The NRA's Little Traitor Chris Cox.

General General Discussion
1

Glen Beck had Chris Cox (NRA chief lobbyist) and Helmke from the Brady campaign on the show friday night.

They were discussing the DC gun ban being put on the USSC schedule for this session.

here is the transcript:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP.../05/gb.01.html

Quote:
HELMKE:The real challenge for Chris and I, and I think for all of us, is to say once this case gets decided by the Supreme Court where do we start drawing the line? What makes sense? And after this case is decided, is Chris, and Wayne LaPierre, are they willing to sit down with us to figure out what are we going to do? The Second Amendment is the only amendment that has the word “regulated” in it, and we need to figure out what that means. What does it mean when we –

BECK: Weve already had that. We dont put NASCARs onto highways and we don`t put machine guns into the hands of people, either.

HELMKE: Thats an interesting issue because there was a machine gun in effect ban that was passed by the federal government in 1934. Whats the NRA`s impression of that?

BECK: Chris, Chris.

HELMKE: How about the Brady Bill?

BECK: Chris, are you for fully automatic machine guns?

COX: Weve never advocated fully automatic machine guns and Paul knows it. But, again, Glenn, this is very basic. Its –

BECK: Guys, I think everybody says we dont want criminals to have guns. But I just want to leave it with this. In the First Amendment, freedom of speech, it says "or the right of the people to a peaceably assemble." Who are we talking about? Are we talking about the government, the state, or the actual people to gather in their neighborhoods and assemble? Were talking clearly about the people. In the Ninth were talking about certain rights retained by the people. It says later about the states rights. We`re talking about the people. actual individuals. In the Tenth, the powers not delegated to the Congress – to the United States by the Constitution are retained by the people.

When they talk about the people – when they talk about the people, Paul, they always mean individuals, except when it comes to – guns?

Well, the point I try to make is that while you have a strong First Amendment right youve got laws against libel, laws against obscenity. You cant yell “fire” in a crowded theater. All of our rights you have to balance something.

BECK: Thats exactly right. Thats why we don`t have automatic guns.

Glen Beck, The NRA, Chris Cox & Paul Helmke… are all POS Traitors!

2

What does “USSC” stand for?

3

USSC - SCOTUS, the Supreme Court of the United States.

And by the way, gents, you do shout “fire” in a crowded theatre if there is a fire. That argument is stupid.

M_P

4

It’s easier to just say you don’t support it then to explain the technicalities.

5

Yes, especially to window-lickers like McCarthy who still hasn’t figured out the barrel shroud/over-the-shoulder thing. :rolleyes:

6

I read the transcript, and (as a whole) the Cox-Helmke debate seemed to be pretty much a substantive yawner.

Cox said the right things, considering what he’s advocating at this point in time. Helmke did a better job of pushing buttons, but he has easier rhetorical buttons to push.

What’s most interesting is that Beck appeared to be unapologetically pro-RKBA – he was the one who brought up the NOLA gun-grab:

“Did they not take the guns away from law-abiding citizens?”

And Beck was the one who raised (in a pointed question to Helmke) perhaps the most crucial argument in defense of Second Amendment rights:

“In the First Amendment, freedom of speech, it says ‘or the right of the people to a peaceably assemble.’ Who are we talking about? Are we talking about the government, the state, or the actual people to gather in their neighborhoods and assemble? We’re talking clearly about the people. In the Ninth were talking about certain rights retained by the people. It says later about the states’ rights. We’re talking about the people. actual individuals. In the Tenth, the powers not delegated to the Congress – to the United States by the Constitution are retained by the people. When they talk about the people – when they talk about the people, Paul (Helmke), they always mean individuals, except when it comes to – guns?”

Beck closed the segment with this:

“Every sane American who wants to own a gun – key word, ‘sane’ – should be able to. Nobody should be able to take that (a)way.”

Chris Cox a “traitor”? :rolleyes: Not by my read. But he should’ve taken much better advantage of Glenn Beck’s sympathy for Second Amendment rights.

For once, RKBAers got a slow hanging curve ball right over the plate…and we whiffed. :o

7

There is a saying I like to use: “When you spend all your time tip-toeing around like you are walking on thin ice, you forget how to put your foot down.”

The NRA has tip toes for so long about machine guns and “assault rifles” that they forgot how to put up a solid argument. I hope to God that these dolts are not going to be the ones standing before USSC and arguing our case. I put my trust in the SAF, GOA, and JPFO (not a member of JPFO, but think that they are great). I give to the NRA because it still benefits me to be a member and they still do good work. They just don’t consistently do good work.

8

I agree with Kintla Lake…

Beck made some good points. If we could have a discussion like this every day
on TV…we would get ahead and the TRUTH might start to stick to some people.
But, we all know that these TV debates that are even slightly on OUR side are few.
I emailed Glenn Beck during and after the show and said “Good Job”, I hope that I wasn’t alone.

