Tennessee Gentleman
New member
Antipitas said:
Oh good lord!
Henigan claims Heller created the second amendment
- Thread starter maestro pistolero
- Start date
Oh good lord!
Except that nobody's really listening to them anymore. They were a huge threat at one point. They were able to dictate government policy in the 1990's. Now, they can't even get a lawyer to assemble a decent court brief for them, and their satellite organizations are closing due to lack of funding. Starbucks won't even give them the time of day.
So, let 'em shout all they want. Philosophically, they're adrift in the Withywindle without a paddle.
They are a thing of the past. It was an amazing run for them though. They almost seemed like they were going to win for a decade or so.
They did get four Justices to agree with them in Heller.
So, they did have an amazing run considering the obvious history of the individual right to firearms ownership.
Now, they will most likely go the way of the dodo bird IMHO.
I couldn't be happier about that!!
maestro pistolero
New member
And without the life that the second amendment protects, all other rights are null and void.
Don't ever count them out - they will never give up - even if the Brady Campaign or Soros or Bloomberg or Peters gave up or quit - there will always be the next individual or group ready to step up to the plate - in a way it is not even so much just guns as it is control. There are always people who think they know what is best for everyone and they are always willing to try to use organized and institutional force to make everyone else do what they believe is right or for the ultimate good.
In fact many individuals who are pro-liberty when it comes to the RKBA are pro-control when it comes to many other issues. There is a good quote by Tolkien's friend C.S. Lewis:
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
So, the forces of gun control will wax and wane - but they will never cease - remember Heller was 5 to 4 - one liberal in place of 73 or 74 year old Scalia or Kennedy and it would suddenly be a different judicial world for the second amendment and therefore for all sorts of possible new gun control legislation or executive orders.
We haven't won much of anything yet in the grand scheme of things - we won a huge victory in Heller and hopefully McDonald next, but the battle to define the scope of the second amendment is just begun and our liberties are in many ways still more constricted than past generations.
The gun controllers aren't dumb - they know they have lost Heller and McDonald so they are already on to the next battle - laying the public propaganda to justify restricting the scope of the second and waiting for a liberal court to start doing so. Even if they can't get Heller or McDonald (if it goes our way) reversed (and with enough of a liberal majority on the court they might) they can still effectively gut the RKBA through the reasonable restrictions of a liberal court defining and limiting the scope of the RKBA.
In fact many individuals who are pro-liberty when it comes to the RKBA are pro-control when it comes to many other issues. There is a good quote by Tolkien's friend C.S. Lewis:
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
So, the forces of gun control will wax and wane - but they will never cease - remember Heller was 5 to 4 - one liberal in place of 73 or 74 year old Scalia or Kennedy and it would suddenly be a different judicial world for the second amendment and therefore for all sorts of possible new gun control legislation or executive orders.
We haven't won much of anything yet in the grand scheme of things - we won a huge victory in Heller and hopefully McDonald next, but the battle to define the scope of the second amendment is just begun and our liberties are in many ways still more constricted than past generations.
The gun controllers aren't dumb - they know they have lost Heller and McDonald so they are already on to the next battle - laying the public propaganda to justify restricting the scope of the second and waiting for a liberal court to start doing so. Even if they can't get Heller or McDonald (if it goes our way) reversed (and with enough of a liberal majority on the court they might) they can still effectively gut the RKBA through the reasonable restrictions of a liberal court defining and limiting the scope of the RKBA.
Nope. Four Justices decided as they were pre-inclined to do. The Brady Campaign took credit for that. There's no causality, however.
If there was, they could have killed carry in national parks and Amtrak. They'd have saved the ban on guns in public housing. They've got the administration they want, and they still can't get anything done.
I wonder if keeping them around might be a good idea. A group that knows the right things to say to the right people in the middle would be far more dangerous.
Good point Tom. They might have very well been pre-inclined to rule against Heller. As well as three of them possibly being pre-inclined to rule against McDonald.
Maybe I should have said they agree with the Brady anti-gun philosophy in terms of the 2nd Amendment affording a collective right only.
