(Brady Campaign+VPC)+guns=(Operation Rescue+American Life League)+abortions

[friendly_iconoclast]

I took my inspiration from this from MaryCeleste's post here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x163349#163371

MaryCeleste

DC Politicians and guns are just like fundies and abortion

they will try to reduce it any way they can, big steps or small inconveniences. The parallels are staggering. Both sides fear independent choices of informed citizens

in response to this quote:

"There's just this really anxiety-producing proposition on what would we have if we relaxed these laws," said D.C. Council Chairman Vincent C. Gray, a Democrat. "We'd have to evaluate the court's decision, then look at what revisions in our own statutes would allow us to have the maximum restrictions on guns in the District."

Could you imagine the response if this was said in response to Roe v. Wade, Miranda-Escobedo, or Brown vs. Board of Education?

Already we have a poster on the same thread claiming the ruling "concerns ONLY the District of Columbia"

So, a question for you: Would you be willing to try and subvert a Supreme Court
decision you found odious, and if you were so inclined would you use any or all
of the tactics of Operation Rescue?

[villager]

1. Glad you're such a fan of the Supreme Court's Bush v. Gore decision!

Clearly, they could never be wrong about anything!

[EricTeri]

2. Of course they clearly COULD be wrong

Dred Scott is a perfect example.

In this case though, when they uphold the lower court's decision, they will not be wrong.

Unless you have access to actual, you know, FACTS, which would indicate the lower court ruling was incorrect?

[villager]

3. so they're not wrong when they agree with you?

I suppose lots of other people have that same criterion to judge their decisions!

[EricTeri]

4. They also agree with...

the lower court, the US Congress, most governors, virtually every legal scholar, and a couple hundred years of precedent.


Like i said, do you have any actual FACTS to support your assertion?

[villager]

9. Speaking of legal scholars: "Second Amendment originalism also draws on a potent set of myths..."

associated with America’s past."

Given how backward-looking this Supreme Court is, I'm sure you'll have them on your side.


http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/46437.html

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

31. You Don't Really Expect Him to Read an Entire Article

That would require way too much deliberation and thought on his part.

But alas, no it's just easier for him to completely dismiss it without so much as the brush of an argument.

[L1A1Rocker]

7. Oops! Must have forgotten those facts huh?

[villager]

10. oooh, sensitive, sensitive!

Afraid of your favorite play toys being taken away from ya?

[EricTeri]

11. It appears you are the sensitive one

perhaps you're afraid of facing facts and reality? Perhaps you're aware your position is indefensible and based on emotions and lies?

[L1A1Rocker]

15. Bingo! Bullseye! etc, etc.

[L1A1Rocker]

14. Not going to take the bait. You still have not provided ANY facts.

[friendly_iconoclast]

5. You forgot Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson

and the Supremes were wrong in all three.

But you've avoided the question:

If Heller gets decided in a way you find morally odious, what would
you do about it? Legislation that is sure to be challenged in court? Civil disobedience? Sit-ins? Parade around outside gun shops with giant bloody photos
of gunshot victims? "Throw yourself on the gears of the machine", so to speak?

Would you use Operation Rescue's methods? I would point out (and I am in *no way*
equating them) that OR sometimes used methods that people like John Lewis and
the Rev. Martin Luther King used during the Civil Rights era in the 50's and 60's

Can someone in good conscience use the methods of someone or something they
abhor without in effect saying "It's OK for me to do this, so it's OK for
*fill in the blank* to do it."?

[MaryCeleste]

6. Not sure what kind of parallel action there could be

blockade gun stores
picket companies that make ammunition
firebomb shooting ranges?

I am presuming that the Hiller prevails as he did in the lower courts.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MaryCeleste]

13. Disagree

The pro gun choice people will not get violent or anything like that. We will just keep our firearms no matter where we live. I certainly had a HG when I lived in DC. Civil Disobedience takes many forms

[EricTeri]

16. I didnt say we will

But i do believe the pro-gun side is rapidly approaching the tipping point. There are few, if any, additional restrictions which will be tolerated. A USSC decision which says it is not an individual right will likely push things over the edge.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

26. Not Going to Happen

...... in my opinion.

