McCain Steps up

[K Frame]

Some people, especially MB, keep hinting around about the NRA vis-a-vis Heller.  Well, some of us haven't followed the issue that closely.  So feel free to post some links, or start a thread. 

I'm not hinting at anything. The NRA were not the people who started the lawsuit, two Cato scholars were.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller#Background

"This case featured involvement by groups for and against expanded gun rights. The National Rifle Association (NRA) was initially not supportive of the case because it feared it might not be successful. The NRA later reconciled with the plaintiffs."

So, NRA wasn't initially on board, but later did get on board.

What's the problem?

[mtnbkr]

So, NRA wasn't initially on board, but later did get on board.

What's the problem?

If they had been on board from the beginning and it failed, then they would be at fault for supporting a doomed action that gave the SC the chance to declare the 2nd a collective right. 

By getting on board later, they showed they were only willing to provide support when it became a sure thing.

Chris

[Silver Bullet]

I've read previously, but I don't have the facts in front of me to back it up, that at the time Heller (and the others) originally made their case, Justices Roberts and Alito were not yet part of the Supreme Court, and the NRA did not have confidence in the Court at that time.  Maybe someone else here can provide better substantiation.

[K Frame]

So, NRA wasn't initially on board, but later did get on board.

What's the problem?

If they had been on board from the beginning and it failed, then they would be at fault for supporting a doomed action that gave the SC the chance to declare the 2nd a collective right. 

By getting on board later, they showed they were only willing to provide support when it became a sure thing.

Chris

NRA climbed on board with Heller LONG before it became evident that it was a "sure thing."

It didn't become a "sure thing" until Thursday, when the Supreme Court ruled.

Until that particular point in time, nothing was guaranteed.


Personally I can't blame NRA's leadership for being very, very careful about the case that they would choose to support. You get a single bite at this particular apple. Failure to win means devastating results for firearms rights.

I know, I know, a bunch of people are whining that NRA didn't support Heller from the outset. What, though, is the overall effect of that? Nothing, other than giving a bunch of people who can't see the big picture something to simper about.

And now that Heller has been decided favorably, guess where the lion's share of the resources is going to be coming from to fight Chicago, Morton Grove, San Francisco, etc. Those lawsuits are going to take years and cost millions.

[Nitrogen]

Has he come out and changed his stance on it?

Obama has changed his stances on the 2nd, too.

I believe Obama has changed his stance about as much as I believe McCain has changed his.

[Perd Hapley]

Some people, especially MB, keep hinting around about the NRA vis-a-vis Heller.  Well, some of us haven't followed the issue that closely.  So feel free to post some links, or start a thread. 

I'm not hinting at anything.

Don't take offense.  I'm just curious to know what you're talking about.  Like I said, I don't know much about the case. 

[seeker_two]

Has he come out and changed his stance on it?

Obama has changed his stances on the 2nd, too.

I believe Obama has changed his stance about as much as I believe McCain has changed his.

Larry Craig hasn't changed his stance as often as these guys have....

[MicroBalrog]

Some people, especially MB, keep hinting around about the NRA vis-a-vis Heller.  Well, some of us haven't followed the issue that closely.  So feel free to post some links, or start a thread. 

I'm not hinting at anything. The NRA were not the people who started the lawsuit, two Cato scholars were.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller#Background

"This case featured involvement by groups for and against expanded gun rights. The National Rifle Association (NRA) was initially not supportive of the case because it feared it might not be successful. The NRA later reconciled with the plaintiffs."

So, NRA wasn't initially on board, but later did get on board.

What's the problem?

There's no "problem" as such. But I'd say people give them too much credit for this one.

[wmenorr67]

Has he come out and changed his stance on it?

Obama has changed his stances on the 2nd, too.

I believe Obama has changed his stance about as much as I believe McCain has changed his.

Obama has not changed his stance. 

[Nitrogen]

Has he come out and changed his stance on it?

Obama has changed his stances on the 2nd, too.

I believe Obama has changed his stance about as much as I believe McCain has changed his.

Obama has not changed his stance. 

Yes he has.
Back in November, he said the handgun ban was constitutional.  Now he says it is not.
He now says he believes in the 2nd amendent; where in 1998 he wanted to ban all semiautomatics.
He believes in the 2nd amendment, but also believes communities can ban guns if they want (i.e. banning the 2nd amendment he believes in)

[Balog]

About McCain being anti-gun, it looks like all he wanted to stop was buying a gun without a background check. That doesn't seem so bad now, does it?

I won't say that's the most naive thing I've ever read. But I can safely say it's the most thing I've ever read not connected to fairies, unicorns, and little baby kittehs.

When I was stationed it CA it was illegal for one private individual to transfer a firearm to another private individual without going through an FFL. Do you really want to see that nationwide?

[Perd Hapley]

Everybody running for President "believes in the Second Amendment."  Haven't you all noticed that? 

[Waitone]

Is anyone going to hold McCain's feet to the fire on his Gunshow Loophole Closing Bill?