Quote of the Day
The National Rifle Association is not what it used to be, and that’s created a gap. And what has gone into the gap are a bunch of further-right organizations that are trying to take the mantle of the NRA by being as extreme as possible. Foremost among them is the Firearms Policy Coalition. Friday was a real moment for them. It’s one of the most extreme groups; it uses extraordinarily violent rhetoric. And it’s putting out material that’s getting blessed by a majority opinion of the Supreme Court. You have to take a step back and look at where we are—I don’t think that’s anything you could imagine happening even 10 years ago.
David Pucino
Legal director of the Giffords Law Center
June 15, 2024
The group rewriting America’s gun laws for the Supreme Court Is Worse Than the NRA. (slate.com)
I was already convinced the FPC deserved my support. You don’t need to oversell them.
I know I shouldn’t be surprised but I was amazed at the projection, lies, and deception presented in this interview. Here is an example:
Justice Clarence Thomas’ majority opinion is rooted in historical misrepresentations and utterly implausible manipulations of the statutory text.
The link leads to these claims:
Justice Clarence Thomas’ opinion for the court tortures statutory text beyond all recognition, defying Congress’ clear and (until now) well-established commands.
…
Thomas adopted a highly technical interpretation of the statute that does not align with its text. A “single function of the trigger,” he wrote, does not mean a single pull of the trigger, but rather a complete “cycle” of the spring-loaded hammer inside the gun. Because the hammer (rapidly) resets to its original position between shots, Thomas concluded, “bump firing” involves more than “a single function of the trigger.”
Deception and lies. It what they do because it is the best they have to bring to the debate.
I wonder what that ruling means for binary triggers?
Assuming I’m not misreading this, and the article author isn’t lying in some manner, as long as the hammer is retained between shots until another movement of the trigger, they’re OK.
“violent rhetoric.”
You keep on using that word.
I do not think it means what you think it means.
/Inego
seriously, the mental state of someone to write that over-the-top unhinged rant with a straight face is that of a person deeply in need or therapy (or exorcism). The mental state of someone lying that baldly is one who will likely need jail, soon, as they are pushing hard to get their enemies in the gulag.
Perfectly spot on Rolf. And might I add. “Look in the mirror, and accuse the other guy of what your doing.”
Truly, one might get upset if they weren’t so predictable.
It’s what you going to get when you drag a $100 bill through a newsroom.
I’m keen on the utterly implausible interpretations of
* people
* arms
* keep and bear
* shall not be infringed
More likely whatcha get by draggin’ a picture of kneepads harris through the room
“Justice Clarence Thomas’ majority opinion is rooted in historical misrepresentations and utterly implausible manipulations of the statutory text.”
You mean kind of like the pesky “statutory text” of the 2A? “The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” thingy? That you and everyone you know have been ignoring for over a millennium now?
Trying everything you can to manipulate it into something your emotional little communist pee-brain can feel good about?
And less we forget, for no other reason than to allow your fellow traveling-jack booted friends to murder the same disarmed with impunity.
Mr. Pukecino and company should be more apprised of the true law at play since and before the 1700’s. The one our forefathers taught the brits. And my father taught me. It being more relevant today than it was then.
Public law, 308. sub-section, BFYTW. Bitches.
The Second Amendment was not brought up. This was all about the ATF ignoring the word of the law and creating new law.
Yes, but I would suppose the only reason there is an F, in BATF, is because they’re all in violation of the 2A.
How bureaucrats, black robed or otherwise go about torturing each other’s scribblings is actually a moot point in the face of true law. Was my thinking.
And with my thinking and $5 bucks you might get a cup of coffee somewhere. Maybe.
His rice bowl is being shattered, of course he’s throwing a tantrum. Lawfare is going out of style as they keep losing.
I’m learning to live with that result. He should too.
Lawfare is a totalitarian technique, described by Franz Kafka too frequently to count. Of course if someone they want to send to the gulags and need a show trial to do it happens to find a statute or case that destroys their effort to destroy the designated victim, I’m sure that counts as “lawfare”, too.
“He’s using the law to defend himself? He can’t do that! We’re the ones on the side of all that is good anf fair and pure!”
Right up there with “Mein Gott! Die Juden haben Waffen!” in Warsaw in 1943, and “They’re Jews! How dare they fight back!” or however they say it this year in Arabic in Gaza.
Remarks such as these simply show that Bruen was a correct decision. Now that flinging mud is the only thing they have, expect a lot of mud.
Worse than the NRA, eh? Which of the Leftist Saints who were Presidents said once, “If you make peaceful change impossible, you make revolutionary change inevitable.”
That ,and what George Bernard Shaw had a character in his play, Anthony and Cleopatra say. “Pardon him, Theodotus: he is a barbarian, and thinks that the customs of his tribe and island are the laws of nature.”
— Somewhere in Act II.
And all these years I thought it was something Oscar Wilde said in one of his plays.
The quote is, “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.” And it comes from John F. Kennedy.
The Shaw play is “Caesar and Cleopatra”, and that line is delivered by Caesar.
🙂