Want to go after CeaseFire PA ? Stumbled onto this while looking for something else

[anonymouse]

James C. Higgins, Treasurer, is an attorney in private practice in Delaware County, with a long history of public service. Jim is a veteran of the Vietnam War, and several years ago served two terms as a Commissioner of Radnor Township, Pennsylvania. He is the president of a historical foundation in his community and has been an advocate for common sense firearms regulations for over thirty years.

Anything on this guy? He's the one who presented the L&S idea to Radnor at their meeting.

Diane Edbrill is the other speaker for Ceasefire at the meeting.

Video of their presentation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1YnKQ3NmFk

[son of the revolution]

Anything on this guy? He's the one who presented the L&S idea to Radnor at their meeting.

Diane Edbrill is the other speaker for Ceasefire at the meeting.

Video of their presentation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1YnKQ3NmFk

What you want me to do all the work while you guys get all the glory ?


Just start Googling his name and see what you can come up with, thats all I did.

[anonymouse]

What you want me to do all the work while you guys get all the glory ?


Just start Googling his name and see what you can come up with, thats all I did.

Hehe, I started googling Diane Edbril and came up with some interesting stuff. I'm gonna try to compile everything I find.

[anonymouse]

http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/...2007_0079T.pdf

That document contains Diane Edbril's testimony before the House Judiciary Committee regarding the One Gun Per Month law that was proposed. (HB22 I believe)

I haven't read it all, but it gives us an idea of what her arguments will be.

[Rule10b5]

Lets take a look at


Next up

Susan Burt-Collins practiced criminal law for many years, and been a candidate for Montgomery County District Attorney in the past. She’s also been a member of the board of directors of the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency.


According to the bio, Ms Collins served on the Pennsylvania Commision on Crime and Deliquency. Were her opinions or recommendations while in that capacity at least somewhat contributory to Philly's lackadasical handling of violent criminals, including juveniles ? Are the minutes of this Commision available for review ? What do they say ? Im betting it would be particularly embarrassing for Ms Collins if it were discovered that she could be credibly linked to the epidemic of violent crime in Philly as a result of her opinions or recommendations. According to the links below she's made noteable campaign contributions to many of our well known enemies

http://www.campaignmoney.com/politic...s.asp?cycle=08

And she's also a criminal defense attorney

http://www.democratslmn.org/democraticdirectory.htm


How many true scumbags has she successfully managed to get released back into Society to continue their life of crime ? I would imagine an FOIA request, even redacted would reveal the original charge and the result of sentencing , appeal , etc.

I know Susan and her husband quite well. I'm assuming you don't know her at all.

Not only is she a good lawyer, she's devoted most of her professional life, at great financial and personal cost to her and her family, to helping those who can't help themselves. I know this for a fact; I even worked on a couple of her pro bono cases in years past.

Do I agree with her stance on gun control? Not at all. Does that change the fact that she's a hell of a decent human being who is an incredibly positive force for the downtrodden in SE Pa? Not at all.

Your post represents the worst sort of advocacy. Your comments are ill-informed, negative, and nothing more than an attempt to smear someone who -- despite her anti-gun inclination -- has done overwhelmingly good works. And, quite frankly, at least one of your suggestions borders on libel.

I'm embarassed for you, and I'm embarassed that this sort of shit is tolerated at PAFOA. Postings like yours alienate us from the mainstream, and when they are false, detract from our credibility in legitimate arguments.

[JayBell]

I cant prove or make a judgment here on the validity of any info, for or against this person, as posted by SoR or Rule10b5

be aware however that you CAN be held responsible in a court of law for libel, even in a web posting, so its best to watch what you say about people.


either way, the legal liability falls on the poster

[son of the revolution]

I know Susan and her husband quite well. I'm assuming you don't know her at all.

Not only is she a good lawyer, she's devoted most of her professional life, at great financial and personal cost to her and her family, to helping those who can't help themselves. I know this for a fact; I even worked on a couple of her pro bono cases in years past.