Mack: Yes the anti-gunners will never stop, however, if we win McDonald, don't you believe, that as more and more people gain the right to own firearms for self-defense purposes, that this will push them out of the mainstream more and more...........until they eventually become akin to the dodo bird?
Maybe I should have said they agree with the Brady anti-gun philosophy in terms of the 2nd Amendment affording a collective right only.
Mack: Yes the anti-gunners will never stop, however, if we win McDonald, don't you believe, that as more and more people gain the right to own firearms for self-defense purposes, that this will push them out of the mainstream more and more...........until they eventually become akin to the dodo bird?
The anti gunners have lost two of their biggest arguments.
1. The second amendment only confers a right to keep and bear arms for those citizens who are members of the national guard.
They lost this one in Heller and the exclamation point to their loss is about to be added in McDonald.
2. More guns will necessarily result in more crime.
Gun purchases continue to increase while violent crime continues to decrease. They will find it tough to convince all but the most fervent gun controllers that more guns will necessarily lead to more crime.
One other area they are also losing on is the need for a national gun registry. Our neighbors to the north provide ample evidence that this would be extremely costly and ineffective in reducing crime rates.
Thus, they are either at or approaching the point of "3 strikes and you're out".
1. The second amendment only confers a right to keep and bear arms for those citizens who are members of the national guard.
They lost this one in Heller and the exclamation point to their loss is about to be added in McDonald.
2. More guns will necessarily result in more crime.
Gun purchases continue to increase while violent crime continues to decrease. They will find it tough to convince all but the most fervent gun controllers that more guns will necessarily lead to more crime.
One other area they are also losing on is the need for a national gun registry. Our neighbors to the north provide ample evidence that this would be extremely costly and ineffective in reducing crime rates.
Thus, they are either at or approaching the point of "3 strikes and you're out".
Tennessee Gentleman
New member
Yes they have and with each decision that goes our way in the courts it will make it harder to reverse those decisions by a later liberal court. Need to get CCW in there soon though.
maestro pistolero
New member
Agreed. Or OC, but just as CCW was frowned upon and seen as underhanded in society 200 years ago, open carry is seen as rude, at best, in modern society. So, yeah, CCW, but I would hate to see an expansion of the Texas model where, if your shirt blows open once, and someone sees it, you get taken to the hoosegow.
Maestro Pistolero:
What we need to implement is a $25.00 fine for the knot heads who report law abiding citizens seen carrying a firearm in public to the police, even though the carrier is not doing anything threatening. I'm getting awfully tired of the sheep who are scared poopless by the mere sight of a gun, unless someone in uniform is carrying it. Some of the same people who would think nothing of a private security guard openly carrying a handgun in public because he is in uniform, will call the cops the minute they see a non uniformed citizen openly carrying a handgun, even if that citizen is doing nothing but minding his own business.
What we need to implement is a $25.00 fine for the knot heads who report law abiding citizens seen carrying a firearm in public to the police, even though the carrier is not doing anything threatening. I'm getting awfully tired of the sheep who are scared poopless by the mere sight of a gun, unless someone in uniform is carrying it. Some of the same people who would think nothing of a private security guard openly carrying a handgun in public because he is in uniform, will call the cops the minute they see a non uniformed citizen openly carrying a handgun, even if that citizen is doing nothing but minding his own business.
I agree. The more court victories we can chalk up, the tougher it will be for the liberals to reverse course, either legislatively, or via the courts. CCW will be a big one. You are correct, we need to get it done soon. I think the American people are ready to accept it, even if the anti gunners aren't. Isn't it funny that a significant majority of the American people are screaming, "Do not pass this Obama care health bill", and the liberals plug their ears and say "We're going to pass this thing come heck or high water". Then, for a political issue where the American people would likely be in majority agreement, CCW, the liberals won't even discuss bringing it up in a bill. Politics. I get it, but that doesn't mean I like it.
Please don't take offense, but couching it in those terms is exactly why some people are leery of the gun culture.
Too many people in our camp are very quick to fume and castigate when someone questions the wisdom, legality or practicality of what we do. Perhaps that energy would be better spent changing hearts and minds than reacting with vitriol.