Anyone who knows the court and how they rule on most constitutional issues, I truly think the issue and ruling will be much narrower. I wouldn't be surprised if it is simply sent back to the lower court, which both sides acknowledge was a poorly written ruling (without regards to the merits of either side).

Do tell me what the 'tipping point' is? Tipping point to what? Ignoring the law like MaryCeleste.

So much for the law and order arguments of the gun lobby.

[iverglas]

19. "Civil Disobedience takes many forms"

So, apparently, do "law-abiding gun owners".

I guess you won't be claiming to be one of them.

[MaryCeleste]

32. The right of legitimate self defense trumps whatever silliness the DC Council does

[fightthegoodfightnow]

22. Breaking the Law?

So much for your 'law and order' arguments.

[EricTeri]

23. There is a time and a place for civil disobedience. N/T

[fightthegoodfightnow]

25. Great....... Now Gun Owners Want to Take the Law into their Own Hands

Anyone else see something wrong with this?

[EricTeri]

27. Is that what I said?

No, it is not. Perhaps it was time you took a course in reading comprehension.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

28. No.........Let's Be Clear

In response to someone's statement that they broke a gun law, you said there is a time to break the law.

I'm not the one with a reading comprehension.

Just what we need: gun advocates taking the law into their own hands.

[MaryCeleste]

33. I've never made L&O arguments, I don't even like the TV Series

[fightthegoodfightnow]

39. Good for You

A gun owner acknowledges breaking a gun law and then whines about their rights being violated.

Anyone else see something wrong with this scenario?

[MaryCeleste]

41. Personal self defense is right thant even the DC City Council can not abridge

At the time,and presumptively even today, legitimate self defense shootings were not being prosecuted, not even for firearms possession.

We had already had an incident where my wife had shot an intruder prior to transferring there, DC was really having problems back then. No apologies for having done so. We moved out of DC for a variety of reasons later that tour

CA had the same problem when it tried to register certain kinds of weapons. Damn few people did. Grey Davis and others got their knickers in a knot over it. Classic civil disobedience.

[iverglas]

18. bullshit + bullshit = bullshit

And I can say that confidently without reading any of the bullshit, which I don't think I'll bother doing.

Women, like guns, are mere objects. That's the only message conveyed by posts like this.

[friendly_iconoclast]

53. Three "ipse dixits" in two sentences

[fightthegoodfightnow]

20. I'll Leave You to Compare a Gun to an Abortion

I'm just going to go on record and say you sound silly.

Council Chairman Vincent Gray, elected by the people of DC, said: '"We'd have to evaluate the court's decision, then look at what revisions in our own statutes would allow us to have the maximum restrictions on guns in the District."

If you truly think that statement has something to do with Roe v. Wade, Miranda-Escobedo, or Brown vs. Board of Education, you are nothing more than the stereotype so many have of gun fanatics: crazy.

[MaryCeleste]

34. Its far from silly.

If SCOTUS makes it a state matter, Roe is history
If SCOTUS says its an individual right DC, Chicago, other places with strict gun control laws will be forced to change thing.

States/localities that do not like abortion, are always trying to find ways to nibble away at abortion.
DC Councilman is already saying that they will do the same thing in DC

[fightthegoodfightnow]

36. And All With the Consent of Your Legislation and Your Courts

.........none of which DC has a voice in as it relates to guns or any other issue.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

37. IF You Say So

You write: 'If SCOTUS makes it a state matter, Roe is history. If SCOTUS says its an individual right DC, Chicago, other places with strict gun control laws will be forced to change thing."

Lots of IFs in that. More likely is that SCOTUS will have a narrow ruling.

Either way, any attempts to regulate abortion or guns will be subject to legislative and judicial review by your government which gives YOU a voice and NOT me.

[MaryCeleste]

43. It will be interesting if the court goes narrow or broad

Its been staying narrow for some time, but depending where they go with it, it could easily be a broad ruling. June could really be interesting

[iverglas]

45. you're absolutely right

It's stinking bullshit.