Do I agree with her stance on gun control? Not at all. Does that change the fact that she's a hell of a decent human being who is an incredibly positive force for the downtrodden in SE Pa? Not at all.

Your post represents the worst sort of advocacy. Your comments are ill-informed, negative, and nothing more than an attempt to smear someone who -- despite her anti-gun inclination -- has done overwhelmingly good works. And, quite frankly, at least one of your suggestions borders on libel.

I'm embarassed for you, and I'm embarassed that this sort of shit is tolerated at PAFOA. Postings like yours alienate us from the mainstream, and when they are false, detract from our credibility in legitimate arguments.

Sorry your offended counselor. I didnt make a SINGLE " statement " of unproven fact that would even come close to bordering on libel. I asked a series of hypothetical questions and mused about the possible answers and the potential results of those answers. You also wont get an once of sympathy from me for the " poor downtrodden masses " that choose a life of crime.

No need to be embarrased for me. Frankly I wouldnt give a rats ass if Mother Theresea herself was Anti gun , I'd attack her with equal vigor, as I will ANY PERSON that intentionally uses misrepresentation,with holds factual statistics, misleads local govt officials, engages in all sorts of ad hominen attacks and every other vile tactic employeed by the Anti Gun left. News flash for ya, we've already been successfully alientated from "the mainstream " , guess you havent been following the MSM for the last few years, all the Anti Gunners ever say is gun owners and Pro 2A advocates are a bunch of ignorant , uneducated , violent red necks.


I can guarentee you this though, the American people despise being manipulated by lies, as if you havent noticed lately. As more and more of the truth is told , who are they going to be more angry at ? The gun grabbers who have lied and advocated horrible policy for years in an attempt to force victimization on them ? Or someone like me who might have hurt someones feelings and attacked their views ?

Maybe you should advise your good friend that she's on the wrong side of freedom,liberty and the Constitution and might consider rethinking that. Otherwise, if she gets splashed in the shitstorm , thats to bad. History is chock full of examples of people that do many good deeds and lead a relatively "righteous " life and one thing from their past pops up and destroys it all. Those people should choose carefully what effect those poor decisions might someday have on future plans.

I have and will continue to actively and doggedly pursue and expose, at MY considerable personal expense and family time ANYONE affiliated and or associated with the Anti Gun movement, to the extent permitted by law. Im only playing the game the way they've showed us they want to play. I swore an oath to defend the Constitution, the ENTIRE thing , even when I dont agree with it. And from where I sit, your friend,despite her " good deeds " appears to be opposed to that. You have a good day now M Kay ?

[Rule10b5]

Sorry your offended counselor. I didnt make a SINGLE " statement " of unproven fact that would even come close to bordering on libel. I asked a series of hypothetical questions. You also wont get an once of sympathy from me for the " poor downtrodden masses " that choose a life of crime.

Actually, you're wrong. Pennsylvania's libel laws are incredibly broad -- you can't escape liability by claiming that you're only asking questions -- the party uttering the comment is responsible if a reader or recipient understands it to be a defamatory statement.

Want a good example of a libelous statement that's a question?

"How many goats has *insert name* blown? We want to know. Go out there and find out how many goats *insert name* has blown. We need to use the same tactics against goat blowers that they use against us."

Libel, dude. Dead, cold, "summary judgment and won't see a jury libel."

And remember, even truth is not an absolute defense in Pa. -- and even more importantly, there's a world of difference between what is true, and what can be proved to be true.

That said, my big issue isn't really libel, it's that you're attacking the person, not the position -- ineffective.

No need to be embarrased for me. Frankly I wouldnt give a rats ass if Mother Theresea herself was Anti gun , I'd attack her with equal vigor, as I will ANY PERSON that intentionally uses misrepresentation,with holds factual statistics, misleads local govt officials, engages in all sorts of ad hominen attacks and every other vile tactic employeed by the Anti Gun left. News flash for ya, we've already been successfully alientated from "the mainstream " , guess you havent been following the MSM for the last few years, all the Anti Gunners ever say is gun owners and Pro 2A advocates are a bunch of ignorant , uneducated , violent red necks.

