Defending gun rights and the 2nd Amendment is perfectly OK. Defending the NRA is NOT. To wit:

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2011/05/nra-drops-king-spalding-as-clement-fallout-continues.html

I rest my case.

[Drale]

1. The NRA defends insanity

not rights.

[villager]

2. NRA is a far-right front group. Some maintain denial about that, however...

n/t

[damntexdem]

3. A lot of "defense" of the 2nd Amendment is pure bullshit.

Most of that NRA bullshit.

[hlthe2b]

4. Nice to see a little more skepticism & less overt reverence for NRA

here...

An enormous paradox--how a forum dedicated to PROGRESSIVE 2nd Amendment advocates, could seemingly so fully embrace a group that works against their broader interests at every turn-- to the express benefit of the far RW... :shrug:

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

6. I'm happy to say I'm pleasantly surprised too.

Then again, the last few days haven't been too kind to the American right wing. Maybe they all fled to Canada. :evilgrin:

[iverglas]

8. hahaha

I hadn't anticipated that unintended consequence.

Right-wing "refugees" from the US clamouring for residence in Canada after yesterday.

Aargh.

[gejohnston]

38. Until Wayne and Ted took over, NRA was not as nuts

That said, they are the only game in town, so progressive gun rights advocates are stuck with them. Kind of like Bernie Sanders and Ron Paul joining together to audit the Fed. That does not damage my admiration of Sen Sanders.
Most gun buffs are Dems, but don't know it yet. They just bought into the wedge issue BS. What I like to see is either the NRA membership push them out or set up more shooting liberally events/chapter.

[iverglas]

54. "progressive gun rights advocates are stuck with them"

What an apparently sad lot they are, and how sad their apparent lot ...

If my "single-issue" organization was composed of right-wing bigots and loons, and worked single-mindedly to defeat a party, the party I support and vote for because that party has worked tirelessly for decades for the rights of women and workers and visible minorities and the GLBT community ... well, I'd be getting my head examined to find out which bit of grey matter was misfiring on that single issue, but in the meantime I'd be walking away from the organization. Because I am just not such a big glob of self-centred self-interest that I would ever sell out the disadvantaged and vulnerable groups and individuals that my party works for.

If there are so many "progressives" who take this position on that issue, what exactly is stopping them from forming their own single-issue organization???

For cripes' sake, wouldn't a big bunch of tolerant, pluralist, inclusive individuals pushing for their cause have a whole lot better chance of persuading their tolerant, pluralist, inclusive counterparts of its merits than this band of right-wing bigots and loons has?

[gejohnston]

79. kind of over simplistic

to say the least. Loose four points. So is the NFA also a bunch of "loons"? Why are there no liberals heading or founding any of the anti gun lobby? All GOP all the time including Helmke. The phrases divide and conquer or play both sides against the middle come to mind. This historian has a more interesting view

http://www.saf.org/journal/12/Wortman.pdf

[iverglas]

81. uh, yeah

So is the NFA also a bunch of "loons"?

And bigots. Duh.

I'm not a "liberal", so no point in lobbing that at me.

[MineralMan]

5. The NRA leadership is a tool of the far right.

Nothing more. The NRA is a front organization and membership in it enables their regressive activities.

Shame on those who belong under the belief that the NRA is about the 2nd Amendment. The organization is not about that.

[tularetom]

13. Actually the NRA at one time was a good organization

Until they changed their purpose from educating and informing to preying on a group of easily frightened people who are afraid the government is going to take their guns and using that fear to advance the entire right wing agenda.

I still have copies of the American Rifleman from years ago and they are still relevant. I was given a life membership as a gift on my 17th birthday in 1958. It was about 30 years ago they started ranting about the government boogermen and it was 25 years ago that I had enough of it and told them to shove their life membership up their ass.

I still get membership solicitations from that Pierre LePew or whatever the hell his name is but they just get shit canned.

[Upton]

18. BS..

Tell that to Ted Strickland, Howard Dean, ..or any of the other Democrats the NRA has endorsed in the past.

The NRA is a single issue organization....

Any Democratic candidate who expresses unwavering support for the 2nd Amendment is treated positively..