But what it isn't is surprising. In fact, it's old, retreaded bullshit.

And like I said -- just one more example of the true colours, and the willingness to exploit anything and anyone, and misrepresent anything and anyone, that characterizes the "gun rights" movement.

The movement itself, of course, is as racist and misogynist as they come. And the world at large is perfectly aware of that.

[friendly_iconoclast]

52. Quite the excercise in rhetoric here

And like I said -- just one more example of the true colours, and the willingness to exploit anything and anyone, and misrepresent anything and anyone, that characterizes the "gun rights" movement
Wow, two argumentum ad hominemin one sentence. I may have phrased that wrong, my
Latin is darn near nonexistent.

The movement itself, of course, is as racist and misogynist as they come.
Ipse dixit

And the world at large is perfectly aware of that.
Argumentum ad populum

But thanks for playing! Stay on the line so we can send you your consolation prize.

[iverglas]

21. and now for anyone who really is too utterly thick to understand the concept

"We'd have to evaluate the court's decision, then look at what revisions in our own statutes would allow us to have the maximum restrictions on guns in the District."

... what exactly do you imagine legislatures normally do when a court strikes down legislation?

Roll over and play dead?

If a court struck down a law in the US imposing the death penalty for shoplifting, would the legislature in question just decriminalize shoplifting?

Gee. I think it would try to come up with a law that achieved its ends -- deterring people from shoplifting and punishing people for shoplifting -- to the extent possible without violating the Constitution as interpreted by the courts.

Reason by analogy among yourselves, now.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

24. Unlike MaryCeleste who Simply Ignored DC's Gun Law when She Lived Here

DC Council Member Gray: "We'd have to evaluate the court's decision, then look at what revisions in our own statutes would allow us to have the maximum restrictions on guns in the District."

You respond: "... what exactly do you imagine legislatures normally do when a court strikes down legislation? Roll over and play dead?"

Of course not. They do exactly what Gray said and you and I support. They look at how they can modify their laws to make sure they are within the law.

That stands in sharp contrast to MaryCeleste who simply ignored the DC law when she lived here.

[iverglas]

29. "she"?

Well yes, the Mary Celeste was a vessel, and thus referred to by the feminine pronoun among those prone to such silly affectations.

Our MaryCeleste, however, isn't in quite the same class. An ex-member of the military whose wife comes in handy when there is a need for tales about the little ladies using their little pistols to defend their little selves is not a person of the female persuasion. Not on your side of the border, anyhow. ;)


We, on the other hand, have



guy Mounties marrying guy Mounties ...



guy MPs marrying guy MPs ... well, actually, only the one on the right is an MP

and, I imagine, some military type somewhere marrying another military type of the same sex, I just couldn't find a picture. ;)

[fightthegoodfightnow]

30. Bet They Have Great Pistols

:)

[MaryCeleste]

35. Its he...

When I registered, I forgot the "The". The Mary Celeste was a well known ghost ship. Its in my profile

[fightthegoodfightnow]

38. Ok... Thanks for the Clarification

More related to the topic, should I have respect for someone's opinion regarding constitutional rights when they choose to ignore the law?

[Hoosier lawyer]

40. Courage to disobey and one of my faves

Sometimes laws are just wrong. The underground railroad was illegal. Abortion was illegal. Interracial marriage, fornication,etc,etc... At a certain points adults have to make their own moral choices and deal with the possible legal fallout.

The anti abortion people and the Brady Bunch really are playing from the same playbook. For months that was one of my favorite topics. They both follow the plan of gradual destruction of a right,regulating till there is nothing left. Both groups are fond of mandatory education,waiting periods, scary names (assault rifle, partial-birth abortion). They both are fond of having people lying out on sidewalks, they both love to talk about the children, but do not seem to offer anything to help, besides their pet projects. It goes on and on, they are both the same sort of over the top true believers, who will do anything to get what they want.

Also can we please stop talking about suicide and guns. If you want to kill yourself,I prefer you shoot yourself quietly at home, rather than splash yourself on a sidewalk. I think suicide is your own business as an adult.

