Tuesday, October 16, 2012

There's No Subversive Like an Old Subversive

Maybe you have a constitutional right to have a cellphone with a pre-dialed 911 at your bedside. That might provide you a little better protection than a gun which you're not used to using. [APPLAUSE] [Watch]
Yeah, unlike your orcs. Who'da thunk Nazgûl wore bow-ties under their black robes...?

That inane and unqualified opinion presented as expert simply because of who is saying it occurs around 36 + minutes into this video. 

I love Dan Gross at the beginning claiming "Brady...has always been the voice of the American people..."

This is a long video, but it's important to watch it so you know what the enemy's designs are, and the lawyer group announced by Jonathan Lowy is one to be on guard against. It's also critically important to understand the "legal" rationale someone like Stevens uses  to allow his fanaticism to trump his oath.  Understand reversing Heller and McDonald are just "first step" goals. Howling of paranoia notwithstanding, these traitors, who would have us believe banning handguns in the home is "common sense"  and "reasonable" and a "compelling state interest," want and intend to settle for nothing less than absolute, unchallengeable power.

The thing to remember, with special significance to keep in mind with what we're being told about November: Stevens was a gift from the Republicans.

UPDATE: Kurt weighs in.

3 comments:

Scott Wilson said...

The Republicans today -- like the ones who gave us this sham of a Justice Stevens -- tell us that unless we vote for gun banner Romney we'll get gun banner Obama.

Bottom line is that if they ever declare 2A no longer an individual right, it's time to go hunting. Plain and simple.

K.T. said...

David, as you know, Brady is really nothing more than a PR machine, and not even a good one. Back when I was the director at a small PR firm, I "got" to visit the office of one of the companies that used to work with Brady.

Basically, they are nothing more than flaks.

They are simply not good people, and they are not even sincere about violence reduction. Here in Oakland, they will come in to our communities, make all sorts of promises, do photo shoots, then just leave after they get their little PR "moment." They are reprehensible in their lack of sincerity.

They basically do this for money, and to prop up certain political candidates, for reasons having to do with things *other* than violence reduction.

The big irony is that they kind of help us now more than they hurt us. If not for Brady, there simply would not be as much fundraising on our end. In a way, their ignorance plays right into our hands. And the more they squawk, the more money we raise. I am not saying that our civil rights groups do this deliberately. What I am saying is that by being so stridently anti-gun, they drive people right into the civil rights movement that you and I are part of.

1NCCCH said...

The operative phrase in Miller was "not within judicial notice" which is legal-speak for "we are stupid and uninformed about the issue, therefore...." There was zero affirmative defense in Miller; no one informed the judges decision by relieving their claim to ignorance. The Supremes are, like most Americans, woefully ignorant about firearms in general and martial arms in specific, creating a burden for the defense to argue the facts and merits intelligently, something notably absent in Miller. In a likely unintentional way Miller actually affirms that weapons particularly suited to martial use are specifically protected by the 2d Amendment. If the defense had argued that short-barreled shotguns were in common military use (WWI trench broom, etc) the outcome for Miller may have been different. Join the Miller decision to the provision of weapons imperative in the Militia Act (now embodied in the Dick Act) and it seems to me the government should be supplying "assault weapons" not restricting them. (In my dreams!!) Regardless, MOLON LABE!