9

Helmke is an ass . Cox is a sell out . Beck is a drunk . …

I hope they ban everything !!! Set up collection points , BEFORE I get to old to let my true feeling’s be known .

Time is running out for the Country and Republic . Too many people , wanting to many things , having been given to many things from the backs of others . The population needs to be culled by better than half .

Happy Thoughts !!

Helmke would be simple to beat in a debate .

10

From the American Rifleman, the official NRA magazine, March 1968: "“The NRA supported The National Firearms Act of 1934 which taxes and requires registration of such firearms as machine guns, sawed-off rifles and sawed-off shotguns. NRA support of Federal gun legislation did not stop with the earlier Dodd bills. It currently backs several Senate and House bills which, through amendment, would put new teeth into the National and Federal Firearms Acts.” —American Rifleman, March 1968, P. 22

11

What nobody wants to talk about is the reason for the passing of the NFA in the first place, which was to keep guns out of the hands of minorities. That’s why it’s a tax, not a ban. If you were affluent you could afford to own SBR’s, SBS’s, and automatic weapons. The .gov just didn’t want the “po black folks” to own them.

Gun Control laws are nothing more than Jim Crow laws that haven’t yet passed constitutional muster.

The real problem now is that the powers that be don’t really care what color you are. It’s all about them and us, the unwashed masses.

Hilary doesn’t want us Neanderthals to own guns because in her mind (And lots of other elitists) the only folks who should own or control guns are those blessed with the divine right to rule, which is of course our pseudo elected officials and their fat cat peers.

12

Further proof that anyone who continues to support the NRA really doesn’t understand the issue… :rolleyes:

13

I sincerely doubt that will happen.

The gun prohibitionists are a determined and patient lot, even if severely misguided. They will never do something that may result in high-profile news stories, like “collection points” or kicking down doors to confiscate “unregistered assault weapons.” To do so would bring national attention to what they are doing with the risk of unwanted scrutiny of both the law and tatics used to enforce it.

They know the best way to disarm America is to do it one little step at a time, in a way that may bring protest from gun owners but nothing more. The worst scenario for them is to draw the attention - and possible ire - of the non gun owning public. They will avoid that.

In combination with the demonization of guns and gun owners by the major media and the ignorance of guns/gun ownership of the general public, the slow and methodical undermining of the 2A has so far worked well for them. I sincerely doubt that they will abandon that strategy.

I believe the best chance of preserving the 2A is to educate the public on the true origins and meaning of the 2A and the Bill of Rights, and to show how everyday, ordinary tax-paying citizens exercise that right in a responsible fashion.

14

Here’s an interesting story:
http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20071004/opcom_thurs.art.htm

A liberal’s lament: The NRA might be right after all

By Jonathan Turley

"This term, the Supreme Court may finally take up the Voldemort Amendment, the part of the Bill of Rights that shall not be named by liberals. For more than 200 years, progressives and polite people have avoided acknowledging that following the rights of free speech, free exercise of religion and free assembly, there is “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.” Of course, the very idea of finding a new individual right after more than two centuries is like discovering an eighth continent in constitutional law, but it is hardly the cause of celebration among civil liberties groups.

Like many academics, I was happy to blissfully ignore the Second Amendment. It did not fit neatly into my socially liberal agenda. Yet, two related cases could now force liberals into a crisis of conscience. The Supreme Court is expected to accept review of District of Columbia v. Heller and Parker v. District of Columbia, involving constitutional challenges to the gun-control laws in Washington.

The D.C. law effectively bars the ownership of handguns for most citizens and places restrictions on other firearms. The District’s decision to file these appeals after losing in the D.C. appellate court was driven more by political than legal priorities. By taking the appeal, D.C. politicians have put gun-control laws across the country at risk with a court more likely to uphold the rulings than to reverse them. It has also put the rest of us in the uncomfortable position of giving the right to gun ownership the same fair reading as more favored rights of free press or free speech.

Principle is a terrible thing, because it demands not what is convenient but what is right. It is hard to read the Second Amendment and not honestly conclude that the Framers intended gun ownership to be an individual right. It is true that the amendment begins with a reference to militias: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Accordingly, it is argued, this amendment protects the right of the militia to bear arms, not the individual.

Yet, if true, the Second Amendment would be effectively declared a defunct provision. The National Guard is not a true militia in the sense of the Second Amendment and, since the District and others believe governments can ban guns entirely, the Second Amendment would be read out of existence.

More important, the mere reference to a purpose of the Second Amendment does not alter the fact that an individual right is created. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is stated in the same way as the right to free speech or free press. The statement of a purpose was intended to reaffirm the power of the states and the people against the central government. At the time, many feared the federal government and its national army. Gun ownership was viewed as a deterrent against abuse by the government, which would be less likely to mess with a well-armed populace.