[MaryCeleste]

42. Depends on the law

If a locality infringes on a constitutional right or a natural right (the latter can be slippery) should you respect anyone who kowtows to it.

Don't forget that the Underground Railroad was breaking the law, there are lots of other examples

[iverglas]

44. y'know, it's a funny thing

The Underground Railroad was organized so that some people could risk their safety to assist other people.

So I may be thick, but I'm just not seeing the analogy.

Person A risks prosecution and much worse to assist Person X to escape real oppression involving actual denial of liberty, actual denial of security of the person, and possibly death.

Person B risks prosecution to ... arm him/herself against a risk to his/her security or life that might materialize at some future point and for which the weapon in question might or might not be useful, but in any event does so out of pure self-interest.

I'm sorry, but I'm really not thick. There really is no analogy.

And the arrogance and presumption of a person who claims to be entitled to disobey a law in a way that benefits no one but him/herself (and very probably not even that), based on the actions of others who risked their liberty and security to assist victims of real violations of liberty and security, ... well, it boggles the mind and turns the stomach.

Yes, there are lots of examples. Not one of them involves people disobeying laws that a collectivity has adopted in the public interest, out of pure piggish self-interest.

Hell. I want a hybrid car. Stealing one would be an act of civil disobedience.



Oops. I meant to say.

I've often invited the denizens of this place to take their efforts to draw parallels between themselves and their cause -- and their whole rotten fabric of allegations of racism against firearms control advocates, and holding of themselves up as champions of the African-American community -- over to some other forum of this place where issues of race and racism are discussed. Out of the dungeon and into the light of day. Take it for a walk and see how it's welcomed.

Maybe you'll be the first to take me up on the suggestion.

[friendly_iconoclast]

47. Harriet Tubman packed a revolver when she was conducting on the Underground Railroad

and she was quite wise to do so. I'm sure she broke more than a few gun laws along the way As I've said elswhere, if packing is moral for Harriet Tubman, Eleanor Roosevelt, and Diane Feinstein it is moral for anyone else.

The best account of civil disobedience, the Fugitive Slave Act and the Underground Rail
road is "The Town That Started the Civil War", by Nat Brandt. It describes what some
of the citizens of Antioch, Ohio did to defy the Fugitive Slave Act.

Person A risks prosecution and much worse to assist Person X to escape real oppression involving actual denial of liberty, actual denial of security of the person, and possibly death
The trouble with this is that most of the O.R. types sincerely believe (deluded or not)
that this is what THEY are doing. The rest are just George Wallace types willing to
play along to gain power from the delusions of the marks.

Yes, there are lots of examples. Not one of them involves people disobeying laws that a collectivity has adopted in the public interest, out of pure piggish self-interest.
I'm sure that the Commonwealth of Virginia felt that they banned interracial marriage
in the public interest. To them, the Lovings were criminals. Should Virginia have
attempted to get around the Supreme Court decision Loving vs. Virginia?

Hell. I want a hybrid car. Stealing one would be an act of civil disobedience

No one has advocated theft of anything

Never conflate "legal" and "moral". I give you a 19 y.o. drinking beer. Moral?
I would say so, if not operating a vehicle. YMMV.
Legal? In Canada, yes. In the States, no.

[iverglas]

48. could you say anything more irrelevant?

Well, I'm sure you could.

Harriet Tubman packed a revolver when she was conducting on the Underground Railroad

Harriet Tubman was risking her liberty and security to help other people escape oppression.

So ... your point was?


As I've said elswhere, if packing is moral for Harriet Tubman, Eleanor Roosevelt, and Diane Feinstein it is moral for anyone else.

I did mean to say it when you said it the first time, but I can say it here: your comparing yourself to any of those people is so far beyond arrogant and presumptuous that the hysterical laughter response actually defeats the gag reflex.


The trouble with this is that most of the O.R. types sincerely believe (deluded or not) that this is what THEY are doing. The rest are just George Wallace types willing to play along to gain power from the delusions of the marks.

I actually don't have a clue what you're talking about.