Attack the argument, not the person. Ad hominem arguments are ineffective and puerile.

I can guarentee you this though, the American people despise being manipulated by lies, as if you havent noticed lately. As more and more of the truth is told , who are they going to be more angry at ? The gun grabbers who have lied and advocated horrible policy for years in an attempt to force victimization on them ? Or someone like me who might have hurt someones feelings and attacked their views ?

If the target is so wrong on the issue, then attack him on the issue. Attacking him, and not the issue doesn't advance your argument. It's not a question of hurt feelings, it's a question of making an ineffective attack on the position. Assume that *insert name* blows goats. Assume he supports gun rights. The fact that *insert name* blows goats doesn't make him any more right or wrong about his position on guns. Assuming it does is to embrace a fallacy.

I have and will continue to actively and doggedly pursue and expose, at MY considerable personal expense and family time ANYONE affiliated and or associated with the Anti Gun movement, to the extent permitted by law. Im only playing the game the way they've showed us they want to play. I swore an oath to defend the Constitution, the ENTIRE thing , even when I dont agree with it. And from where I sit, your friend,despite her " good deeds " appears to be opposed to that. You have a good day now M Kay ?

To the extent permitted by law is my problem (as I discuss above) and the fact that when you sling crap on behalf of pro-gun groups you alienate those who are undecided or aren't interested in the movement at all. Most people are vaguely aware of the issue, and not terribly interested. Foaming, wild-eyed personal attacks on parties with whom you disagree won't engender, regarding your position, anything more than eye-roll by the general public, and a muttered "Christ, what a loony."

And, for the record, "b...b...b...ut they did it first" doesn't count for shit in a libel case.

[GunLawyer001]

I know Susan and her husband quite well. I'm assuming you don't know her at all.

Not only is she a good lawyer, she's devoted most of her professional life, at great financial and personal cost to her and her family, to helping those who can't help themselves. I know this for a fact; I even worked on a couple of her pro bono cases in years past.

Do I agree with her stance on gun control? Not at all. Does that change the fact that she's a hell of a decent human being who is an incredibly positive force for the downtrodden in SE Pa? Not at all.

Your post represents the worst sort of advocacy. Your comments are ill-informed, negative, and nothing more than an attempt to smear someone who -- despite her anti-gun inclination -- has done overwhelmingly good works. And, quite frankly, at least one of your suggestions borders on libel.

I'm embarassed for you, and I'm embarassed that this sort of shit is tolerated at PAFOA. Postings like yours alienate us from the mainstream, and when they are false, detract from our credibility in legitimate arguments.

I hear what you're saying (well, I'm reading what you wrote).

I don't know your friends, but I've met Diane Edbril and she's a sweetheart. Smart and personable. And she'd like to see us all disarmed and helpless. When I'm dead and bleeding in the street because she was successful, I will have reaped what she has sown. Just as if she were driving a car and gabbing about some important progressive cause on her cell phone and she ran me over, crushed me while she had nothing but good intentions in her naive little heart.

The enemy is the enemy, and the tactics they use against us are not limited by decency or fairness or truth. Their goals are to make us defenseless. They are like terrorists, waging a war without end.

The anti-gunners have no regard for the truth, except that it always defeats their arguments. Florida "stand your ground" laws will cause blood to run in the streets...except they didn't. No problem, they used an unprincipled academic to fake up a study that cherry-picked the one or two counties in Florida where some types of crime rose from their arbitrary base year, and ignored every other county and the clear trends.

Our enemy claims that grenade launchers are available by mail order.
That our lax gun laws are to blame for 13 year old gangbangers carrying handguns.
That a single .50 BMG round packs the punch of a Stinger missile, and a sniper on the ground can bring down a 747 at cruising altitude.
They statistically "prove" that having a gun makes you more likely to be killed than being unarmed.
Basically, they are amoral, lying sacks of shit who misuse the court system for vexatious litigation, they misuse the arts and movies and tax-exempt organizations and federally-funded "neutral" entities to promote their propaganda agenda.