The idea of punishing people who act out of ignorance isn't the way to do that. It's harder, but more rewarding in the long run, to take the time to convince the skeptics.
Doc Intrepid
New member
+1mack59 said:
I am convinced that this is so. IMHO anti-gun organizations include many for whom 'gun ownership' is no longer the issue, per se. In fact, they themselves may even own a gun for their personal protection, for those impending 2012 "TEOTWAWKI" scenarios...
Instead, they have gotten caught up in the political warfare that accompanies the issue, the drama and breathless rhetoric, the entire zero sum game perspective where the slightest gain on the part of the other side is an unacceptable loss for their own.
I believe they are motivated by an intense desire to win at all costs - to control "how things shall be", and are genuinely convinced that a magical absence of legal firearms ownership would lead to an drastic reduction of crime - despite brutal evidence to the contrary in both cases. "Guns" per se have taken a back seat to this desperate need to control their environment, to enforce their personal utopian dreams on the rest of society.
I wonder to what extent it may be true that "anti-gunners" are simply individuals who have not yet been victims of violent crimes? I doubt that their skepticism will be overcome by any less compelling argument...
maestro pistolero
New member
As more and more people get a taste of 2A freedom they are not going to want to let it go. Those of you who have had CCWs for awhile, could you imagine giving them up easily?
I hear you Tom but I just cannot do that any longer.
It's been too long and too irrational a fight waged by the anti-gunners for me to placate them any longer. I just don't have the patience to argue with them or try and convince them their beliefs are incorrect.
The younger guys and gals will have to pick up the torch in this regard. I just can't do it any longer.
That said, as I and Maestro have been saying, when McDonald is decided, and hopefully goes our way, people who could not own firearms will now be able to. This will, perhaps, be the final "nail in the coffin" for the serious anti-gun movement?
Once a right is acknowledged and "practiced", it is very hard for people to give that right up IMHO.
I think to many of us, you have hit the nail on the head Doc (and Mack).
And this is why I just don't have the patience to argue with their irrational position any longer. I'm just plain getting too old and worn out to do so.
But how many hard-core anti-gunners are left at this point, and how much influence do they really have? Trust me, folks have been quietly defecting from their camp for quite some time.
This was the point of my earlier posts in this thread. Fifteen years ago, I was terrified of the Brady Campaign. When that guy ran his plane into the IRS building a few weeks back, I immediately had flashbacks to Oklahoma city, and I was on pins and needles expecting the the media to blame us somehow (they did back then).
And yet, nothing. Same with the Seattle Jewish center shooting and the one in Birmingham.
Nobody shows pictures of Klan rallies and neo-Nazi militia drills when they talk of guns on the evening news anymore. I haven't seen or heard of Henigan, Brady or Sugarmann on any major outlet in years.
Public opinion has changed in our favor drastically over the last decade. The stakes aren't as high as they were back then, and our mission has become more subtle. We need to be changing the hearts and minds of those in the middle.
Don't bother with the moonbats; they won't be convinced by any means. The folks we need to win over are the ones who aren't involved in the issue but don't oppose it, either. That leaves (at a guess) 80% of this country.
Those are people who may not have had a problem with the Assault Weapons Ban as it was advertised, but who would have definitely opposed it had they known the truth. These are the folks you don't see protesting Starbucks (for either side) in front of the news cameras. These are the folks who never get involved one way or another.
But they spend money, and the vote.
The good news is that they're somewhat sympathetic towards the 2nd Amendment. The bad news? That can change if we spook them by screaming confrontational slogans our acting like we're on some kind of holy crusade.
I know there are some folks, especially in the newest generation, who have a "what part of shall not be infringed" take-no-prisoners approach to the cause. It would be charming if it wasn't counterproductive. We can print all the catchy t-shirts and crow for the approval of each other all we want. It changes nothing.
Neither does picking fights with the anti-gunners who are left. They won't be convinced, and if those representing us can't show a little temperance, they might be able to turn a few folks away from us.
We have the facts. We are in the right. Calm voices win the day on this one.