Search found 5 matches

by KBCraig
Tue Nov 25, 2008 9:28 pm
Forum: Federal
Topic: Heller History
Replies: 28
Views: 4001

Re: Heller History

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Well Kevin, KC5AV has quoted Gura's exact wording you wanted to see, so are you ready to condemn your fellow libertarian for his stance that machine guns aren't protected by the Second Amendment? His post has been up for six days but we haven't heard from you.
Sure, that's easy: he's wrong.

What's amusing to me is that you're criticizing him for agreeing with you. Are you saying an NRA lawyer wouldn't have made the same argument? The same NRA that agreed to the MG ban?
by KBCraig
Fri Nov 21, 2008 6:02 pm
Forum: Federal
Topic: Heller History
Replies: 28
Views: 4001

Re: Heller History

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Here is the exchange between Justice Breyer and Gura where Justice Scalia had to tell Gura to answer yes.
That was an exchange between Breyer and Scalia, not Gura.
by KBCraig
Wed Nov 19, 2008 2:27 pm
Forum: Federal
Topic: Heller History
Replies: 28
Views: 4001

Re: Heller History

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Now I have a question for you. For years, you have preached that the NRA compromises too much; that it sold us out on the machine gun issue. While I could not disagree with you more on these issue, tell me why you have not made so much as a peep about your libertarian brethren on the "Levy team" doing far far worse. Libertarian Gura conceded in oral argument that machine guns are not protected under the Second Amendment. Where is your condemnation of Gura?
If you will quote him exactly, I will either condemn him, praise, him, or remain neutral. I don't know what exact passage you're referring to, so I can't comment.

I do know that they took a position of only trying the one issue at hand, because it was a narrowly crafted case. Machine guns weren't at issue; overturning the DC ban was.

For the record, I praise NRA where they deserve it (and their funding and assistance in this case certainly helped), just as quickly as I condemn them where I believe they are too comfortable with banning "some guns", or banning guns for "some people".

For instance, an acquaintance in New Hampshire was just found guilty on a state charge of being a felon in possession of a firearm. How? His girlfriend was distraught and threatening to kill herself, a threat he believed to be credible. He knew she had a pistol in her car, so he retrieved it, unloaded it, and locked it in his safe, then immediately called 911, and told the responding officers everything.

He was convicted on a state charge (which was wrong; the jury overlooked the "competing harms" argument), but if this was a Project Exile area, he'd be looking at 5 years in federal prison, with no parole. And that is not just the NRA's official position, it's their brainchild: that this man, and anyone in a similar position, should get an automatic 5 years without parole, by preventing a death.

For their educational, training, and legislative efforts to make things better, I salute the NRA (and that's why I am a member). For the roadblocks they throw up in the path of those who would be more bold, I condemn them. And for their acceptance of the idea that the 2nd means something less than what it says --for all guns, for all people-- I have nothing but contempt.

Kevin
by KBCraig
Wed Nov 19, 2008 7:42 am
Forum: Federal
Topic: Heller History
Replies: 28
Views: 4001

Re: Heller History

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
KBCraig wrote:Official NRA revisionist spin coming in 3... 2... 1...
Oh really? Why would a response be spin? How do you know, since you haven't even seen the response yet? Are you clairvoyant?
No, Charles. But I've seen every other response you've made on this issue.

Answer me this: when will the timing ever be right for the NRA? If not forced into this fight, would the NRA have found the "right" case yet?
by KBCraig
Tue Nov 18, 2008 3:45 pm
Forum: Federal
Topic: Heller History
Replies: 28
Views: 4001

Re: Heller History

Official NRA revisionist spin coming in 3... 2... 1...

Return to “Heller History”