Heller...Did we really win?
- Thread starter cold dead hands
- Start date
Which is why we must destroy them, completely eradicate them from the United States.
...You're probably wondering how that is possible. It is and we must. Steps to destroying the Brady Campaign:
1. Take away their tax exempt status. The rule of law is that they must be politically neutral, which you, I, they, and everyone know there's no way in hell they can claim they are. Tax them at 37%. They owe back taxes...which given the number of years and the amount should have them in jail for decades.
2. Get campus CCW passed. This will remove the breeding ground for the anti gun movement completely. Take back universities--tolerate no authority or faculty who promote hoplophobia. How? Simple--don't send a check to them or buy anything from them until they comply.
3. Identify businesses and individuals that contribute to the Bradys, LCAV, Joyce, etc. and ostracize them. Do not buy from them and do not sell to them. Period. No burgers, no office equipment, no dry cleaners, no drinks at the bar, no hotel rooms, NOTHING. Reject them from social clubs.
4. Sue them for defamation. Every day we are categorized with gang members, terrorists, psychopaths, delinquents, degenerates, and all manner of other unsavory categories. This impacts how society treats us. You could be turned down for or kicked out of a job. You could be and often are mistreated by cops. You can be excluded from businesses or treated on a discriminatory basis by them. Your family can be harassed or excluded from service or even education. This is the direct result of the Bradys' doing, and similar treatment for any other classification of person this treatment is not only not tolerated, it is punished by tort law, on occasion severely.
5. Implicate them as accomplices for any wrongful deaths in areas where their policies are in place due to their actions. Places like Chicago, DC, SF, LA, and so on have laws restricting or prohibiting self defense and those policies were directly brought about by suggestion, consultation, lobbying, and PR from the anti gun groups. As a result, those disarmed were led to their deaths. That is sufficient culpability for thousands of cases, and it is irrefutable.
If we do these things without hesitation or mercy there won't be a gun control advocate left nor a dime in their pockets for decades. We only piddle around nickle and diming while we toy with disagreeing with them and making their points lose at the ballot box while they play for keeps. We must chop the head off the snake instead of trying to peel off its scales one by one. We cannot win by continually being one vote away from being slaves.
People are still being harassed in New York airports while traveling with their handguns in compliance with federal aviation regulations with the New York cops acting like they're doing you a big favor by merely stealing your handgun and not arresting you, and you're making facetious comments like this?
Last edited:
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
My comment was to point out the fallacy of the doom and gloom hysteria of many. If it is not an absolute win, I'm moving to mountains and living off the land.
If you want to be that way - good for you.
The depressive gun nut never sees progress.
The Shall-Issue permit was a step back as we didn't need them because of a pure view of the 2nd - thus having the permits is a step back - blah, blah.
If African-Americans had the same view after Brown vs. the Board of Education - they would have given up on regaining the civil rights that they should have had.
Thus, let me abandon sarcasm and say, MVPEL, that you can stew in defeatish juices because the world isn't perfect yet or you can take a realistic look at changing your cognitive set and realize Heller is a good thing. Changing New York will take time. When I moved to TX, we didn't have a shall issue law - guess what we changed that even though the Absolutist GOA local branch was against it.
If you may recall, after Brown, it took Federal Troops and much time to change the racist polices of the South.
Then horrors - folks want the Supreme Court to overturn Heller. That's politics, friends. Roe. v. Wade - the SCOTUS must overturn that - a mantra of the right. So what - folks have argued that even a more conservative court won't overturn a precedent of many years. So if Heller exists for a bit and more suits - as in Chicago and SF - strengthen this view of the 2nd. - that will be a good thing.
So live on mountain and wait for the UN armored vehicles and the heliocopters. Or get real.
If you want to be that way - good for you.
The depressive gun nut never sees progress.
The Shall-Issue permit was a step back as we didn't need them because of a pure view of the 2nd - thus having the permits is a step back - blah, blah.
If African-Americans had the same view after Brown vs. the Board of Education - they would have given up on regaining the civil rights that they should have had.
