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!
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.