Aim

Since the Civil Rights movement’s epic victory in the Heller case two years ago, the eyes of civil-rights-loving Americans of all parties have been trained on Chicago.

The City of Chicago, and many of its suburbs, have gun control laws scarcely less onerous than those in North Korea – while the crime wave in Chicago itself remains among the worst in America, and grows ever worse as the government of Richard Daley (Orc, La-La-Land) tries to disarm the law-abiding citizen even more.

But the legislative and legal battlefield has changed in the past 25 years; indeed, it’s almost unrecognizable to this Human Rights activist, who was feeling incredibly depressed about the state of Second Amendment human rights as recently as 1994.

And we are approaching what may be perhaps the most epic battle of them all.

The National Rifle Association – perhaps America’s foremost Human Rights group  – – – filed amicus (“friend of the court”) briefs  yesterday in support of the plaintiff in McDonald Vs. Chicago.

And just to show what an “extremist” position this is, the filing was joined by a bipartisan selection of over 3/4 of this nation’s state attorneys-general:

Last week, the NRA filed its brief with the Supreme Court as Respondent in Support of Petitioner in the McDonald case. The NRA brief asks the Court to hold that the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments through the Fourteenth Amendment.

“We are pleased that more than 75 percent of America’s state attorneys general have joined this historic effort in support of our Second Amendment freedoms. The NRA and gun owners everywhere are grateful for their participation in ensuring that the Second Amendment applies across the nation, not just in federal enclaves,” said Chris W. Cox, NRA chief lobbyist. “I would especially like to acknowledge the outstanding work of Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott in authoring this historic amicus brief, as well Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray, Arkansas Attorney General Dustin McDaniel and Georgia Attorney General Thurbert Baker for their leadership in this important effort.”

Minnesota’s Lori Swanson was joined by the Attorneys-General of North and South Dakota in supporting Human Rights.  Iowa and Wisconsin’s AGs apparently sided with the orcs, on behalf of slavery and repression.  It should go without saying that electoral vengeance should rain down on those vapid petty tyrants like vomit from the cheap seats at Lambeau Field.

The case should go to the SCOTUS in the next three months.  It should go without saying I’ll be on it.

20 thoughts on “Aim

  1. Yup. When you get 4/5 of the AGs across the country, it’s pretty clear that support is, among other things, bipartisan.

  2. “The National Rifle Association – perhaps America’s foremost Human Rights group…” Heh. I like that.

    Proud to be a member.

  3. I guess it all depends on how literally you take the constitution and how much you allow for the changing of the times. I take a pretty literal reading of the constitution.

    Which is why I think the military should be completely privatized as a national militia. Citizens are perfectly capable of defending themselves, we don’t need the government doing it for us.

    What percentage of our taxes go to civil and national defense? At least half. With tax cuts like that we would have an unvincible economy overnight and with 300 million soliders defending our GNP no one would dare invade us.

  4. What percentage of our taxes go to civil and national defense? At least half

    Nope – more like 21% at the federal level.

    By “civil defense”, what do you mean – police? At a state level, they are way behind education, entitlements, higher ed and roads.

  5. we would have an unvincible economy

    Unvincible? Public edumaction at its best there, either that or your parents got ripped of AB

  6. Always love it when one poster hassles another for spelling, grammar etc… and then makes a similiar error.

    Ben how does “ripped of” work again?

  7. I suppose I could also point out the “edumaction” was most likely intended to be “edumacation.” The only think funnier than an unintentional misspelling is the unintentional misspelling of an intentional misspelling. I don’t even know if I’m spelling misspelling right.

    I try to avoid picking on others for their grammatical errors since I find it petty and shallow, but hey when in Rome…

    I would much rather pick on Ben for quoting one sentence from a speech Obama made a year ago, taking it completely out of context, and then equivocating the key words to make sure they fit into whatever context he needs to make his point. But he was probably just being ironic, so I’ll leave it as it is.

  8. AB,

    I presume you’re talking about the Civilian National Force remark?

    How was that wrong, again?

  9. Yes, Mitch, it was. The civilian national force (not a proper noun, as far as I know) was a call to civilians to volunteer for their communities. Yes, he wanted to spend (or waste, as some conservatives would say) oodles of taxpayer money to subsidize such programs in hopes of growing the American infrastructure.

    Whether or not such a plan would work is another issue, but Ben brought this up in a context that made it sound like this “force” had something to do with arms or combat. I seriously thought he was just being funny, and I hope for his sake that he was.

    I mean seriously, how could any conservative claim that Obama had ever called upon civilians to arm themselves with a straight face? Maybe I just totally missed what Ben was getting at, but I got a good laugh out of that regardless.

  10. I’m conflicted.

    As a student of the Constitution, I’m appalled that the sloppy thinking of the Incorporation Doctrine should extend limitations on federal power to the states.

    As a Life Member, I’m proud my organization is doing something to protect my right to keep and bear arms.

    As a pessimist, I’m worried that the Supremes will incorporate the Second Amendment against the States, but will effectively neuter it by deciding that the burden of proof will not be Strict Scrutiny nor even Intermediate Scrutiny, but merely Rational Basis.

    If that happens, the whole battle will have been for naught.

    >

  11. AB, fine you got me at a weak moment, I’m usually better than that. But to quote Obama, “We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”
    your response?
    The civilian national force (not a proper noun, as far as I know) was a call to civilians to volunteer for their communities. Yes, he wanted to spend (or waste, as some conservatives would say) oodles of taxpayer money to subsidize such programs in hopes of growing the American infrastructure.
    and you go on to say…
    but Ben brought this up in a context that made it sound like this “force” had something to do with arms or combat.
    he used words like strong and well-funded. Sure sounds like a “force” to me but what do I know.
    And there’s this gem from the American Thinker, apparently that quote WASNT from the Tele, it was something he ADDED ON HIS OWN. Now THAT is scary.
    Senator Obama was nearly 17 minutes into his July 2 speech (yet another one where naming Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was required) in Colorado Springs, Colorado when he deviated from his pre-released script and performed without the teleprompter net saying, (above quote)
    and of course indoctrination, we can’t forget about that.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NuLrMsa_PeU&feature=related

  12. I don’t know why apathy boy has such a problem with dear leader dreaming of becoming Dear Leader. Obama has the instincts of a community organizer. Community organizers talk “Martin Luther King” while they think “Castro”. He promised to remake this country if he was elected, didn’t he?

  13. The civilian national security force is a Progressive’s dream.

    There will be millions of people all helping to keep the peace, like an enormous neighborhood watch. And they’ll be civilians, not police, so they won’t be brutal nor oppress anybody but instead will treat everyone with dignity and respect. And they’ll all be federal employees, so we know they’ll be the highest caliber. We’ll all be much safer.

    It’s a fantasy.

    Remember when airport screeners were private companies who hired the dregs to cop an attitude while standing around X-ray machines? After 9-11 we federalized those jobs based on the same promises as above. But all that really changed was the dregs got better pensions and copped bigger, Federal attitudes while standing around X-ray machines. We’re no safer.

    When we watch COPS on TV chase down a perp and kneel on him to set the cuffs, my wife always asks “Why are they so mean to him” as if a stern but calm talking-to would have done it just as well. She’s the kind of person this fantasy appeals to.

    .

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.