PDA

View Full Version : Henigan, Morrison, Gura, Lund at Cato


hoffmang
01-22-2011, 12:19 AM
An interesting video from Cato that has two anti and two pro (including Alan Gura) on Gun Rights and the Courts.

http://wwww.c-spanvideo.org/program/297621-1

-Gene

pitchbaby
01-22-2011, 12:29 AM
Cool, thanks for bringing this video front and center!

odysseus
01-22-2011, 12:53 AM
Thanks for posting. Elevates the discussion.

Henigan - Heller: Bear arms means only in the home.

Ugh, that old horse.

nobody_special
01-22-2011, 3:32 AM
Good show; loved listening to Alan Gura. On the other hand, Henigan and Morrison's comments bring to mind the screeching of fingernails on a chalkboard.

I found Morrison's arguments to be somewhat more intelligent than Henigan's reiteration of the Brady's talking points, but even his arguments were relatively feeble. He suggests that the 2nd amendment may still have been meant to protect a collective right because Madison refused to allow any changes to the body of the Constitution; but he still ignores the fact that it says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

Later, he argues that the courts should let legislatures do as they please when the regulation is "reasonable to most people. ... within some very wide range of reasonableness for legislatures to do what they think is best ... there's no reason to think that gun enthusiasts ... are not adequately represented" and "guns are quintessentially legislative matters."

That might seem reasonable if the 2nd amendment did not exist, but otherwise this argument seems disingenuous. The reason we have constitutional protections is to preserve those unpopular rights that a political majority might otherwise criminalize.

And of course Morrison suggested that Miller held that a ban on sawed-off shotguns would be upheld, which is a radical interpretation of the text.

wildhawker
01-22-2011, 3:41 AM
Do note Gura's comments on pro se plaintiffs and their cases, explicitly stated as a risk to the field of 2A law.

rt55c
01-22-2011, 4:30 AM
Mr.Gura's handling of the question from the Brady guy in the audience was brilliant. The guy gets up so proud to say he's from the Brady campaign. He's so confident he has his "got'cha" question and then if u watch when the camera is on him sitting down he seems to look so sad it didn't work out the way he planned :rofl:

krucam
01-22-2011, 5:38 AM
Do note Gura's comments on pro se plaintiffs and their cases, explicitly stated as a risk to the field of 2A law.

I was there Thursday...3 rows in front of Gura. Right after he made the comment about armchair lawyers was his warning about people "on the fringe" becoming the face of the second amendment....

The Sticks & Stones analogy referencing 2A using 1A analysis precedent was...childish.

Thanks for the link Gene!

Crappy cell phone pic attached...

CaliforniaLiberal
01-22-2011, 5:52 AM
I don't usually thread-jack or whine freely but...








When are we going to get the Nordyke Decision???

We've been real good, we've waited quietly for ever so long!!!

We want Nordyke NOW!!!

How much longer?!?!?

When will it be Nordyke?!?!!!








OK, I feel better now.

Sorry.

:blush5:

yellowfin
01-22-2011, 5:59 AM
I wonder if in medical discussions it's considered a good idea to have 50% of the panel being people who failed out of medical school.

locosway
01-22-2011, 6:50 AM
I can't stand that any time the left (side of the podium) speaks, it's always, "blah blah NRA blah blah". Is there no other argument they can come up with other than the NRA is at fault?

I understand the NRA has strong lobby powers, but they surely aren't the deciding factor on firearms in America.

Ford8N
01-22-2011, 6:51 AM
Later, he argues that the courts should let legislatures do as they please when the regulation is "reasonable to most people. ... within some very wide range of reasonableness for legislatures to do what they think is best ... there's no reason to think that gun enthusiasts ... are not adequately represented" and "guns are quintessentially legislative matters."

That might seem reasonable if the 2nd amendment did not exist, but otherwise this argument seems disingenuous. The reason we have constitutional protections is to preserve those unpopular rights that a political majority might otherwise criminalize.



If the Brady's want the states to decide what firearms regulations they have, rather than the Constitution, then lets drop the Commerce Clause that the Feds use to regulate firearms. If a state wants a total ban on firearms then ok. And if a state wants to allow machine guns then ok. Because I know of a few states that would allow their citizens the right to own or build new machine guns. The Brady's can't have it both ways. It's either states rights or federal rights. And from what I remember we had a war about that a while back.

