw around public smears? We were perfectly thrilled at the amicus NRA filed! Everything was going well. And then Kopel attacked, on a public forum, without provocation and knowing very little about the merits of the case. I don't believe in turning the other cheek when it could destroy a case that could be the beginning of something really great. Do you?
 
Exactly! So why throw around public smears?
Click to expand...
The only smears are coming from KABA: "treason" :( Criticism is not a smear, and KABA is not above criticism, especially when its actions undermine support for Silveira.
Cuchulainn, do you really expect KABA to sit back and turn the other cheek when supposed allies are working feverishly and publicly to undermine this case?
Click to expand...
Yes. That's their responsibility, like it or not. There are other ways to comment on the disagreements without indulging in emotionally-charged invectives like "treason."
And I'm sure most people are perfectly aware of the nuances of the language to understand it in the way it was intended.
Click to expand...
Spare me. Williamson was using the word as more than a mere synonym for betrayal, and you know it.
Because when you have pro-rights people trying to kill a pro-rights case it's betrayal and treason to the pro-rights cause.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. AFAIK, they are doing it in an attempt to protect the RKBA -- perhaps they are misguided, but you cannot call a disagreement over the proper course for protecting a right treason.

Hey, perhaps you are wrong and Silveira will backfire in the worst possible way and the RKBA will be utterly stripped from us. You will have destroyed the right. Does that make you "treasonous" to the pro-rights cause? By your definition it would seem to. But, no, you wouldn't be. Neither does it make those with the same goal but different opinions on how to get there "treasonous."
 
Criticism is not a smear, and KABA is not above criticism, especially when its actions undermine support for Silveira.
Click to expand...
There's a difference between smearing KABA and trying to destroy Silveira. No one at KABA is afraid of criticism. No one is afraid of public debate. But attempts to unilaterally destroy Silveira are quite another story. :(

Yes. That's their responsibility, like it or not. There are other ways to comment on the disagreements without indulging in emotionally-charged invectives like "treason."
Click to expand...
No, our responsibility is to answer each and every attack on this case, as we have staked everything on it.

Spare me. Williamson was using the word as more than a mere synonym for betrayal, and you know it.
Click to expand...
Tell ya what -- why don't you ask HIM? I'll IM him right now to come over here and tell you what he meant. If I'm wrong, I'll say so. OK?

Not necessarily. AFAIK, they are doing it in an attempt to protect the RKBA -- perhaps they are misguided, but you cannot call a disagreement over the proper course for protecting a right treason.
Click to expand...
Outright smears and public attempts at humiliation are not equivalent to "protecting" in my book. Attempts to destroy this effort are NOT equivalent to trying to protect the RKBA. Maybe you have slightly different definitions. I don't know.

Hey, perhaps you are wrong and Silveira will backfire in the worst possible way and the RKBA will be utterly stripped from us. You will have destroyed the right. Does that make you "treasonous" to the pro-rights cause? By your definition it would seem to. But, no, you wouldn't be. Neither does it make those with the same goal but different opinions on how to get there "treasonous."
Click to expand...
Slight difference in intent, isn't it? We have staked EVERYTHING on this case, and we are doing what we believe is right. We aren't stupid. None of the people involved are, and we truly believe this case will be a step in the right direction. Are you really going to begrudge us that? Big difference between that and trying to submarine it.
 
Everything was going well. And then Kopel attacked, on a public forum, without provocation and knowing very little about the merits of the case. I don't believe in turning the other cheek when it could destroy a case that could be the beginning of something really great. Do you?
Click to expand...
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. Win us over by rebutting his points, not by calling anyone with doubts a traitor. It wasn't the intent to call anyone who had doubt or criticisms a traitor? Well that was certainly the way it came across to me.

There's nothing wrong with responding to direct attacks, but calmly rebut the attackers instead of immediately resorting to personal attacks and insults.

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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

S
  • Locked
Major rant -- may get me booted
2 3 4
Replies
93
Views
4K
keithernTN
K
2
  • Locked
Hollywood’s Patriots Step Up to the Plate
Replies
15
Views
737
2dogs
2
S
  • Locked
Our new adversary: the Religious Right
2
Replies
42
Views
2K
Don Gwinn
D
C
  • Locked
Minnesota: "Judge finds in favor of church’s opposition to gun law "
Replies
11
Views
818
Feanaro
Feanaro
D
  • Locked
Where Are We? (Molon Labe ballcaps mentioned...)
Replies
6
Views
420
rebbryan
R
Back
Top