Shills

Rustmeister is accused of being a NRA shill. But the accuser quotes the Brady website when she should be quoting the U.S. Supreme Court:

 

It was understood across the political spectrum that the right helped to secure the ideal of a citizen militia, which might be necessary to oppose an oppressive military force if the constitutional order broke down.

There are many reasons why the militia was thought to be “necessary to the security of a free state.” See 3 Story §1890. First, of course, it is useful in repelling invasions and suppressing insurrections. Second, it renders large standing armies unnecessary—an argument that Alexander Hamilton made in favor of federal control over the militia. The Federalist No. 29, pp. 226, 227 (B. Wright ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton). Third, when the able-bodied men of a nation are trained in arms and organized, they are better able to resist tyranny.

 

Oh, wait, that would result in a different conclusion. Well, we can excuse her. After all, how is she to know that the U.S. Supreme Court is the final interpreter of the meaning of the Constitution instead of the Brady Campaign? Oh, wait (again), she is a lawyer.

 

I think she needs a lawyer refresher course. Perhaps even including the definition of shill. Rustmeister is pretty open about his association with and supporting the NRA (and in general here). Where is her disclosure about her relationship with the Brady Campaign? I can’t find it.

 

Update (6:40 AM PST): I left the following comment on her blog post:

 

By: Joe Huffman on February 6, 2009
at 9:40 am
Since you are a lawyer I would have thought you would have quoted the U.S. Supreme Court rather than the Brady Campaign regarding the Second Amendment. For example:
“There are many reasons why the militia was thought to be “necessary to the security of a free state.” See 3 Story §1890. First, of course, it is useful in repelling invasions and suppressing insurrections. Second, it renders large standing armies unnecessary—an argument that Alexander Hamilton made in favor of federal control over the militia. The Federalist No. 29, pp. 226, 227 (B. Wright ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton). Third, when the able-bodied men of a nation are trained in arms and organized, they are better able to resist tyranny.”
See also my blog post.
And before advocating more restrictions on a specific enumerated right you should answer Just One Question: “Can you demonstrate one time or place, throughout all history, where the average person was made safer by restricting access to handheld weapons?”

 

Update (8:25 AM PST): Rustmeister points out that she has shut down comments. It was less than an hour after I posted my comment. She did respond however:

 

Reply: This is my personal opinion. I could get very technically legal. I felt it would be much easier to understand, particularly where it was right and the interpretation given by your friends was totally out there. That king of question is interesting. I can quote statistics, but as far as i am concerned, this disscussion is over and has been for about 10 days.

 

“Interesting”? I find it interesting that she denigrates a civil rights organization (the NRA) and those that support a specific enumerated right while quoting the bigots who wish to severely restrict that right. When asked to justify her advocating the restriction of a specific enumerated right she says, “this discussion is over”.

 

Isn’t it odd that the gun bloggers leave their comments open and nearly all of the anti-gun bloggers turn theirs off?

 

Perhaps while she is updating her definintion of “shill” she should look up the definition of the word “bigot“.

 

Update (12:30 PM PST): She has another post on the topic of the “NRA United Propogandists” [sic].

 

Just as an FYI I’m not interested in changing her mind. I’m interested in others seeing her for what she is, a small minded bigot that believes her opinion, in and of itself, is a valid reason to take away other people’s civil rights. We had (and probably still do have) lots of people that believed blacks should never have been given their freedom. They wanted to use the force of law to make them use separate water fountains, not be allowed to live in the same part of town, to sit in the back of the bus, and give up their seats to whites. It’s virtually impossible to get them to change their “opinion”. And so it is with many anti-gun people. If they don’t allow facts into a discussion and continue to insist on holding to their narrow viewpoint I’m just going point out their bigotry for the rest of the world and move on.

6 thoughts on “Shills

  1. Well, I would thank her for linking to me but I haven’t noticed any hits from it.

    She thinks that the “NRA is getting its but kicked in courts”? Obviously she hasn’t been paying attention for the last decade or so. Or even the last few months.

    Delusional is too kind.

  2. Typical liberal shout down tactics.

    Reference non-existent statics as supporting you but don’t quote them because they aren’t needed. The “rightness” of their position is “self-evident” to any thinking person.

    Well call me a knuckle-dragging neanderthal, but I require evidence and reasoning.

  3. It especially tickles me that she condescendingly tells you that she could get “very technically legal,” as if you’re too dumb to understand grown-up lawyer talk. Oh well, she’s just following her Alinsky playbook, whether she realizes it or not.

  4. “If they don’t allow facts into a discussion and continue to insist on holding to their narrow viewpoint I’m just going point out their bigotry for the rest of the world and move on.”

    “facts”. Liberals cannot weigh evidence. To some it just gets in the way of their bigoted prejudices, makes them dizzy. This woman is just a typical example.

Comments are closed.