Left Coast Conservative
01-22-2011, 8:47 AM
I can't stand that any time the left (side of the podium) speaks, it's always, "blah blah NRA blah blah". Is there no other argument they can come up with other than the NRA is at fault?

I understand the NRA has strong lobby powers, but they surely aren't the deciding factor on firearms in America.

... than to admit that one's views are not accepted by most Americans. The underlying theme in so much commentary from lefty writers about gun control seems to be that all kinds of "reasonable" laws would be on the books if not for the evil NRA, the shill for the gun industry. They can never admit that the power of the NRA comes from its members, Americans from all walks of life, who give of their time, money, and VOTES, to support gun rights.

The deciding factor on firearms in America is US. The left cannot admit that fact to themselves. :D

Blackhawk556
01-22-2011, 9:07 AM
Can anyone view the video from their mobile phone? I can't. I've tried on my windows phone and Android phone and nothing works, I don't see the play button :(

Blackhawk556
01-22-2011, 9:15 AM
@california liberal.....in 2 we...forget it. In another 10years

CalBear
01-22-2011, 9:43 AM
I can't stand that any time the left (side of the podium) speaks, it's always, "blah blah NRA blah blah". Is there no other argument they can come up with other than the NRA is at fault?

I understand the NRA has strong lobby powers, but they surely aren't the deciding factor on firearms in America.
Antis have built up this image of the NRA that somehow makes it into a terrorist organization. Sorry, but they're just defending rights, as is the ACLU and EFF.

craneman
01-22-2011, 11:14 AM
Thanks for the link! It was enjoyable to watch in a painful sort of way. I came away from it convinced that Mr Hanigan and his arguments are just plain "weak sauce". Mr. Morrison, on the other hand, is a complete nanny state socialist.

Mr. Gura was rather enlightning in his commentary. However Mr. Lund, who by all means is quite articulate, could use a bit more charisma.

Overall, not a bad debate, but I thought our side could have been a wee bit more forcefull. I believe that using "facts" are the way to win an argument in a courtroom. However some emotion can be powerfully persuasive to fencesitters that might be watching these debates.

dunndeal
01-22-2011, 11:24 AM
I laughed at about 5 minutes and 15 seconds when Roger Pilon referred to Alan Gura as Alan GurU.

yellowfin
01-22-2011, 11:43 AM
Antis have built up this image of the NRA that somehow makes it into a terrorist organization.And that has only worked because of the segregation effect of anti gun laws, particularly in urban-metro areas.

resident-shooter
01-22-2011, 11:47 AM
pwning braydie n00bz ftMFw!

Stonewalker
01-22-2011, 11:50 AM
Morrison is intellectually honest - a rare quality in an anti. I enjoyed listening to his arguments and I learned a thing or two. Can anybody speak to the credence of his claim about James Madison's stance on the 2nd amendment and the constitution? Even if Madison actually wanted the 2nd amendment to be part of the militia clauses in the Constitution (which I am doubtful of, but I want to find out for sure) I would argue that it's a moot point because the 2nd amendment IS in the Bill of Rights, therefore it has just as much power to restrict regulation as the other 9 amendments.

CalBear
01-22-2011, 11:59 AM
I also enjoyed Alan's response to the 10 round question. Very few antis seem to understand how setting the bar at 10 is quite arbitrary, and won't prevent tragedies, but will limit the effectiveness of self defense. When you start talking about 10 rounds, you're not just talking about banning "high cap" magazines, you're also talking about banning standard capacity, factory magazines that serve a useful and necessary purpose and stopping a threat.

Steyr_223
01-22-2011, 12:05 PM
Thanks Gene, viewing now..

hoffmang
01-22-2011, 12:29 PM
Morrison is intellectually honest - a rare quality in an anti. I enjoyed listening to his arguments and I learned a thing or two. Can anybody speak to the credence of his claim about James Madison's stance on the 2nd amendment and the constitution? Even if Madison actually wanted the 2nd amendment to be part of the militia clauses in the Constitution (which I am doubtful of, but I want to find out for sure) I would argue that it's a moot point because the 2nd amendment IS in the Bill of Rights, therefore it has just as much power to restrict regulation as the other 9 amendments.

