GOAL's Argument FOR the incorporation of the 2nd Amendment.

[cekim]

I have not received it from Jim to publish. I will try to track it down.

Thanks for the help on this guys.

Jim's article is just that, meant to be shared throughout our various communication networks. It is not what will be presented at SJC. Fear not, that will be dry and boring

I assumed as much, its a "blog", it seemed appropriate for that forum (as well as the press generally).

Half Cocked's question of audience/intent was reasonable... I assumed that he wasn't publishing the Amicus brief on a blog - you'd never get through all the cite's and legalieze...

 

[Half Cocked]

I assumed as much, its a "blog", it seemed appropriate for that forum (as well as the press generally).

I would argue that it is not appropriate for the press either.... I feel it gives the wrong impression of what the organization should stand for.

 

[Friday]

Point taken, most courts are indeed most interested solely on the facts of law. Insults and accusations, however, are personal influences, yet they may affect rulings that might be decided quite differently in a dispassionate environment. Such behavior directed to the courts is one thing- with predictable results; directed at opposing parties another.

I guess I'll wait to read the brief, when it becomes available, before I determine the tone, intent and emotion therein.

 

[cekim]

I would argue that it is not appropriate for the press either.... I feel it gives the wrong impression of what the organization should stand for.

Hard call - I see where you are coming from, but the point is to get people looking past guns to see the tie-in with civil rights and the justifiable "anger" as a result...

You can't please everyone - ever, but they are trying to get people off the fence who don't feel they have a compelling ethical/moral argument to support gun rights, they just like being able to own them and frankly, they've been lulled into a sense of embarrassment over the past 3 decades for doing so...

Perhaps the better question to ask is not what the forum for the document, but the the makeup of the intended audience?

Antis? They aren't going to be convinced by anything - they have an evil agenda of disarming and oppressing people.

Pro Gun? Preaching to the Choir....

So, who's left? Is it appropriate for the fence sitters?

 

[Half Cocked]

but the point is to get people looking past guns to see the tie-in with civil rights

I agree with this... but it can be done without sarcasm and insults.

It is not the message that I have a problem with it is the delivery.

 

[Half Cocked]

So, who's left? Is it appropriate for the fence sitters?

Fence sitters are going to be looking at intangibles to sway them and in most cases the more professional argument will prevail.

It is the same theory as wearing a suitcoat to a job interview. If there are two qualified people applying the one who gives the best first impression will most likely win out.