SAY IT TOGETHER NOW!
Posted on 06/12/2008 7:01:08 PM PDT by Dawnsblood
The nation's leading gun control group filed a "friend of the court" brief back in January defending the gun ban in Washington, D.C. But with the Supreme Court poised to hand down a potentially landmark decision in the case, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence fully expects to lose.
"We've lost the battle on what the Second Amendment means," campaign president Paul Helmke told ABC News. "Seventy-five percent of the public thinks it's an individual right. Why are we arguing a theory anymore? We are concerned about what we can do practically."
While the Brady Campaign is waving the white flag in the long-running debate on whether the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to bear arms or merely a state's right to assemble a militia, it is hoping that losing the "legal battle" will eventually lead to gun control advocates winning the "political war."
"We're expecting D.C. to lose the case," Helmke said. "But this could be good from the standpoint of the political-legislative side."
The D.C. ban prohibits residents from keeping handguns inside their homes and requires that lawfully registered guns, such as shotguns, be locked and unloaded when kept at home.
If the Supreme Court strikes down the D.C. gun ban, the Brady Campaign is hoping that it will reorient gun control groups around more limited measures that will be harder to cast as infringements of the Second Amendment.
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
“Seventy-five percent of the public thinks it’s an individual right.”.....
Hey jackass!...It is!
SAY IT TOGETHER NOW!
the Brady Campaign is hoping that it will reorient gun control groups around more limited measures that will be harder to cast as infringements of the Second Amendment.
Easier to HIDE as infringements they mean.
Good. Because we all know what total gun bans have led to in DC. Cordoned off neighborhoods, ID checks to go about your business, a police chief that wants “warrantless searches” and next will be travel papers.
“Papers, please!”
25% of the public must therefore be idiots. How much would you like to bet that those 25% are also Democrats?
Oh really? The Constitution only applies to ... um ... er... freakin' ENCLAVES?!?
I wish it was 100% of the people believed it is an individual right. Trust me when I say you do not want people using government to control you. I work in government and it is horribly populated with self-serving, narcissists who think they know what is best for you and they will use force to make sure you understand that.
JoMa
You can damn well bet that if ABC News was working on an article such as "NRA expects to win Supreme Court gun case" that ABC would have devoted plenty of column space to the gun-control-friendly counter argument.
Like banning ammo?
Yep, 100% of the second amendment agrees! ;-)
Admitedly DC has an unusual status...and given how well they have done with self government, taking it away would make a great deal of sense
“We’ve lost the battle on what the Second Amendment means”
No, you lost the battle to change what the Second Amendment means. ALL the amendments in the Bill of Rights are RIGHTS held by CITIZENS. That’s why its called... the Bill of Rights.
"The NRA [National Rifle Association] won't have this fear factor," Helmke said.
Yeah, we'll have this whole new "Let's finally crush them like the insects they are" attitude directed at the Brady Campaign. No mercy. Just keep shelling them until not one blade of grass is standing.
God willing, this will be the second time we've thrashed them in the US Supreme Court.
Note to the Bradyites: Please go to the most crime infested neighborhood in your urban area and stand on the corner shouting “I AM NOT ARMED, I AM DEFENSELESS”. Lets see how long this gives you a warm fuzzy feeling. While you are at it, put a big sign in your front yard or condo window saying the same thing before you head to the hood to shout your truth to the world.
Liberalism is a disorder so vast in mental scope that only for a right they despise, “the people” are not the same “the people” who have other rights the liberal approves of.
Liberalism is a disorder so vast in mental scope that only for this one right, only government has this “right” (lest whereas everywhere else in the Constitution, it has “powers”. I guess they are afraid that government will take the right away from itself, which is why government is forbidden doing so, except in the case of powers (but not rights) mentioned in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.
Liberalism is a disorder so vast in mental scope that a clearly worded directive that some right “shall not be infringed” is thought to state the exact opposite.
((((ping))))
STUCK ON STUPID
Hey Dennis! Remember that Militia clause you tried to make into the operative phrase of the Amendment? Remember how you've tried for years to make the text sound like: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."? Well, guess what... If the Supremes rule the way you think they will, that clause doesn't go away! "Self-defense in the home" isn't the be-all-end-all of the Amendment. Militia arms, like those "super dangerous assault weapons" you wet yourself over, would still be Constitutionally protected. You won't get to ban them!
“’Seventy-five percent of the public thinks it’s an individual right.’.....”
Well, 100% of the Founders believed it to be an individual right. That’s kind of why they had the amendment say “the right of THE PEOPLE....”
“...and they will use force to make sure you understand that.”
Well then, let’s have at it. It’s coming to that, anyway.
The anti’s will go into overdrive to push “reasonable restrictions.” When you add up numerous individual laws that are not clear infringements, their totality is worse than any single infringement.
I wish it was that easy. Remember though, they forcefully take your money through taxation, they make rules to hire only those people into the police force who will follow their will, and they send those people out to get you and not go themselves. They will then shield themselves from responsibility by blaming the person they sent out to get you, should anything “out of ordinary” happen (i.e. you fighting back.) Then the media will mark you as a mad man who attacked the “righteous” police, regardless of the reason the police came to get you. Remember what those in power did in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.
http://www.nraila.org/multimedia/mmplayer_set.aspx?ID=105
JoMa
I wish it was that easy. Remember though, they forcefully take your money through taxation, they make rules to hire only those people into the police force who will follow their will, and they send those people out to get you and not go themselves. They will then shield themselves from responsibility by blaming the person they sent out to get you, should anything “out of ordinary” happen (i.e. you fighting back.) Then the media will mark you as a mad man who attacked the “righteous” police, regardless of the reason the police came to get you. Remember what those in power did in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.
http://www.nraila.org/multimedia/mmplayer_set.aspx?ID=105
JoMa
Then why don’t they just leap off a bridge and get it over with?
