Sorry, my phrasing was bad - I meant if "our cause lost" (i.e, ballot drive lost).
Sorry, I still don't get the argument.
What is "our cause?"
Getting "my" gun rights at any cost?
Are you saying I risk exposing that, for want of a better paraphrase, your approach of leveraging the courts to impose rulings that you favor on the population at large isn't actually supported by that population?
I thought we were on the high road and that the silent majority of the population, beaten down by years of those self same tactics from the other side, actually do support you and your use of the courts against a non-representative elite and will demonstrate such support if given the right "cause" to rally behind.
It emboldens the opposition.
Cheers, that one made me laugh so much. Maybe you've been in the trenches so long, fighting so up close with these people (for which by the way I truly do thank you) that you mistake a momentary single back step on their part for a victory. For those of us outside, coming in late, evidently noobs is the term, we hate to tell you but the big picture is that the opposition doesn't need any "emboldening" on our part to quite happily continue their forward march all over us.
That's why one of the most important support things for Heller was that we got tons of "sense of the legislature", as well as "RKBA is a right" letters from DAs and AGs.
And exactly how many Californian DA's and AG's were in there?
The DOJ Firearms Division was downsized to a Bureau because of all the drama.
And since July 1st this "downsized" bureau is "so unfortunately" suffering a backlog on issuing authorization letters to out of state FFL's so now its becoming impossible to get them to "go through all the bother" of shipping me a gun to CA.
Now being as interstate commerce is a federal matter how exactly did this organization you so successfully neutered manage to impose regulations on FFL's in other states? I was sure one of those F's stood for Federal. Where's the NRA and CPRA on that one?
And no I didn't miss it because I'm not a member of an approved RKBA organization. For your info I am a life member of NRA, GAO, JPFO, etc, etc., etc. None of them flagged that one.
And please for the final time, get off the Ron Paul Types. Seeing how that organization worked and learning some things was useful to me, it doesn't define me. I voted for him as a statement not because I "stupidly" thought he could win. And no I don't think CRKBA will magically set everything right instantly I'm saying it gives us more ammo... From your responses it seems bashing perceived Ron Paul Types is higher up your list than guns...
See without any help from the anti's we've degenerated into slagging each other off because of our "differences." Its so easy to do and we're so good at it. I'll let you have the last word... promise...
Heller doesn't allow broad bans of classes of weapons, it affirmed an individual non-collective right and also included mention of 'strict scrutiny'. It spoke favorably of military rifles.
And most of that is obiter dicta and what isn't is open to the definition of "is" - "broad?" "class?"
All I'm saying is you're all wet and working in the wrong direction.
Thanks, I wondered why I felt so refreshed.
See I think we are all working in the same direction, just by different paths. I can throw lots of doubt and FUD about your chosen pathway, see above, but how has that helped either of us against our common foe?
RKBA forces are making the same mistake we made in England, we think the opposition is a monolithic entity of one mind and purpose and that to "win a war" against it we therefore need to impose discipline on "our" troops to present a single face against them: meeting at 3.00pm on the fields of Agincourt tomorrow chaps. No dissent or deviation can be tolerated.
The truth is the opposition is as divided and diverse as we are. They exploit this, they set the duck hunters against the black guns, the handgunners against the rifle guys, the CCW paranoid whack jobs against the black helicopter militia types.
We need to do the same. The right to keep and bear arms is a human right as attested by the Federal Government and its Supreme Court and the government and courts of the majority of the states. Is california willing to stand up and say that it doesn't want its constitution sullied by such "archaic" talk or is it happy to affirm its agreement with the rest of the country. My amendment isn't trying to get it to lead or break new ground, just affirm where we are vis a vis the rest of the country. If it won't do that, I for one would like to know that. Because that means that the powers that be think they are going to lead the rest of the country away from this ridiculous throwback by a fluke 5-4 decision led by some Reagan mistake. It means that, while I hope everything you think is coming down the pike turns out the way you think it will, they are not going to oblige you.
I came to this site via Oleg's Human Right site which I have long admired. That is the way to win hearts and minds and increase support. I'm trying to get an amendment that simply affirms that belief. Yes it can be used by lawyer types to repeal and prevent encroachments on the practicalities of it but we have to have that bedrock to build on.