[Logical]

20. Upton, I usually respect your opinion but.....

look at the speakers at ANY NRA convention. They feed the extreme right. No other purpose.

No dem I know could stand to sit in the keynote address and listen to Palin or Gingrich and not walk out.

They know the GOP scares easily and cooperates easily with their leadership without asking questions.

The bashing at this years convention of Obama should be proof to you. They lied about Obama and you know that Obama has not been a big threat to gun ownership like we were warned in 2008.

The NRA currently is a extreme right wing organization. Maybe in 30 years it will be different.

[Upton]

21. We've been through all this before..

So I'll just reiterate what I've said in the past. The NRA can to be changed from within. The Democratic party needs to embrace the 2nd Amendment. Not only will that alter the NRA's thinking, but more importantly it will take away a major Republican talking point that has been used to defeat Democrats across the country..

Sure the NRA is mostly GOP oriented right now..but what do you expect when we have Democrats cozying up to organizations like the the VPC or Brady campaign? If you don't see groups like that as a threat to your 2nd Amendment rights, then you must be blind..

The NRA represents my views on their one issue...the 2nd Amendment..everything else I ignore.

[iverglas]

26. outlaw abortion

That will take a good half of the Republicans' vote away from them, I'd say.

Or hey, just say you're going to, or just introduce some more legislation aimed at incrementally making the right incapable of exercise. A whole lot easier and cheaper than trying to satisfy the NRA, I'd think.

And after all, what other party are Democratic Party voters going to vote for when their party is taken away from them, eh?

[beevul]

32. More of that "good faith" eh?

"And after all, what other party are Democratic Party voters going to vote for when their party is taken away from them, eh?"

Yes, Democratic party. Not "antigun" party.

The parallel fails.

[Logical]

28. I am just like you, except I have no respect for anything about them. n-t

[beevul]

22. Jason Altmire, D-Pa.

"No dem I know could stand to sit in the keynote address and listen to Palin or Gingrich and not walk out."

I guess you know one now.

[iverglas]

25. yes ...

... and ... ?

The conclusion is (as I've already figured out for myself in another thread) that this Altmire person is right-wing scum?

[Logical]

29. Good, I'll add him to my idiot dem list. n-t

[sharesunited]

7. The 2nd Amendment is as obsolete as the 3/5ths compromise.

Way past time to evolve beyond such an anachronism.

[Upton]

16. Are there any other civil liberties you would deem "obsolete"??

Maybe you'd like to just "evolve beyond" the entire Bill of Rights..

[sharesunited]

24. Just the one which puts all our actual rights at risk of termination with extreme prejudice.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

47. Clearly false hyperbole, but then again, you knew that

[iverglas]

27. yeah, that whole owning of persons thing

That was a civil right -- a right belonging to the members of the polity in US states.

Bizarrely, it was deemed obsolete. Unfathomable, eh?

Okay, now I go get a coffee and wait for somebody to squawk that I've just said enslavement and guns are the same thing.

:rofl:

What burning bush did you find your constitution in, btw?

[RSillsbee]

30. AARGH !

Iverglas just said enslavement and guns are the same thing. (happy now?)

I'm not sure slavery was ever considered a civil right but i'd be happy to hear why you think so

[iverglas]

36. civil rights

are rights that belong to someone in their capacity as a member of a particular organized group. They are not at all the same thing as human / fundamental rights.

Voting in elections is a civil right. The right to life is a human / fundamental right.

If I am in the US as a visitor from Canada, my right to life is recognized there. You can't shoot me dead with impunity. However, I may not vote in a US election just because I happen to be there when it happens.

From Civil Rights to Human Rights - Martin Luther King, Jr., and the Struggle for Economic Justice

Not the best writing, but the basic idea:

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_difference_between_Civil_rights_and_human_rights

Human rights are basic, like the right be be alive...civil rights are laws created by society...for example... mass murdering of Jews in WW2 would be a human rights violation while sueing a company for labor law violations would be a civil rights issue.

A lot of writings, particularly US-centric ones, don't make that distinction, but they should.

