Quote:
Originally Posted by pex
I realize that Gura has to play ball to try to reach a consistent and 'reasonable' position so that the Court will take it on (because bad arguments can just get a thing thrown out)...but jesus christ, the guy got owned about as hard as Dellinger. That's nothing to be proud of.
It was certainly astonishing to see him stumble and say how reasonable some of the allegory regulation was. I think I threw up in my mouth a bit during those times.
I never expect the Supreme Court to allow us the ability to use their opinion as a sweeping ability to bring gun rights back to the forefront of our nation where they ought to be, but I never expected 'our' argument to be so weak.
|
I agree. I listened earlier today, and I must also sadly admit that Gura got
PWNED. I kept finding myself wishing he would just shut up as he conceded point after point. It got so bad that it seemed as if Justice Scalia, our staunchest ally on this issue, had to jump in at times to bail the guy out. With that said, I believe that Dellinger got owned worse by the Justices than Gura did. Solicitor General Clement had a decent argument, although I wasn't exactly pleased with his position on machine guns and the like. But as I said in previous posts, baby steps. I need to hear this court affirm an individual rights view before anyone goes up against Miller, as Miller has unfortunately held up for a long time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by headcase
What I find hard to believe is this, how not one organization had the balls to actually write a brief that included addressing the real problem with all these bans. In the grand scheme of things it is not whether we should be able to have handguns or long guns, no. It should be about what has happened to our preparedness to deal with tyranny and invasion on an individual citizen basis. We not only should be able to own machine guns, but if we are to be the ultimate line in the sand the 2A has set us to be, we absolutely need them.
|
Again, agreed. This was peripherally touched upon in a few of the arguments posed, but it was never concretely stated that an individual's right to keep and bear arms as expressed in the 2A is for the purpose of a militia being prepared to oppose tyranny from any force, be it a foreign entity or our own government.