Thus, let me abandon sarcasm and say, MVPEL, that you can stew in defeatish juices because the world isn't perfect yet or you can take a realistic look at changing your cognitive set and realize Heller is a good thing. Changing New York will take time. When I moved to TX, we didn't have a shall issue law - guess what we changed that even though the Absolutist GOA local branch was against it.
If you may recall, after Brown, it took Federal Troops and much time to change the racist polices of the South.
Then horrors - folks want the Supreme Court to overturn Heller. That's politics, friends. Roe. v. Wade - the SCOTUS must overturn that - a mantra of the right. So what - folks have argued that even a more conservative court won't overturn a precedent of many years. So if Heller exists for a bit and more suits - as in Chicago and SF - strengthen this view of the 2nd. - that will be a good thing.
So live on mountain and wait for the UN armored vehicles and the heliocopters. Or get real.
MeekAndMild
New member
No, we just won back a small bit of turf which we'd lost when the radical left made up their new definition of the 2A a couple of decades ago. (First time I heard about the left's use of consensus to create falsehood was when I read "None Dare Call it Treason" in the 60's. Then I read a detailed elaboration on this particular lie in the mid 90's when I thumbed through Caroline Kennedy's book on the BOR.)
Frank Ettin
Administrator
Ultimately, it will be something that a court will have to decide on a case-by-case basis. There are several judicially established standards that must be satisfied by any purported regulation of a Constitutionally protected right. Any dispute as to whether a particular regulation has satisfied applicable standards will need to be resolved by litigation.cold dead hands said:
Rich Miranda
New member
Maybe this familiar phrase will throw some light on this:
'beyond a reasonable doubt'
Sometimes we don't need an exact definition for every word. I believe 'reasonable' is one of them. As Fiddletown correctly stated above, 'reasonable' will be defined through litigation in the years to come.
It seems that Heller won the battle, but the city won the war.
No, not yet. The war is far from over.
restrictions, even onerous ones are something that can be "adjusted" by political clout. Just look at the number of states that have become "shall issue" CCW permits in recent years. It isn't easy, and it takes time, but as long as a complete prohibition is against the law (and that is what Heller says), we have hope for eventual success.
No, not yet. The war is far from over.
restrictions, even onerous ones are something that can be "adjusted" by political clout. Just look at the number of states that have become "shall issue" CCW permits in recent years. It isn't easy, and it takes time, but as long as a complete prohibition is against the law (and that is what Heller says), we have hope for eventual success.
As I've said elsewhere, I think this was a great victory, but also runs the risk of arousing a great deal of opposition. To my mind, the real battle is going to be the next case that deals with incorporation.
If the Second Amendment is incorporated, then I'll really celebrate!
If the Second Amendment is not incorporated, states like California and others are going to get a clear statement that the Second Amendment (regardless of its meaning) is no limitation on their regulation. A day I would not celebrate.
For now, I'll happily celebrate Independence Day and hope for the best.
If the Second Amendment is incorporated, then I'll really celebrate!
If the Second Amendment is not incorporated, states like California and others are going to get a clear statement that the Second Amendment (regardless of its meaning) is no limitation on their regulation. A day I would not celebrate.
For now, I'll happily celebrate Independence Day and hope for the best.
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
Another point to remember is determining "reasonable" regulation is that we now have Supreme Court precedent saying that while the standard of scrutiny isn't decided, it cannot be anything LESS than that given to other ENUMERATED, FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS.
That may not be strict scrutiny; but it will be a tough standard to beat. Using that standard, reasonable restrictions on guns should be similar to reasonable restrictions on free speech and free excercise of religion. In reality, it won't be that strict because the Supreme Court will use the deadly nature of firearms to justify applying a lower standard; but those words will still be nice to have in the future - assuming we have Justices with the intellectual honesty to apply them.
That may not be strict scrutiny; but it will be a tough standard to beat. Using that standard, reasonable restrictions on guns should be similar to reasonable restrictions on free speech and free excercise of religion. In reality, it won't be that strict because the Supreme Court will use the deadly nature of firearms to justify applying a lower standard; but those words will still be nice to have in the future - assuming we have Justices with the intellectual honesty to apply them.