Ah, some background to that for me:

http://www.icltd.org/anderson.htm

In the US, "Civil" rights are generally considered to include those rights guaranteed to the individual by the Amendments to the Federal Constitution, as interpreted and applied by domestic courts. "Human" rights on the other hand are sometimes referred to in the US as the product of international (i.e., foreign), as opposed to domestic consensus.

This distinction in the US historically lies at the root of certain important political approaches to the concept of "international" human rights and their relation to "domestic" civil rights. For example in the Congressional debates of the McCarthy era, the terms "civil" rights and "human" rights were often pitted against each other like metaphorical fighting cocks. ...

Again not excellently written, but an interesting read.


So, if a polity (a society organized politically) gives its recognized members (which African-Americans were not) the right to own people, that right of ownership is a civil right. Ironic, eh?

[RSillsbee]

41. Thanks NT

[rl6214]

44. No sqwacking, you just stay north of the border

[Tuesday Afternoon]

85. +1

[iverglas]

86. just imagine

if someone here were to tell a Texan to stay south of the state border.

Tsk. We'd hear some "sqwacking" then, methinks.

'Sokay. I haven't been south of the border in 8 years this week, and that was out of necessity. No plans for return visits. Twenty years ago it could be kinda pleasant; not much these days.

Not that the exchange rate doesn't make it otherwise attractive.

1.00 CAD = 1.04253 USD

Telling tourists to stay away might not be the smartest thing to do in your present economy. ;)

[gejohnston]

40. Better idea

Dismantle the empire and reorganize the army as Jefferson wanted, kind of based on Switzerland.

[DWC]

9. What is the point?

1. A law firm decided to drop a client.
2. On that basis, a different client dropped the law firm.
3. Who cares?

Semper Fi,

[jpak]

12. They hate gays - part of the RW god, guts and guts moran trifecta

yup

[jpak]

10. NRA = RW Douchebaggers

yup

[RSillsbee]

11. Actually, no

you rest someone else's case. You have done nothing to present or defend your case

ETA After having read the article it appears that the NRA dumped King and Spaulding because (regardless of the case in question) they dumped a client in the middle of a trial.

If you can somehow defend that action have at it

[TPaine7]

14. Why would you bring up something that doesn't support the OP?

Things were going so well...

[DonP]

17. The NRA isn't the first to dump the firm either

The State of Virginia has also dropped them, as have several other smaller private firms.

Nobody wants to work with a law firm that may or may not drop you in the middle of a major case. The whole point of advocacy is to have representation that you can count on once they accept you as a client. If they think you are wrong, lying or have a case they can't agree with, that's the time to refuse the job, not after they have invested time and money in the firm. Nobody wants a law firm that succumbs to pressure, regardless of the source or how just the cause is, on another case not even related to your work. There's no way you could ever count on them again after that.

But I'd hate to get in the way of a good pointless rant and emotional self congratulatory circle jerk. Please carry on angry posters who can't seem to get a single concealed carry gun law repealed. Tell us more about how evil the NRA is while they continue to rack up victories in the States, House, Senate and Judicial system. Even Obama agrees with them on the individual rights issue now and has approved more pro gun laws then Bush ever did. It must be a difficult time to be a gun control supporter.

[GreenStormCloud]

65. Sorry, but Bush signed more pro-gun legislation.

Bush supported and signed the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. Obama voted against it.

Bush supported and signed a post-Katrina bill to outlaw gun confisction after a disaster. Obama voted for it.

As governor Bush signed a bill making Texas a shall-issue CCW state. Previously Texas had forbidden CC. Obama is against CC.

Obama has signed a credit card reform bill that had a pro-gun rider. He has not signed any legislation that was primarily about guns.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

34. How can the NRA Expect Anyone to Defend the 2nd Amendment

...when they refuse to defend the Equal Protection Clause for gays and marriage?

[RSillsbee]

42. How many different ways can we say

Single issue orginization?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

50. OMG, people ARE buying their bullshit excuse.

Wow.

[RSillsbee]

53. I can't speak for "People"

but I'm buying it because I'd do the same damn thing

There's an old saying "If they'll cheat with you they'll cheat on you same prinicple applies. If they'll walk out on one client in the middle of a trial they'll do it to you.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

57. ...