As I recall he is specifically incorrect about where Madison wanted to put the right to bear arms.

-Gene

jdberger
01-22-2011, 1:49 PM
Is that Bob Cottroll sitting next to the Brady guy?

hoffmang
01-22-2011, 1:58 PM
Is that Bob Cottroll sitting next to the Brady guy?

It is.

-Gene

pointedstick
01-22-2011, 2:17 PM
I really wanted someone to ask Hennigan just what he means by "ban." I mean, first, he talked about how specious it is to claim that his group wants to "ban guns", but then half an hour later, he specifically said that he wanted to ban high capacity magazines and assault weapons! These are contradictory positions!

The only possible way I can imagine that he could hold these positions with any intellectual honesty is if he takes "ban guns" to mean "ban all guns everywhere and forever." In that case, it would certainly be possible to argue for the banning of some guns as long as somewhere, some people had a few guns. But this is not a rational mainstream view.

Window_Seat
01-22-2011, 2:24 PM
Henigan says that the shooting did not take place in a "gun free zone".
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

http://www.edgehighschool.org/northwest.html
231 W Giaconda Way # 113
Tucson, AZ 85704-4341

82860
§922(q)(2)(A) (http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/44/922)

900' from Northwest Safeway to Edge High School

Erik.

Fjold
01-22-2011, 3:31 PM
Very good program. I lasted all the way to when the girl from Arizona started her disjointed and idiotic comparison to driving a car.

pointedstick
01-22-2011, 3:49 PM
Very good program. I lasted all the way to when the girl from Arizona started her disjointed and idiotic comparison to driving a car.

Her heart was in the right place, at least. And besides, was she any worse than the old coot who said, "the first amendment, uh, the second amendment doesn't really come in there, we just say you can't make AK-47s except uh, uh, under very limited circumstances and you can't uh, develop, uh, uh, oop—I don't even know what they're called—that shoot 30 bullets, uh, without letting your finger off the trigger"? :puke:

CalBear
01-22-2011, 3:53 PM
Her heart was in the right place, at least. And besides, was she any worse than the old coot who said, "the first amendment, uh, the second amendment doesn't really come in there, we just say you can't make AK-47s except uh, uh, under very limited circumstances and you can't uh, develop, uh, uh, oop—I don't even know what they're called—that shoot 30 bullets, uh, without letting your finger off the trigger"? :puke:
The most convinced antis always seem to be the least informed.

Carnivore
01-22-2011, 3:59 PM
Very good program. I lasted all the way to when the girl from Arizona started her disjointed and idiotic comparison to driving a car.

I actuarially like that part of it. The response was just like all the laws and controls we have made over cars we should have the same type of laws (licensing, registration,when, where how) with guns. With the hundreds of thousands if not millions of laws in the country over cars you still have criminals that use them illegally, prohibited people still drive, irresponsible people still kill others through their own actions. All those laws and still only the law abiding citizen follows them.

Although not the point I understand it still good proof that more legislation isn't the answer to stop people from choosing to do bad things.

pitchbaby
01-22-2011, 4:02 PM
Her heart was in the right place, at least. And besides, was she any worse than the old coot who said, "the first amendment, uh, the second amendment doesn't really come in there, we just say you can't make AK-47s except uh, uh, under very limited circumstances and you can't uh, develop, uh, uh, oop—I don't even know what they're called—that shoot 30 bullets, uh, without letting your finger off the trigger"? :puke:

I think she thought her view was an original one. She may forget that the "Gravo" (as choprzrul wants us to call them) have been out speaking against gun rights for longer than she has been alive and have countered every argument out there 1000 times with their own brand of common sense.

It makes me think of Satan... he has been countering good and justice with his own brand of common sense for thousands of years. It's almost as if the Father of Lies is coaching the Gravo.

pointedstick
01-22-2011, 4:13 PM
The problem wasn't with the girl's argument. In a one-on-one setting, it can work, but it's too easily dismissed with Hennigan's clever, pre-prepared soundbites.

krucam
01-22-2011, 6:38 PM
It is.

-Gene

Who is Bob Cottrol? Google provides some quick answers, sounds like he is NOT an anti. He and the Brady were in row 4, directly behind me in row 3 on Thursday. Before the forum started, they were talking as if they knew each other well. I overheard them and interjected at one point, apologizing for "eavesdropping", although I couldn't help but hear them. I spoke with them both briefly.

