5 ms·

Thanks for the reply. The Heller case does seems pertinent, though I'm unable to find concrete information on JF funding the Heller case beyond the conservative

by lukifer 14y ago

Thanks for the reply. The Heller case does seems pertinent, though I'm unable to find concrete information on JF funding the Heller case beyond the conservative blogosphere. > now we have his actions as a President to judge Again, so far these actions are nothing more than mainstream liberal boilerplate about background checks, "assault rifles", "cop-killer bullets", etc. While this could be the first salvo in an attempt to undo the 2nd Amendment entirely, it doesn't meet my burden of proof. It feels up there with Naomi Wolf's "You just wait, Cheney's gonna declare martial law any day now!" in 2007.

hga 14y ago
Errr, perhaps you missed his call yesterday to ban "assault weapons" and "high" (really, standard) capacity magazines? You may consider these to be "mainstream liberal boilerplate"; where I come from, they're "fighting words", and we'll see if we can send any Democrats and Republicans who support him back home to spend more time with their families in 2015. There are also serious implications to his claim of executive privilege in the DoJ's denying the Congress documents on Fast and Furious. Either that operation reached into his staff, or the claim is bogus. Your statement that starts with "While this could be the first salvo in an attempt to undo the 2nd Amendment entirely..." is irrelevant about my defense of my assertion that he's a "gun grabber". Although one should note how every time something does get passed, it's described by "gun grabbers" as a good first step..... ADDED: The massive funding wasn't of the Heller case per se. It was of legal "research" to support a future case like it, they weren't willing to bet the Supremes would keep dodging the issue like they have since the manufactured Miller case in 1939.
- lukifer 14y ago
  Yes, assault weapons and magazines are what I was referring to. I understand the objections, and I sympathize; I don't really have a horse in this race either way (I'm keenly aware that if so inclined, The State will happily squash me like a bug, whether or not I own a fully auto AK-47 that fires armor-piercing bullets). My point is that there is clearly a policy distinction between what liberals are calling "common sense protections", and legislation to _proactively take every gun from every gun owner_. There is a spectrum of opinion wider than [x] gun-grabber [ ] non-gun-grabber, and I don't believe any opinions should be dismissed a priori. There are real arguments to be made in favor of gun regulation, even if those arguments are wrong; holding such opinions does not necessarily mean one is secretly in favor of repealing all gun rights.

by lukifer 14y ago

hga 14y ago

Errr, perhaps you missed his call yesterday to ban "assault weapons" and "high" (really, standard) capacity magazines? You may consider these to be "mainstream liberal boilerplate"; where I come from, they're "fighting words", and we'll see if we can send any Democrats and Republicans who support him back home to spend more time with their families in 2015. There are also serious implications to his claim of executive privilege in the DoJ's denying the Congress documents on Fast and Furious. Either that operation reached into his staff, or the claim is bogus. Your statement that starts with "While this could be the first salvo in an attempt to undo the 2nd Amendment entirely..." is irrelevant about my defense of my assertion that he's a "gun grabber". Although one should note how every time something does get passed, it's described by "gun grabbers" as a good first step..... ADDED: The massive funding wasn't of the Heller case per se. It was of legal "research" to support a future case like it, they weren't willing to bet the Supremes would keep dodging the issue like they have since the manufactured Miller case in 1939.

lukifer 14y ago
Yes, assault weapons and magazines are what I was referring to. I understand the objections, and I sympathize; I don't really have a horse in this race either way (I'm keenly aware that if so inclined, The State will happily squash me like a bug, whether or not I own a fully auto AK-47 that fires armor-piercing bullets). My point is that there is clearly a policy distinction between what liberals are calling "common sense protections", and legislation to _proactively take every gun from every gun owner_. There is a spectrum of opinion wider than [x] gun-grabber [ ] non-gun-grabber, and I don't believe any opinions should be dismissed a priori. There are real arguments to be made in favor of gun regulation, even if those arguments are wrong; holding such opinions does not necessarily mean one is secretly in favor of repealing all gun rights.