[lawodevolution]

15. The NRA represents the politics of its members. I am a member of many pro gun groups including NRA

if you want them to be more center, perhaps gun owning democrats should join and reform from within. It is a fact that the democrats have been trying to ban guns for a long time and naturally the other side will have a strong hold in the NRA.

[iverglas]

19. Well that's interesting

The NRA represents the politics of its members.
I am a member of many pro gun groups including NRA
Therefore the NRA represents my politics.

A nice clean syllogism there, eh?

So when we see this:

http://www.seattlepi.com/default/article/NRA-focused-on-ousting-Obama-1360875.php

NRA focused on ousting Obama

we know immediately that the NRA speaks for you on this.

I'll bet you can read my mind and know just what I'd like to ask you next, eh?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

37. Don't Confuse

.....regulating guns with banning guns.

[X_Digger]

43. When we have statements like these?

"In fact, the assault weapons ban will have no significant effect either on the crime rate or on personal security. Nonetheless, it is a good idea . . . . Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation." Charles Krauthammer

We're going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily -- given the political realities -- going to be very modest. . . . e'll have to start working again to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen the next law, and maybe again and again. Right now, though, we'd be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal -- total control of handguns in the United States -- is going to take time. . . . The first problem is to slow down the number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered. The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition-except for the military, police, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors-totally illegal.

Pete Shields, founder of Handgun Control, Inc. which is now the brady campaign

"Brady Bill is "the minimum step" that Congress should take to control handguns. "We need much stricter gun control, and eventually we should bar the ownership of handguns except in a few cases,"

Rep. William L. Clay D-St. Louis, Mo

I think you have to do it a step at a time and I think that is what the NRA is most concerned about, is that it will happen one very small step at a time, so that by the time people have "woken up" to what's happened, it's gone farther than what they feel the consensus of American citizens would be. But it does have to go one step at a time and the beginning of the banning of semi-assault military weapons, that are military weapons, not "household" weapons, is the first step."

Stockton, California Mayor Barbara Fass

"I shortly will introduce legislation banning the sale, manufacture or possession of handguns (with exceptions for law enforcement and licensed target clubs). . . . It is time to act. We cannot go on like this. Ban them!"

Sen. John H. Chafee R.-R.I., In View of Handguns' Effects, There's Only One Answer: A Ban, Minneapolis Star Tribune, June 15, 1992

"My staff and I right now are working on a comprehensive gun-control bill. We don't have all the details, but for instance, regulating the sale and purchase of bullets. Ultimately, I would like to see the manufacture and possession of handguns banned except for military and police use. But that's the endgame. And in the meantime, there are some specific things that we can do with legislation."

Bobby Rush; Democrat, U.S. House of Representatives, Chicago Tribune, Dec. 5, 1999

"Mr. Speaker, my bill prohibits the importation, exportation, manufacture, sale, purchase, transfer, receipt, possession, or transportation of handguns and handgun ammunition. It establishes a 6-month grace period for the turning in of handguns. It provides many exceptions for gun clubs, hunting clubs, gun collectors, and other people of that kind."

Rep. Major Owens (D-Brooklyn, N.Y.), 139 Cong. Rec. H9088 at H9094, Nov. 10, 1993

"A gun-control movement worthy of the name would insist that President Clinton move beyond his proposals for controls -- such as expanding background checks at gun shows and stopping the import of high-capacity magazines -- and immediately call on Congress to pass far-reaching industry regulation like the Firearms Safety and Consumer Protection Act introduced by Senator Robert Torricelli, Democrat of New Jersey, and Representative Patrick Kennedy, Democrat of Rhode Island. Their measure would give the Treasury Department health and safety authority over the gun industry, and any rational regulator with that authority would ban handguns."

Josh Sugarmann (executive director of the Violence Policy Center, Dispense With the Half Steps and Ban Killing Machines, Houston Chronicle, Nov. 5, 1999

"We will never fully solve our nation's horrific problem of gun violence unless we ban the manufacture and sale of handguns and semiautomatic assault weapons."