Mr. Cottrol meantioned to the Brady (who had a question to the forum at the end) prior to the forum, "If Donald Trump can carry, so should I"...unquote.

Many scribbles from that afternoon....I'm at the 0:03 point as the camera pans towards the front, 8:50 when I'm scratching my head while Gura speaks, for an ungodly 10+ seconds, shows the 'Brady' and 'Cottrol' behind me.

More on Mr. Cottrol?

hoffmang
01-22-2011, 8:29 PM
Bob is very much one of ours. His bio: http://www.law.gwu.edu/faculty/profile.aspx?id=1721

He's also on the board of the NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund: http://www.nradefensefund.org/officers.aspx

-Gene

wildhawker
01-22-2011, 8:34 PM
He's also wonderful company, a kind but extraordinary intellectual, and a great driver.

Helpful_Cub
01-22-2011, 8:49 PM
That was an interesting video. I love how the Brady guy wants to field all of the questions and by doing so ends up setting himself up.

1 : 12 : 50 - He's of the opinion that multiple interviews and other permits can be put into place so that Arizona won't have happened. However later on when answering the lady's question about cars, he goes on to talk about how cars have regulations and standards and that guns should have that also. However, he never once mentioned that the Government is interviewing people to drive cars or that multiple permits are not required. So already in his mind he's holding gun owners to a higher standard than that of car drivers even though "cars" kill more people that "guns" do.

1 : 13 : 10 - This was probably my favorite part. It was posed to the Brady Guy on presumptions; do you have a right, or don't you have a right. His reply was "I don't know if we've taking a position on that." So Brady has been working for years to control guns but they have no idea on if the people that want them, have a right to own them!?

I hope we see more of this kind of thing, it only goes to show just how messed up the anti's are and forces them to put their dribble on record for all to think about... Hopefully this isn't one of the anti's tactics to keep Gura away from the court room and burn all of his time and energy in these debates.

nicki
01-22-2011, 9:26 PM
Many people in that audience are obviously clueless about American History and have never bothered to read the Declaration of Independence.

The second Amendment doesn't confer a right for us to stage a insurrection, what it does is confer a right to us to put down an insurrection against a government that is out of control and loses it's legitimacy.

Maybe I have eaten, drank or inhaled something that let's me see that the source of both the 1st amendment and the 2nd amendment is the Declaration of Independence.

All the political rights we have in the first amendment were rights that were ignored by the King and listed as grievances in the Declaration of Independence.

The idea that the guys who fought the American Revolution and wrote the Bill of Rights to chain down the government would ignore the need that the people must maintain arms after just fighting a 7 year armed struggle just doesn't make sense.

Heller/MacDonald are not perfect rulings, hopefully we will get further cases which will enhance our rights.

Interesting to watch the other side.

The question I would have asked the Hennigan is will he work to repeal unreasonable gun regulations.

Nicki

pointedstick
01-22-2011, 10:36 PM
The question I would have asked the Hennigan is will he work to repeal unreasonable gun regulations.

Nicki

Oh man, now I really want someone to ask that. "Mr. Hennigan, you've said that your organization is in favor of reasonable regulations. Can you give us an idea of what restrictions you consider to be unreasonable?" :D

GrizzlyGuy
01-22-2011, 10:54 PM
Morrison is intellectually honest - a rare quality in an anti. I enjoyed listening to his arguments and I learned a thing or two. Can anybody speak to the credence of his claim about James Madison's stance on the 2nd amendment and the constitution? Even if Madison actually wanted the 2nd amendment to be part of the militia clauses in the Constitution (which I am doubtful of, but I want to find out for sure) I would argue that it's a moot point because the 2nd amendment IS in the Bill of Rights, therefore it has just as much power to restrict regulation as the other 9 amendments.

When Madison first proposed his draft of the Bill of Rights, he believed that the text would be inserted within the original Constitution, rather than as set of separate amendments as we have today. Here is where he wanted RKBA (from the congressional transcript (http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/bill_of_rightss11.html)):

Fourthly. That in article 1st, section 9, between clauses 3 and 4, be inserted these clauses, to wit: The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed.

The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable.

