arma virumque cano (et alia)
Curious, Mike, why have you not included any of the videos of NRA pundits discussing the windfall of this case, and the problematic (as well as unconstitutional) response DC gave to it?
In the first video he talks about challenges by a criminal trying to escape prosecution. This is actually what gun rights activists are afraid of. The judicial system makes it difficult for us to challenge a law without violating it. 4 out of the 5 original Heller defendants were found to not have standing, and were dropped from the case. Miller was an example of the trouble we have when a case is brought by a criminal defendant. Miller was dead by the time the case was argued, and there was effectively no defense against the governement's case. (I'm not sure why it was argued at all, sicne it was moot--usually the Supremes won't accept a case that is moot, unless the issue is such that there will never be time to get to the supremes before becoming moot) The decision did not say that the second only covered militias, but rather that the second only protected weapons useful in a militia setting, and the gun in question was not useful in this context. Had there been a proper defense, I'm near certain that his lawyers could have shown that the sawed-off shotgun in question was in fact substantially similar to the Trench Guns used in WWI trench warfare.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5QvYliZCq8http://daysofourtrailers.blogspot.com/2007/11/erasing-second-amendment.htmlEnough said on Henigan.
You mught want to check the "lions, wolves and bears, oh my" video. You Tube claims it is no longer there. In any case before I comment I want to see it. I do not want to jump the gun, besides it might prove for a good laugh. And I need a good laugh.
Well, Weer'd, I posted some wonderful videos with which I am in agreement. An NRA one was linked by Thirdpower in his comment. I think in mine, Henigan is mainly talking about his interpretation, which happens to be the same one that most Supremes in the past have always held and some still do. It's not a question of lying, as is so often put forth. The NRA video, on the other hand, although it isn't really lying either, is one which focused on the omission of some words by Henigan. It's true, he did leave out the words "the people" when talking, but he was just talking. It wasn't an official statement or a deposition, cases in which the omission of those words would be significant. It was just some off the cuff comments he made into someone's microphone. But more than that, the omission of those words changes nothing. His point is not to differentiate between the people and the government, like the video says, but rather between the individual and the militia. That video, with its interspersed comments is misleading in that it implies that the omission of those important words is a way of sneakily making his point. But that's completely wrong. The argument has always been about whether the right refers to an individual so that he may participate in the militia or to an individual, period.So, I say nobody's lying. But, the very fact that the NRA guys, and some of you, are so quick to call people liars when we're just expressing our opinion and interpretation, and the very fact that while calling the opposition liars, you seize upon minor omissions and mistakes and try so hard to trump them up as some kind of evidence, demonstrates to me which side I want to be on.
Wow MikeB, that's an awful lot of verbage to be an apologist for someone who regularly misrepresents statistics and distorts the facts. Hennigan regularly uses trace data to generate statistics even though the BATFE and CRS has repeatedly stated for years that the information cannot be used to generate such. One would think the Policy Director of a national group would know that. So what is the reason he continues to do so? BTW MikeB, what "NRA video" did I link to?
Third said, "BTW MikeB, what "NRA video" did I link to?" What's that supposed to mean? Is it wrong to call that an "NRA video?" Should I have said, a "gun rights video," or "gun video," or something like that?Your point about the BAFTE and others determining that trace data is useless, means what exactly? Does it mean if they said it, it's binding on others? I don't get that. Maybe the Brady's feel the trace data they use is extremely useful and valid.
You're associating things that don't go together MikeB. Not everything revolves around the NRA. Look up Ad Hominem.Yes MikeB, it IS 'binding on others'. The BATFE is the one that puts together the data and knows what it can be capable of. ie. NOT for generating statistics. Perhaps the Brady's are using it to misrepresent the issue. It would go with their SOP. BTW, noone said it was 'useless'. That's another misrepresentation by you.
So the BATFE isn't the appropriate agency to decide what BATFE trace data is useful for?
From the Statement of David Ogden, Deputy Attorney General, United States Department of Justice, before the United States Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs hearing entitled “Southern Border Violence: Homeland Security Threats, Vulnerabilities, and Responsibilities”, presented March 25, 2009. : "According to ATF’s Tracing Center, 90 percent of the firearms about which ATF receives information are traceable to the United States."Can you note the difference in wording from what the DAG says in comparison to what the Brady Campaign presents? Do you understand what that wording difference means?
Sevesteen - Perhaps MikeB thinks the Dept. of Agriculture should determine how firearms trace data is used?
Of course not. Obviously the Brady Campaign are the only ones with the capabilities to do such.