Jeff Muchnick, Legislative Director, Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, Better Yet, Ban All Handguns, USA Today, Dec. 29, 1993

"The goal of CSGV is the orderly elimination of the private sale of handguns and assault weapons in the United States."

Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, http://www.csgv.org/content/coalition/coal_intro.html (visited June 20, 2000) ("The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence is composed of 44 civic, professional and religious organizations and 120,000 individual members that advocate for a ban on the sale and possession of handguns and assault weapons.")

"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal." U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno, December 1993

"We're bending the law as far as we can to ban an entirely new class of guns." Rahm Emmanuel

"We're going to hammer guns on the anvil of relentless legislative strategy! We're going to beat guns into submission!" Charles Schumer

"Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe." Diane Feinstein

"I don't care about crime, I just want to get the guns." Howard Metzenbaum

"I am one who believes that as a first step the U.S. should move expeditiously to disarm the civilian population, other than police and security officers, of all handguns, pistols and revolvers ...no one should have a right to anonymous ownership or use of a gun." Dean Morris

"I do not believe in people owning guns. Guns should be owned only by the police and military. I am going to do everything I can to disarm this state." Michael Dukakis

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them...'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in,' I would have done it." Diane Feinstein

"No, we're not looking at how to control criminals ... we're talking about banning the AK-47 and semi-automatic guns." --U.S. Senator Howard Metzenbaum

"What good does it do to ban some guns? All guns should be banned." U.S. Senator Howard Metzanbaum, Democrat from Ohio


"Until we can ban all of them , then we might as well ban none." U.S. Senator Howard Metzenbaum, Senate Hearings 1993


"I'm not interested in getting a bill that deals with airport security... all I want to do is get at plastic guns." -U.S. Senator Howard Metzenbaum, 1993

"Nobody should be owning a gun which does not have a sporting purpose." Janet Reno

"We have to start with a ban on the manufacturing and import of handguns. From there we register the guns which are currently owned, and follow that with additional bans and acquisitions of handguns and rifles with no sporting purpose." Major Owens

"If it were up to me we'd ban them all." Mel Reynolds CNN's Crossfire, December 9, 1993

“If the personal freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution inhibit the government's ability to govern the people, we should look to limit those guarantees.”
And…
“When we got organized as a country and we wrote a fairly radical Constitution with a radical Bill of Rights, giving a radical amount of individual freedom to Americans ... And so a lot of people say there's too much personal freedom. When personal freedom's being abused, you have to move to limit it. That's what we did in the announcement I made last weekend on the public housing projects, about how we're going to have weapon sweeps and more things like that to try to make people safer in their communities.” Both quotes from Bill Clinton, Former President of the United States

[iverglas]

48. ah, those were the days

When Democrats were Democrats.


Can you explain this one to me? It's a little vague.

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them...'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in,' I would have done it." Diane Feinstein

[X_Digger]

55. That was in regard to so called 'assault weapons'

When folks like those above have came out and said flat out that they're going to chip, chip, chip away at it, a piece at a time with the end goal being what they say- why not take them at their word?

Why allow the 'first slice' when they said the ultimate goal is the 'whole loaf'?

[iverglas]

59. "chip, chip, chip away at it"

Interesting, that "it". There was a lot of, er, it in all those passages quoted, too.

The passages quoted largely related to handguns.

There's no basis whatsoever for asserting that eliminating handgun ownership would lead to elimination of rifle and shotgun ownership.

They're very different things, you know? Kinda like motorcycles and transport trucks. They both have wheels and roll down the road, but they're really very different.

[X_Digger]

62. A distinction without substance..

Both are protected by the right to keep and bear arms.

It's not as though we haven't seen that attitude expressed before, though- the 'second amendment is about flintlocks' meme (or a variation thereof) pops up fairly regularly. Every so often we see a novel twist, like the 'my guns are good, yours are bad' schtick when it comes to {revolvers v semi-automatics | wood stocked rifles v composite stocked rifles | etc}.

*yawn*

[iverglas]

64. now you know

I don't give a flying fuck about your second amendment. ;)

Handguns and long guns are very, very different things. They are possessed and used by very different kinds of people for very different purposes (apart from the fact that they can all be used for sports shooting). None of which have anything to do with overthrowing tyrants, as you know as well as I do.