The people shall not be restrained from peaceably assembling and consulting for their common good; nor from applying to the Legislature by petitions, or remonstrances, for redress of their grievances.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

{...}

Fifthly. That in article 1st, section 10, between clauses 1 and 2, be inserted this clause...

jpigeon
01-22-2011, 11:01 PM
So when do we get the Nordyke decision? lol

Stonewalker
01-22-2011, 11:04 PM
When Madison first proposed his draft of the Bill of Rights, he believed that the text would be inserted within the original Constitution, rather than as set of separate amendments as we have today. Here is where he wanted RKBA (from the congressional transcript (http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/bill_of_rightss11.html)):

Thanks dude. I've got some reading to do now.

jdberger
01-22-2011, 11:33 PM
Who is Bob Cottrol? Google provides some quick answers, sounds like he is NOT an anti. He and the Brady were in row 4, directly behind me in row 3 on Thursday. Before the forum started, they were talking as if they knew each other well. I overheard them and interjected at one point, apologizing for "eavesdropping", although I couldn't help but hear them. I spoke with them both briefly.

Mr. Cottrol meantioned to the Brady (who had a question to the forum at the end) prior to the forum, "If Donald Trump can carry, so should I"...unquote.

Many scribbles from that afternoon....I'm at the 0:03 point as the camera pans towards the front, 8:50 when I'm scratching my head while Gura speaks, for an ungodly 10+ seconds, shows the 'Brady' and 'Cottrol' behind me.

More on Mr. Cottrol?

He was at SAF's Washington DC reception post oral arguments in the McDonald case (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=276246). He was also kind enough to drive myself, wildhawker and Lex Arma to Virginia where we met a hockey-crazed Alan Gura for pizza and beer.

His car was stereotypically academic. Vintage Volvo. MOUNDS of papers on every horizontal surface - even more in the trunk. I had a minor qualm when squeezing into the backseat that there would be a stray static spark resulting in a grain-silo type explosion....

Professor Cottroll was also nice enough to discuss Franklin Zimring with me and point me in a few directions I hadn't considered prior to a Commonwealth Club discussion of UOC. (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=302976)

Definitely on our side. My life's experience is richer having met him.

pitchbaby
01-23-2011, 12:36 AM
He was at SAF's Washington DC reception post oral arguments in the McDonald case (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=276246). He was also kind enough to drive myself, wildhawker and Lex Arma to Virginia where we met a hockey-crazed Alan Gura for pizza and beer.

His car was stereotypically academic. Vintage Volvo. MOUNDS of papers on every horizontal surface - even more in the trunk. I had a minor qualm when squeezing into the backseat that there would be a stray static spark resulting in a grain-silo type explosion....

Professor Cottroll was also nice enough to discuss Franklin Zimring with me and point me in a few directions I hadn't considered prior to a Commonwealth Club discussion of UOC. (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=302976)

Definitely on our side. My life's experience is richer having met him.


In my jeep this is actually possible.

In all seriousness... I'm glad you guys have assets on the ground in our nations capital. It seems this is where most of the best work for our cause will get done.

hoffmang
01-23-2011, 1:27 AM
Oh man, now I really want someone to ask that. "Mr. Hennigan, you've said that your organization is in favor of reasonable regulations. Can you give us an idea of what restrictions you consider to be unreasonable?" :D

We need to start an internet meme and a nationwide campaign to ask Henigan, Horowitz, Weaver, Helmke this question again and again and again.

The video we could create over a couple of years of their non answers this exact same question...

The question should be modified slightly:

"Mr. [Anitgunner], you've said that you're in favor of reasonable regulations. Other than the regulations struck in Heller and McDonald can you us what regulations you consider unreasonable?"

This could end the game. Maybe we start trying to actively find someone to ask it at every event they speak at? :43:

-Gene

pointedstick
01-23-2011, 9:48 AM
We need to start an internet meme and a nationwide campaign to ask Henigan, Horowitz, Weaver, Helmke this question again and again and again.

The video we could create over a couple of years of their non answers this exact same question...

The question should be modified slightly:

"Mr. [Anitgunner], you've said that you're in favor of reasonable regulations. Other than the regulations struck in Heller and McDonald can you us what regulations you consider unreasonable?"

