“It should be obvious to anyone that a civilian bringing an openly-carried, loaded semiautomatic weapon to a child’s soccer game poses a grave risk to the community,” said Daniel R. Vice, Senior Attorney at the Brady Center’s Legal Action Project. [More]Because we all know only the "Only Ones" can be trusted.
And don't let the "openly-carried, loaded semi-automatic weapon" rhetoric throw you. They get just as hissy against concealed carry. And revolvers.
They just don't want us to have guns.
Don't they sound ridiculous? Like the loser kids from school who snitched on their classmates to win the teacher's approval...?
[Via Mack H]
6 comments:
I left a comment at KABA. It seems the pro gun people(prags) don't think this is the right case to support.
Not sure why.....
CIII
Some people don't like anything controversial--too messy, too noisy, too...embarrassing.
It's like Goldilocks waiting for the case that's "just right."
That's exactly what happened with 2A. NRA didn't want to touch it because "what if we lose?"
When Heller came along, they tried to kill it.
Once they saw they couldn't, they had no choice but to join it and throw their best resources into the fight.
Another major problem is you can't control where the next case will come from--if not Melanie Hain, what if it's some creepy felon filing a 2A case who is surely going to set precedent against us?
Hain is resented by some because she's bold, outspoken, and doesn't care about winning everyone's approval. The people who are against her--from what I've observed--place stock in winning consensus, approval, and above all, not alienating.
That the ones they don't wish to alienate are the uninformed and uninvolved, that is, the ones not engaged in the battle, is the curiosity. I suppose you could push them to the other side of the fence, to where someone previously neutral is now against us...but I doubt they'd be really committed to that.
I guess it boils down to majority rule and the right court case, which is all fine and good if you make progress, assuming that progress isn't illusory and real change happens.
And that you have a Plan B if it doesn't work and it actually loses you ground...
“It should be obvious to anyone that a civilian [soccer mom under the influence of tranquilizers and driving a SUV full of yelling kids] to a child’s soccer game poses a grave risk to the community,...”
No more ridiculous than what he actually said.
I see that they're still spewing for the same old cut-and-paste BS about 8 "children" killed every day, and "Concealed Carry is bad, mmm'k". F**k'em and feed 'em to the fish. Wasn't it Freud that said a fear of weapons is a sign of sexual immaturity?
Since they're sticking their useless asses into the debate and trying to hang her in the court of public (uninformed) opinion what are the chances of hauling them into court to back up their lies and hysterics?
That'd make the case worth it...having them, in court and on record, be forced to admit the truth on their numbers. Forever more when they try this crap you could simply ask "In the Hain case was your colleague perjuring himself or are you lying now?"
I can dream.
You know, David, I'm just as flummoxed about the seeming lack of support for this case among so-called "prags". As you note, the issue seems to revolve around some idealized "perfect" case just waiting in the wings.
As I commented on one of the blogs I read regularly: if a law-abiding, suburban, SUV-driving soccer mom can't win this case, then we're all screwed. From a purely legal strategy perspective, it doesn't get any better than this: (1) sympathetic (female) plaintiff; (2) clean criminal record; (3) lives in a state with a clear RKBA provision in the state constitution, where the state supreme court has upheld the right to carry openly without a license; (4) victim of a (male) sheriff clearly abusing his authority.
If Johnnie Cochran was still alive, he'd argue and win the case between breakfast and brunch.
Post a Comment