[X_Digger]

70. Lets run the numbers..

There are ~100M handguns in the US, about 400,000 crimes of any kind are committed with ANY firearm (2007 BJS numbers based on the FBI UCR).

Even if we assume that every crime is committed with a handgun, that works out to 0.4% use in a crime.

We have approximately 10M people with a CHL / CCW / LTCF (various states' versions of a concealed carry permit.) If we assume that only half of those carry on a regular basis, that's still 5M handguns in use (assumes that every licensee has at least one handgun, and no sharing.) If you insist, we can shave some more off for 'illegal' use, though as the TX stats show, that's a vanishingly small proportion of licensees. Let's be generous and say 5%. 4.75M handguns legally carried for self-defense.

Why discount sport shooting? It's another legal purpose that many folks take advantage of. If we assume that 10% of handgun owners target shoot with them, that's 10M uses.

I think it's fair to say that a huge majority of handguns are NOT used in crime, and are in fact, used for legal purposes (whether or not you agree that those purposes should be legal is another matter entirely).

None of which have anything to do with overthrowing tyrants, as you know as well as I do.

Had I said something about overthrowing tyrants, that might be apropos.

[iverglas]

72. okay

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States

In 2005, 75% of the 10,100 homicides committed using firearms in the United States were committed using handguns, compared to 4% with rifles, 5% with shotguns, and the rest with a type of firearm not specified.

16,740 murders in the US in 2005.

So somewhat under half of homicides in the US were committed with handguns.

What do you suppose comparable figures for robbery would look like? Many people get held up at shotgun-point?


I think it's fair to say that a huge majority of handguns are NOT used in crime

I think it's fair to say that a large plurality of homicides and armed robberies are committed with handguns.

When it comes to numbers, it kinda all depends on your p.o.v., doesn't it?

[X_Digger]

73. What was it you said in response to someone else?

Oh yah..

My point was that double a tiny number is still a tiny number.

The percent of guns that are used in crime is quite small. Legal use overwhelms illegal use by a country mile.

http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_11.html

The percentage is down to 47%, btw.

[iverglas]

77. Who cares?

The percent of guns that are used in crime is quite small.

The percentage of serious crimes committed with firearms is quite large.

Only a small percentage of people will be involved in a life-threatening car accident. I guess that's a reason to stop installing seatbelts in cars.

Only a small percentage of people will die of pancreatic cancer. I guess that's a reason to stop funding pancreatic cancer research.


The percentage is down to 47%, btw.

Not necessarily.

Total murder victims 13,636
Handguns 6,452
Rifles 348
Shotguns 418
Other guns or type not stated 1,928

If we allocate that number using the same breakdown, we get close to another 1,700, upping that percentage considerably.

[X_Digger]

80. Who cares, indeed?

If there were 2 murders, and one was committed with a handgun, your statistic would be just as valid.. and a complete misrepresentation of the reality.

Only a small percentage of people will be involved in a life-threatening car accident. I guess that's a reason to stop installing seatbelts in cars.

Only a small percentage of people will die of pancreatic cancer. I guess that's a reason to stop funding pancreatic cancer research.

Now how about those who will be the victim of violent crime. Should they be permitted the most effective means of self-defense? If we're going to take precautions for a rare yet potentially deadly happenstance in a car, why not everywhere else? Glad to hear you're coming around on handgun usage for self-defense. ;-)

Seriously, though, the analogy is not apt. Nobody's trying to ban (or severely limit the access to) sports cars because a small percentage of drivers will get drunk and plow into innocent victims.

Similarly, no doctor is inoculating patients with pancreatic cancer as a treatment for a more serious disease, a small percentage of which will die. There is no 'upside' to pancreatic cancer. Apple.. orange.. yah, I'm not seeing it.

If we allocate that number using the same breakdown, we get close to another 1,700, upping that percentage considerably.

On what basis do you make that allocation? Unknown is unknown. (By the way, I did the math, it adds a whopping 11%.)

[iverglas]

82. you know I don't answer loaded questions

Now how about those who will be the victim of violent crime. Should they be permitted the most effective means of self-defense?