I'm sure that the Commonwealth of Virginia felt that they banned interracial marriage in the public interest. To them, the Lovings were criminals. Should Virginia have attempted to get around the Supreme Court decision Loving vs. Virginia?

Interesting how one consistent, common feature of genuine civil disobedience is that it is open and transparent. If the disobeyers of firearms laws want to behave equally openly and transparently, I might entertain their claim to the label of civil disobedience. Just doing something that is illegal, even when you say it's because of your fine principles, really is not civil disobedience. Really.


No one has advocated theft of anything

No. Actually, someone was attempting to convey a thought. It seems to have fallen on infertile ground.


Never conflate "legal" and "moral". I give you a 19 y.o. drinking beer. Moral?
I would say so, if not operating a vehicle. YMMV.
Legal? In Canada, yes. In the States, no.

Never post moronic drivel in response to my posts. I say, in your own best interests.

[friendly_iconoclast]

54. Reply, part 2.

I did mean to say it when you said it the first time, but I can say it here: your comparing yourself to any of those people is so far beyond arrogant and presumptuous that the hysterical laughter response actually defeats the gag reflex.

I did phrase that rather badly, though. I have to give you that.
I freely acknowledge the moral superiority of Tubman and E. Roosevelt to 95%+ of
the human race, myself included.

Nonetheless, I do assert that any American not under legal disqualification has
the same moral right, and ought to have the same legal right, to obtain and bear
handguns without being vetted by the state (Tubman and Roosevelt) or politically
connected (Feinstein).


Me= "The trouble with this is that most of the O.R. types sincerely believe (deluded or not) that this is what THEY are doing. The rest are just George Wallace types willing to play along to gain power from the delusions of the marks."

You="I actually don't have a clue what you're talking about"

Also my bad. O.R.= Operation Rescue. And like the anti-abortion types who are quite
willing to knock off the "post-born" (hell they ARE those types- Ronald Reagan, William
Bennett, Alberto Gonzales, all avowedly opposed to abortion.) the VPC and Brady Center use the true believers for political power. Sincerity of belief is no metric of truth.

[friendly_iconoclast]

50. I learn the darndest things on DU. For instance...

Ronald Reagan acted to help the African-American community when he signed the Mulford Act banning the open carriage of firearms. This was in reaction to, and over the vehement objections of the Black Panther Party. To this day, the New Panther Party likes to show up armed to events. Thank the FSM Ronnie saved the old school California Panthers from their false consciousness of where their true class interest lay. Seems like I misjudged the old boy.

Maybe you could write the New Panthers and point out the error of their ways and how Ronald Reagan acted in the best interests of African-Americans. I'm sure they'll appreciate the input.

Also, being white I never was aware that there was something keeping people of
color from reading or posting on the Guns forum. Could you explain this to
us?

Thanks in advance!

"I've often invited the denizens of this place to take their efforts to draw parallels between themselves and their cause -- and their whole rotten fabric of allegations of racism against firearms control advocates, and holding of themselves up as champions of the African-American community -- over to some other forum of this place where issues of race and racism are discussed. Out of the dungeon and into the light of day. Take it for a walk and see how it's welcomed."

[MaryCeleste]

51. Racist gun control laws in the US date back to 1640

and are well documented. Ones today like those in force in NYC are such that the rich and connected can get a permit but the poor and minorities have a much harder time.

[EricTeri]

46. You seem to have quite a lot of respect for...

...the opinions of the DC City Council, even though they knowingly and intentionally violated the law and have now expressed their intent to do it again. Even worse, they are violating your RIGHTS, and sadly, you support this.

[iverglas]

49. you seem to have an astounding ability

to say things that aren't true.

DC City Council, even though they knowingly and intentionally violated the law and have now expressed their intent to do it again

(a) Enacting legislation that is subsequently ruled unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, where no previous relevant interpretation of the constitution existed, is not "violating the law". As I have no doubt you know.

(b) Enacting legislation that the legislature believes complies with constitutional requirements as newly interpreted by a court of competent jurisdiction is not "violating the law". As I have no doubt you know.

In any event, if you didn't know those things already, you do now. Let me know if you need any further assistance.