Bump and ping
English lesson for today:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State ... “ Even though this is the first part of the sentence, it is what we used to call a “subordinate clause” when it was taught in high schools the early 1960s. There are other things necessary to the security of a free State; they’re just not mentioned in the amendment.
The important part of the sentence is:
“ ... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Questions? Anyone? Anyone?
Compare the construction of the Second Amendment with that of the copyright clause (I.8). The Court has held that the first part of that clause does not limit the second, despite the way it's written. How is the 'militia' language more of a limitation on the right to keep and bear arms, than the 'to promote progress in science and the useful arts' language in the copyright power?
Thats the left for you...it's always about their ORIENTATION....!
heh heh... nice to see them running scared :)
“We’re expecting D.C. to lose the case,” Helmke said. “But this could be good from the standpoint of the political-legislative side.”
Unless you have the public opinion and legislative power to repeal the Second Amendment: You’re grasping at straws, buddy! (talking to the Brady wonk).
And attempting to repeal a right NOT GRANTED by the Constitution, but, as recognized by the founders, PREDATING IT, would effectively NULLIFY the whole contract We, the People, entered into when we gave government certain LIMITED authority to do a few, well-defined things in our names and on our behalf. What GOVERNMENT gives, it can take away... but what the Constitution did was remind government of our PREEXISTING rights, granted us by our God, NOT by government.
But don’t you just love the way Dennis the Menace wants to now completely ignore the militia clause? IIRC, not 12 months ago, he was one of the last Antis who saw nothing but the word “militia” when looking at the text. Now he’s imagining the text to hold some limitation to only those small arms that are useful within a distance of 5 meters. Last year, it was “the militia amendment”; now it’s “the mousegun amendment”.
You're being a little bit simplistic. Some of the biggest gun grabbers in history have been Republicans. Being anti-freedom has very little to do with political party and everything to do with simple fear at least at the street level. In the stratospheric levels of Congress it boils down to elitist power mongering. At the bottom levels (where we reside) it's even more basic.
The choice is stark: Are you sheep or are you SHEEPDOG? I think that once you read the essay, you'll agree that by their nature most freepers are indeed sheepdogs. I'm proud to say so, in fact. Yet I am careful to make note of the fact that being a Sheepdog does not in fact, make me "better" than the sheep. It's my lot in life to care for myself, my family and all of those little sheep when they are confronted by the wolf in my presence. I do not shirk that duty, no matter how much the sheep may wish that I would. But Congress? That is an entirely different threat. That has nothing to do with sheepdog v. wolf. That is all about sheepdog v. Big Brother.
A good reporter would ask Paul Helmke at one of these press love fests if he owns any guns. And if so, what kind, model and make.....
I would love to know the answer to this question...
Helmke and his entire organization need to be in a Federal pen somewhere.
I am a bear. Do not poke me with a stick or yap at my heals or I WILL eat you.
What a terrible disapointment for the left. 40 years of dumbing down public schools, and people still understand the what those dead white guys meant.
The headline is misleading. First it isn't a sure thing that the court that found terrorists have citizens' constitutional rights will find in favor of gun owners, but more importantly what have the anti-gunners lost? Are any of their freedoms going away? Nope. The only thing that the "might" have lost is the ability to inflict their evil and perverted view of society on others. The risks are all to the gun owning side.
This is an asymetric conflict where there is no risk at all to the anti-gun side, but a real risk to those of us who cherish freedom. Look at the NY filth Bloomturd. Lost a court case, but it was no skin off his nose. The taxpayers paid for the whole thing. And so it is aleays for the anti-gunners. The only investment thay have is emotional - the disappointment in not raping away other peoples' rights. Kind of the same feeling that a thief gets when he can't break down your door.
Until there are consequences for taking an anti-gun psoition either financial or second amendment. The anti-gunners can continue their attacks as long as they have the time and as long as they continue to live.
I’m hoping that with Kennedy’s schizophrenic break on foreign terrorists Rights, that his bi-polarity has flipped for the Heller/Parker decision.
So they write the article as a percevied "loss" for gun control. Idiot Journalists.
A more accurate title for reporting would be "Landmark Victory for Liberty Approaching"
We’ll know soon since June is half over, but I’m not looking for anything good.
My big worry is that they rule “individual Right, but bloody well infringable” that makes an even worse mess of things.
That's kind of what I'm expecting.
If they fail to do even that much, then game on.
I caught that, too. If the Supreme Court rules the way they ought to, which I think they will, they will rule that not only is the RKBA an individual right and that right exists independently of active militia participation, they will also read the law and see that ALL adults are members of the militia and as a member of the militia, the ownership of military style weapons is also protected under the 2A.
Because “men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights?”
Looks like the left may lose their 40-year fight to gut the 2nd.
M-134D mounted in the bed of my truck. I’ve got the cash, I just need government out of the way.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.