Bzzt.

[X_Digger]

84. Thanks, I know I've scored when you quibble over 'whopping', etc.

I'll take my small pleasures where I can. :)

[iverglas]

83. interesting framing

If we allocate that number using the same breakdown, we get close to another 1,700, upping that percentage considerably.
On what basis do you make that allocation? Unknown is unknown. (By the way, I did the math, it adds a whopping 11%.)

The whopping 11% being 11% of 100, i.e. it would raise the total for handguns from 47% to 58%. That is fairly whopping, isn't it?

As for the allocation -- I'd be happy allocating them all to rifles/shotguns. I don't really care. But somehow, I think you might object to that too. Cake, have, eat, not.

[guardian]

49. Not confused at all

It IS roughly the same thing, and the route to a ban by those whose wish to ban guns.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

51. So, there's no such thing as people who favor some level of regulation but no ban? -nt

[beevul]

58. Yeah there are.

Most of them are gun owners.


Some of the rest of them arent.


And those that label as reasonable - the unreasonable - are not to be trusted.


Gun control groups that submitted amicus curae in support of the DC handgun ban, for example, and claimed that "were not a gun ban group" and "we don't support gun bans" shortly after - namely The batty bunch - can not be trusted.

Nor can the word of those that support them.

[beevul]

23. They're a necessary evil.

If you want to change the nra, seek ways of getting the usual suspects to get religion on amendment 2.


They're the ones that make the nra necessary.

[RSillsbee]

45. Yes but they have such cool hats NT

[pipoman]

31. If the ACLU would simply do it's job

on the 2nd Amendment it would make the NRA less necessary politically. In the same way the NRA shouldn't be right wing, the ACLU shouldn't be left wing, IMO. The only reason I can see that the ACLU would fail to support liberal interpretation of the 2nd, as they do all of the other civil liberties, is for political kowtowing to the urban liberals who also are more or less supportive of all civil liberties...except one. So...until the threat to the 2nd is eliminated or the fight is taken up by a different entity, the NRA is here to stay and I will support them on that one mission. If you are an ACLU member, demand they stand up on this issue...the sooner, the better.

[beevul]

33. Well said. N/T

[fightthegoodfightnow]

35. Except Neither the NRA or the ACLU has Gone to Court

... to argue that DOMA is a violation of the equal protection clause of the Constitution.

[Oneka]

39. Why

on Gods green earth, would a single issue advocacy group like the NRA, dive into the minefield of DOMA??

What about DOMA has anything at all to do with the 2A?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

52. That's the point. It DID do precisely such dive. And pathetically attempted to deny doing so. -nt

[Oneka]

87. Or

they made a perfectly sensible decision to drop a law firm who bailed on one of their clients, due to political pressure.

I,m neither a member or a very big fan of the NRA, but to conflate their rational decision into anti gay marriage bigotry, is a stretch.

[Atypical Liberal]

46. I don't see the problem.

The law firm has demonstrated it that it will abandon clients involved politically controversial issues. The NRA, being involved in a politically controversial issue, has no use for such legal counsel. Here is their statement:

"To be clear, our decision is not motivated by any position on the statute itself. As you know, the National Rifle Association is a single-issue organization dedicated to the protection of the Second Amendment. We are, however, often involved in controversial issues on which emotions can run high. This is as true in the legal arena as it is in the legislative. It goes without saying that in situations in which we retain outside counsel, we expect them to zealously advocate for our interests and not abandon the representation due to pressure from those who may disagree with us."

I don't see a problem with this.

[chibajoe]

56. Stop confusing people with facts, they have their minds made up!

Don't you know that bring facts into the argument is liable to just annoy them?

[iverglas]

60. indeed

People do so prefer being told what to think.

The NRA's stated justification for its decision is a "fact" only in so far as it exists.

The NRA's statement of something does not make what it has stated a fact.

We're all quite free to decide whether or not to believe the NRA's statement.

