The Clement brief reflects cowardice on the part of the Justice Department, and a desire for expediency over what is right...Possibly, but I think it reflects more on the cowardice of gun owners who have enabled the betrayals all these years by continually rewarding the "lesser of two evils" with political power. They've actually got the justice they've earned, and now we all are living with it.
It also reflects on the cynical manipulation by some in convincing others that the "Vote Freedom First President" represented a vote for freedom, as well as gullibility to the point of willful negligence of those desperate to swallow a lie that told them what they wanted to hear.
Don't get me wrong: I'm not criticizing Alan Gottlieb and Dave Workman here. I think it's past time those with national prominence in the gun rights movement took the gloves off and gave this administration what fer.
I would like to see them take this a step further, and join with Gun Owners of America in calling on Bush to withdraw this brief. And GOA goes a step further by "invit[ing]the National Rifle Association to join it in fighting this anti-gun development."
Can anyone think of a good reason why they wouldn't?
8 comments:
quote: "Can anyone think of a good reason why they wouldn't?" - D.C.
Uh, because if we actually won this war it would end thier gravy train ride?
Isn't it always about money and power?
We want the power and they have it.
I don't see the NRA weighing in on this. They should have been at the front from the begining.
If there is a significant change in the way people view and support the 2A, the NRA would need to resort to different tactics to gain support again. Perhaps by introducing programs like the DCM had way back when.
Umm...did you guys miss their press release on this subject? Or is it insufficient in your view? At the very least, it seems odd that you don't even acknowledge it.
No, it's already been acknowledged, Boyd.
The subject here is calling on the Bush administration to repudiate the SG's brief.
Please forgive me for forgetting your earlier post. I was focusing on, "And GOA goes a step further by 'invit[ing]the National Rifle Association to join it in fighting this anti-gun development.'" And Dion's statement "I don't see the NRA weighing in on this."
Because, y'know, they already have, although they haven't specifically called for withdrawing the brief. I don't even know if it's possible to withdraw an amicus brief.
The state of Idaho did it in this very case at the federal circuit level.
Boyd,
The NRA admittedlt weighed in with a wishy washy response. Their response sadly made them appear to agree with the DOJ. In fact much of the NRA backed legislation does not lead me to elieve that they have actually read the 2nd Amendment.
David: Not exactly a withdrawal of a brief, but it does appear that "do overs" are allowed.
Gregg: I understand that some folks feel that NRA's response was less than they wanted, but that's not really what I was talking about. The way GOA's statement was worded, as well as Dion's comment, appear to state that NRA isn't addressing the brief. They clearly are, even if it isn't as strong as GOA's response.
Post a Comment