Considering the Framers and their own traditions of hunting and self-defense, it is clear that they would have viewed such ownership as an individual right — consistent with the plain meaning of the amendment.

None of this is easy for someone raised to believe that the Second Amendment was the dividing line between the enlightenment and the dark ages of American culture. Yet, it is time to honestly reconsider this amendment and admit that … here’s the really hard part … the NRA may have been right. This does not mean that Charlton Heston is the new Rosa Parks or that no restrictions can be placed on gun ownership. But it does appear that gun ownership was made a protected right by the Framers and, while we might not celebrate it, it is time that we recognize it."

[i]Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and a member of USA TODAY’s board of contributors.

[/i]

15

Congratulations to Mr. Turley - he placed that one in the x-ring. This is exactly what needs to be said!

Edit #1 - a good piece to read with Mr. Turley’s - http://www.american-partisan.com/cols/brown/091500.htm

Edit #2 - gun prohibitionist often ask (in a smart-ass way) if “bearing” arms means that people can have tanks, attack aircraft, artillery, etc. The answer to this is understanding what is meant by the Framers to “bear” arms - those arms which are typically carried by infantry into battle. So the 2A does not guarantee our right to have a M1 Abrams parked in our driveway, but it does explicity guarantee our rights to small arms. This would also include all “assault weapons.”

If the Supreme Court upholds the ruling, this is a point that should be understood and driven home at every opportunity. While most of us might be willing to pass up the right to own RPGs as part of reasonable compromise, any new AWB proposal aimed at rifles, pistols and shotguns would need to be identified for what it would be - a direct and unreasonable breach of a constitutionally protected right.

16

And in precisely the right voice – the opposition’s voice.:cool:

Effective advocacy is the result of relentless education and tireless working of The System – not letters proclaiming that the Second Amendment was written “to protect us from tyrants like McCarthy, Kennedy, Feinstein, Schumer, Clinton, Obama, Kerry, Giuliani, Brady, Pelosi… .” :rolleyes:

As angry as we are at the gun-grabbers, approaching an elected official whose opinion we want to affect with, “Now listen to me, you idiot!” probably isn’t gonna work.

Here’s to all the folks, irrespective of political or organizational affiliation, who devote their energy to doing what does work.

17

Exactly! Taking the time to read scholarly reviews/opinions of the 2A and getting ourselves educated is a great place to start. Being able to debate with the conviction of fact is also a good way to keep emotion out of your argument. Here is a link worth the time to read - and re-read a few times;

TAKE THE TIME TO READ THIS! - http://www.guncite.com/journals/reycrit.html

As part of any discussion I have with an “anti” I also make sure to get their email adress and send them links like the one above. Effective advocacy is indeed the result of relentless education and tireless working of The System.

18

Last week, I attended a meeting of the Federalist Society at which the co-counsel for Parker (the plaintiff in the DC gun ban case) was the guest speaker. I was very encouraged by his presentation and suffice it to say, if Parker is upheld (as I believe it will be) most gun control laws in places such as NYC and Cal. will be in big trouble. If Parker is upheld, gun control laws will have to be evaluated under what is known as strict scrutiny and most of these laws will not survive this test. As it is right now, I am optimistic and I hope things go our way.

19

I too hope that Parker is upheld, and think that it probably will be. However, bear in mind the following, which is a small excerpt from the link I provided in my previous post;

"Interestingly, the adoption of Standard Model jurisprudence by the Supreme Court (in other words, if Parker is upheld) might do a great deal to ease the distrust and polarization that I have mentioned, and even to make sensible gun controls easier. So far, the barriers to gun control have been political, not constitutional. Those opposing gun control have been motivated in no small part by the fear that each measure represents a step toward confiscation. If adopted, the Standard Model approach would go a long way toward easing those fears, by protecting an individual right to arms. But because the Standard Model approach permits many reasonable limits on gun ownership and gun wearing, most genuine gun control efforts–those not aimed at confiscation–would pass muster. Furthermore, because the Standard Model approach is visibly rooted in the text, purposes and history of the Constitution, it is likely to be regarded as constitutionally legitimate. Though the importance of this last point has been underestimated in recent years, it is no small thing."

In other words, if Parker is upheld, it does not mean the end of gun control laws. It would, however, place discussion/debate on how to keep arms out of the hands of criminals, incompetents, etc. in a constitutional context. And as I stated in my previous post, it would hopefully define the meaning and intent of the 2A so that the rediculous “sporting purpose” argument would be finally laid to rest.

Interesting times ahead, that is for sure…

20

Would it be better for SCOTUS to not hear the case, and just let the lower court ruling stand? I don’t know, that’s why I’m asking.

M_P