This could end the game. Maybe we start trying to actively find someone to ask it at every event they speak at? :43:

-Gene

I totally agree, this would be epic. How do you people out about these kinds of panels? Is there a list somewhere or is it just word of mouth? I would and will gladly attend if it means having the chance to ask that question! When/where is the next one?

Also, the reason I changed "regulation" to "restriction" in the second clause is because otherwise Hennigan could glibly reply with, "the regulation allowing people to carry concealed without a license or own high-capacity assault weapons!" of course that's nonsense, but in a Q&A setting where the questioner can't object, he'll have the last word.

gunsmith
01-23-2011, 10:27 AM
Can someone put this on youtube? I spent 2 hours last night trying to view it on the satt connection where I live/work & I cant view it.
DARN!

Helpful_Cub
01-23-2011, 10:46 AM
We need to start an internet meme and a nationwide campaign to ask Henigan, Horowitz, Weaver, Helmke this question again and again and again.

The video we could create over a couple of years of their non answers this exact same question...

The question should be modified slightly:

"Mr. [Anitgunner], you've said that you're in favor of reasonable regulations. Other than the regulations struck in Heller and McDonald can you us what regulations you consider unreasonable?"

This could end the game. Maybe we start trying to actively find someone to ask it at every event they speak at? :43:

-Gene

I wonder if we can create a calendar with all of their events and start organizing guest audience appearances to do just this. If we get a lot of people we can do what Walmart does and just fill the room with their own people and we can just keep asking the same question over and over again.

The Shadow
01-23-2011, 10:52 AM
That was an hour and a half well spent. Henigan was true to form and attempted to persuade (through lies and subterfuge) the audience that Heller and McDonald didn't do as much damage to gun control as people think. Lund's interpretation of Scalia was an eye opener. I found it very interesting when he threw Scalia under the bus as a tactic to defending the second amendment. Morrison on the other hand seemed to say that antigunners had to use the same standard for the second amendment, as they use for the first, but seemed to contradict himself by saying that the second amendment is different than the first amendment. Overall, it was interesting to watch.

gunsmith
01-23-2011, 11:21 AM
I cant wait to watch the vid, maybe some kind person can put on youtube for those of us who can not view the cspan vid

RRangel
01-23-2011, 1:55 PM
Denis Henigan was not surprisingly divisive in his commentary. His argument denies that being armed is a traditional state of normalcy in this nation. As if citizens should be happy to have no independence and that forced helplessness is a virtue. That society chooses to be free and armed somehow because it offers no benefit. He's arguing instead, that government can do all and be all at every moment, and that it should be empowered to negate constitutional protections. In a word he is illogical.

Not only illogical but his statements are not truthful. Not by any stretch of the imagination. Examine just one point about the fact that the gun control enclave of Washington D.C. is the prime example of what he would advocate for the whole of the nation. Both Tuscon, Arizona, and Washington D.C. have roughly the same population size, yet Washington D.C. has almost three times the murder rate. Because it's always safer when citizens can exercise the freedom to be armed.

The push for a gun control agenda comes on the whim of certain political elite who feel they can fund and politicize every aspect of this portion of American freedom out of existence. To them I say it's not going to happen. Today the American people know that gun control is a dismal failure and that it's antithetical to our freedom.

Crom
01-23-2011, 9:56 PM
I enjoyed watching. Thanks for the link. I like Alan's remark about the 10rd limit on magazine capacity. It's an arbitrary number.

jdberger
01-23-2011, 10:10 PM
We need to start an internet meme and a nationwide campaign to ask Henigan, Horowitz, Weaver, Helmke this question again and again and again.

The video we could create over a couple of years of their non answers this exact same question...

The question should be modified slightly:

"Mr. [Anitgunner], you've said that you're in favor of reasonable regulations. Other than the regulations struck in Heller and McDonald can you us what regulations you consider unreasonable?"

This could end the game. Maybe we start trying to actively find someone to ask it at every event they speak at? :43:

-Gene

I'm in.

I do enough opposition research up here in NorCal that I can usually pinpoint most Anti functions. Obviously, our next opportunity is going to be in SoCal (send me a PM for how you can contribute).

I'll start posting additional dates.

The recurring problem we come up with is attendence. Most of these events are during the week. Most people don't like to get up and speak in front of crowds (me included). We need to remember that 90% of winning is simply showing up.