[chibajoe]

63. Considering the NRA's arch conservative membership bent, I would imagine

that their stated reason for dropping the firm would actually be less popular than if they had just said the supposed "truth". If the true reason that they dropped King & Spalding is because they did not like the law firm's stance on Defense of Marriage Act, then why would they bother to make up an excuse that would be less popular with their membership than the truth?

I know that your are capable of coming to a rational conclusion in spite of your preconceived notions, perhaps this is one of those opportunities to use that ability?

[iverglas]

67. nah

I know that your are capable of coming to a rational conclusion in spite of your preconceived notions

My brain is cluttered up with preconceived notions preventing the normal firing of neurons, I'm afraid.

Pretty funny, though.

My personal favourite source of amusement around here is watching anyone who doesn't know me tell me what I think. And then, after a few posts, get all ugly and huffy and demand that I tell them what I think. Bit of a gas. But anyhow, you telling me I have preconceived notions, ah, delicious irony. As well as being just more of the same, eh?


why would they bother to make up an excuse that would be less popular with their membership than the truth?

Well I wonder whether it maybe wasn't their membership they were aiming at?


They really were entirely free to issue a press release lauding the firm's decision not to be a party to the attempt to violate people's constitutional rights. Hey, if they were genuinely worried about getting dropped like hot potatoes at some time in future, they could have insisted that their retainer agreement with the firm be altered to prohibit that and provide for huge liquidated damages otherwise or some such.

All they really had to do was sit still and shut up, given the extreme improbability that their representation would ever be withdrawn. But that wasn't good enough, I guess.

[chibajoe]

69. I've been reading this forum for quite some time, and have a pretty good handle on what you think

I don't see anything in my post that alluded to this, however; I simply made a comment on your cognitive abilities.

As far as the NRA: even if your suspicions are true, i.e. that they are trying to justify their actions by giving a reason that is palpable to liberals, then the implication is that they want to seem more attractive to liberals, perhaps hoping to encourage more to join their ranks. If that happens, wouldn't the NRA become a more liberal leaning organization? How exactly is that a bad thing?

[iverglas]

71. except

As far as the NRA: even if your suspicions are true, i.e. that they are trying to justify their actions by giving a reason that is palpable to liberals

I didn't say that.

They seem to me to have been sending a message intended to intimidate anyone who crosses them.

Cross us, and we'll be, er, gunning for you.

I'm sure we've all seen the blacklist, so it's not like my "suspicions" are without precedent.


then the implication is that they want to seem more attractive to liberals, perhaps hoping to encourage more to join their ranks.

Yeah, that's credible. </sarcasm>


If that happens, wouldn't the NRA become a more liberal leaning organization? How exactly is that a bad thing?

I'm sorry, but I just don't answer questions loaded with absurd premises. ;)

[chibajoe]

74. I guess I'm just not a sufficiently suspcious person

But, um, if their intent was to intimidate people, then wouldn't saying something like "support the Defense of Marriage Act or we'll fire you and get all of our friends to fire you" be more effective than "we're firing you because you won't stand by your clients when things get tough?"

[iverglas]

78. oh, really

Does the NRA look stupid?

[MicaelS]

61. As others have pointed out, you missed the point..

Why should the NRA continue to do business with a law firm who drops a client when the going gets tough? If the NRA has another case before a Federal Appeals Court or SCOTUS, and it looks like they might lose, is it acceptable for said firm to drop their representation of the NRA?

I thought lawyers believed in the concept about the client being entitled to the best defense possible. Or does that only apply to politically popular cases?

[Logical]

66. So you believe the NRAs excuse? n-t

[friendly_iconoclast]

75. Do you have any evidence it *is* an excuse and not the truth?

Any quotes from insiders in the NRA, or Wikileaks-type document dumps?


Sorry, if I'm laying out major cash for legal representation on a highly politicized subject and notice my counsel dropping

another client's case midstream due to political pressure- I'm going elsewhere for representation.

[friendly_iconoclast]

76. Moreover, would *you* keep a lawyer that drops clients mid-case? n/t

[iverglas]

68. "Or does that only apply to politically popular cases?"

Actually, it only applies to criminal cases.

And it has never applied so as to require any particular lawyer to take on any particular case.

If it did, I wonder how many fewer wrongfully convicted people there might be.