Josh Sugarmann is famous for cynically planning a strategy that relied on the ignorance of the public to get "assault weapons" banned; if General Motors or WalMart ran an ad campaign that explicitly relied on lying to consumers, they'd be prosecuted, but Sugarmann thinks that using this strategy to criminalize harmless conduct is just a clever idea.

Those are the knowing liars.

Some anti-gun-rights advocates are sincere, but horribly wrong in their rosy predictions of a world without guns. They are just as dangerous as the willful liars.

If someone wants to make you take a toxic medicine out of the purest motives, and they INSIST that you take it, then I'd say that self-defense allows you to fight back using any means necessary. The same applies to some radical cult that believes that God gives us illnesses to test us, and only prayer should be used as medicine; if they try to stop the deliveries of all medicine to your town, EVEN IF THEY SINCERELY BELIEVE that it's the "right" thing to do, they are the enemy and their agenda will kill you. What would you do to some kindly stranger who insisted on feeding your peanut-allergic kid some peanuts, even after you told him that peanuts would kill him, but they decided that they knew better? Personally, if it were the only thing that would stop them and save my kid's life, I'd strangle the do-gooder.

Libel is bad. I didn't see any libel in the post you critiqued, I'm open to having it pointed out. But fighting dirty is necessary.
ETA: Just saw your reply, if this is what you mean: "How many true scumbags has she successfully managed to get released back into Society to continue their life of crime ?" Even if that's false by implication, I don't see how that's defamatory as applied to a criminal defense lawyer. That's the job, it's a necessary part of the adversarial system.


As for Bryan Miller, he's infiltrated the churches to spread his propaganda. This is a guy whose own brother was a cop (an FBI agent, I believe)m who was sitting inside a local police station when some loon came in and shot him dead. Somehow, the lesson that Miller takes from this tragedy is that the rest of us should lose our guns, and rely for our protection on the types of folks who couldn't protect themselves in a building full of cops. Yeah, that should work, when the bad guy is coming at me with an ax, instead of a mean old gun I'll pick up the phone, dial 911, wait for someone to answer, tell them my name, home phone number, home address, nature of the emergency, then I'll say it louder because they got it wrong the first time, then they'll type it up and put it in the queue for the next available unit...and then maybe they'll send the sort of cop who couldn't stop a murder in the police station.

If my house is on fire, I'd prefer not to rely on the firehouse that's closed to repair fire damage.

[GunLawyer001]

. . .

That said, my big issue isn't really libel, it's that you're attacking the person, not the position -- ineffective.



Attack the argument, not the person. Ad hominem arguments are ineffective and puerile.



If the target is so wrong on the issue, then attack him on the issue. Attacking him, and not the issue doesn't advance your argument. It's not a question of hurt feelings, it's a question of making an ineffective attack on the position. Assume that *insert name* blows goats. Assume he supports gun rights. The fact that *insert name* blows goats doesn't make him any more right or wrong about his position on guns. Assuming it does is to embrace a fallacy.


. . .

My experience in realpolitiks is different. The political Left relies almost exclusively on ad hominem attacks, and they control the White House and both Legislative houses, so maybe it works.

How did they derail Newt Gingrich's success in the House, how did they rid themselves of that troublesome Trent Lott? For that matter, how did Obama win his Senate primary and then the Senate election (in both cases, he and his minions used materials from his opponent's divorces to smear their character. Look it up.)

What tactic is being used against Sarah Palin? Be honest, have you seen more analysis of her views of oil drilling, or snide mimicking of "we can see Russia from here"? More coverage of her tenure as mayor and then governor, or speculation about her daughter's vagina?

Politics is a blood sport. I'd prefer a genteel discussion of the merits, analysis of evidence, and let all sides make their best case and then rebut the opposition. When we all move to that world, let me know.