David Codrea’s post attacking the NRA and individual staffers is one of the most over the top pieces of defamtory bullshit I’ve ever seen on the internet and if I was the NRA or said staffer (who really is good guy), I’d sue his ass to china and back.The long knives are out for David Olofson, and people who generally dismiss guys like me as "divisive" are using words like "moron" and "idiot" and other "reasoned discourse" techniques to throw him under the bus.
I stand by what I've written to date, and I'll let David and Len Savage deal with correcting misconceptions if they feel it necessary. What I'd like to do here is give Countertop a chance to make his case. If a self-described "fairly well-connected lobbyist [and] former trial attorney" weighs in not only on the merits of Olofson's case, but also on my committing apparent libel, I owe it to myself--and to anyone my opinions may have influenced--to see how credible his opinions are.
This is evidently the post he was referring to. It was an email exchange I'd received from Len Savage, copied to a distribution list that included two national gun rights organizations, a major cable network reporter, a magazine publisher, an author, some others I don't recognize....
As WoG regulars know, and as the Olofson link above demonstrates, I've been one of the few following this case with any regularity, because I believe the matters at hand can profoundly affect all gun owners. As Len Savage is not only a nationally-recognized firearms designer but also the expert witness in this case, what he says is of interest to my readers and I'm going to give his opinions an airing--especially since none of the other "gun bloggers" do.
So let's look at my "attack on NRA and individual staffers" or at least my part in this.
I posted a title quoting said staffer, followed with a question mark. That means I'm asking. And I then posted the following inflammatory words:
Here's an exchange you may find interesting. Let's hope it's discussed in detail at the Annual Meeting.
That's it. In short:
There's an important case.
There's a controversy involving NRA.
Here's what I have from both sides.
Let's hope people talk about it.
And that's what Sebastian has done by the way. I don't agree with some of his conclusions or interpretations, but he brought back info from the meeting that we didn't have before. I'll not fault him for the post--we need to know everything, even stuff we might prefer not to hear. Nobody ever gained an advantage by covering their ears.
But if this is Countertop's professional opinion of actionable defamation, I must say I'm not convinced. Make of it what you will, but I think my "ass" is safe and I won't be going to China any time soon.
He's free, of course, to weigh in here if he likes, and speak for himself. I'll listen. Or, he could just continue doing what he's doing, enjoying all the benefits anonymity gives him. For what it's worth, I'm sure more people on the sites he frequents agree with him and probably always will.
12 comments:
"Countertop" sounds like he wants to be remembered as sympathetic to law enforcement when the JBTs get around to him, and very, very afraid they WILL.
The NRA is indefensible.
"It USED to be legal, now it's NOT, get over it." What in the Spirit of '76 kind of philosophy is that? Argument of tyrants, creed of slaves. Especially in an era where the ACCUSATION of committing some MISDEMEANORS can get your guns and gun rights stolen by government.
Truth is a defense to defamation.
If this swinging cod IS a lawyer, he knows of the legal principle damnum absque injuria. In addition, the NRA puke's job perforce makes him a public persona, so he's covered by Sullivan vs. New York Times. What law school did he go to anyway?
The actions of the BATFX, and the court in letting them do as they please unopposed, are unconstitutional and unconscionable, and are a serious, direct threat to our liberty.
The laws and regulations they are trying to enforce are inherently outrageous, and they're making matters worse by stretching those regulations out of all recognition.
Olofson has not handled his case well. He's made some procedural errors, including the standard failure to keep his mouth shut without benefit of attorney. His actions may result in his own imprisonment, and may weaken the cases of other gun owners by giving the BATFX and the courts excuses to do so.
However, his actions did not directly result in actual injuries to anyone around him. The possible legal consequences are not his fault, but fall to the account of lawmakers, the BATFX, and the courts.
Anyone who thinks that the two parties are morally equivalent is setting an impossibly high standard for the exercise of our liberties. The simple fact is, as far as I can see, that Olofson's actions should not remotely have even come into question. His relatively minor errors are not evidence of his being a traitor to the cause, but rather of the his missteps in a closely packed, extremely sensitive minefield whose very existence is in and of itself ought properly to be considered a violation of federal civil rights criminal codes.
Citizens should be able to exercise their rights as casually, even carelessly, as Olofson did. Holding him responsible is on the order of holding a jewelry merchant liable for a robbery because he kept his merchandise on public display, and failed to install an adequate security system.
The fault in both cases properly lies with the goblins, not the citizens. The fact that this time the thugs in question are jack-booted, not crackheaded, is irrelevant.
djmoore
Good for you David!
I agree with your take on this case, based on everything you posted on WOGs, 100%
Keep up the good work!
I read that comment (countertop's) this morning and my thought was "What the hell is he thinking?" I had previously read everything David had posted on the matter and most of the thread on AR15.com and just don't see any legitimacy to what Countertop wrote.
Countertop's credibility takes a hit with this.
Keep up the good work David.
The idea that "this is not the case we want to take on BATFE with" is perhaps understandable, but I think wrongheaded.
Saying "This defendant hurts the cause" only tells BATFE that we stand ready, willing, and able to be divided and conquered.
Better that they are given to understand that we will stand foursquare with anyone who is not a predator upon fellow citizens, and who finds himself in the crosshairs, even if we don't share every last one of the one's beliefs or approve of every last one of the one's actions.
When the going gets tough, groups 1 and 2 will turn on group 3.
A unnamed Patriot, describing the loyalties of group 1 (clueless gunowners) and group 2 (the semi-clued) vis a vis group 3 (free men and women who understand that guns are mere tools, and that the Second Amendment was written and ratified by folks who fully intended to intimidate politicians).
See also this classic by Jeff Snyder.
Almost everyone wants to believe that their fellow gunnies are going to save them.
Or "the law" is going to save them.
Or the Heller case is going to save them.
Or that it's really not that bad.
Or "we can live with this."
Bunk!
Ain't nobody gonna save us.
Nobody except each free man and woman getting up the gumption to stand, no matter what.
We'll see a lot more IFQs before this piece of history is fully written.
Many of them will be friends, family, and "fellow shooters."
Thus always to collaborators....
IFQ ???
IQF.
Idiot Quisling Fudd.
Keep making the NRA squirm.
The creactures of darkness hate the light.
Keep shining David!
In the food business IQF stands for
Individually Quick Frozen.
Maybe it's just me but I like the synchronicity of the different definitions.
;-)
Post a Comment