But he attacked first! — Updated

B.L.U.F.

The left is having knee-jerk reactions to Bruen because they feel that Bruen was an attack on them.

---

The continuous attack by Arabs on the Israel has been going on since before Israel became a country. Within days of becoming a country six different Arab nations attacked with the goal of destroying Israel.

They failed.

That hasn’t stopped them from being murderous assholes. Mass shootings that became bombings that became multiple bombings. Knife attacks, attacking with cars, shooting rockets into Israel, all with the intention of causing terror within the population of Israel.

A few years ago I was listening to talk radio on the way to work. There had just been another attack on Israel and they had brought on two people to talk about the issues.

It was a shit fest, to say the least. Israeli would say “We bombed this military target as a direct response to these bombings”. The Arab would then interject that they were only blowing up school children because the Israelis had killed some murderous leader of the terrorists.

At no time did the Arab ever realize, or more likely care, that he was justifying murder because the Israelis had responded to the last murders. His only argument was “they did it first” without seeing that there was any difference. The attacks were all justified in his mind.

---

For years the right to keep and bear arms has been under attack. Small incremental infringements leading to larger and larger infringements. The infringers always making progress to their goal, removing all firearms from the American populous.

In 2022, Biden signed the first federal gun infringement law in over 2 decades. In his signing statement he said it was a start. He admitted that he wanted more.

In 2008, the gun infringers were slapped down for the first time in a very long time. There were a couple of cases in the mid to late 90’s but no real progress on the right to keep and bear arms.

The infringers lost their shit. How dare the Supreme Court rule against them?

To this day you will hear them say “Until 2008 the Supreme Court had never found that that the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right.” Because of the Miller opinion, the infringing states and the infringing circuits were using “Militia” to hang their infringements on.

Everything was constitutional because the Militia referred to the National Guard of each state and the state was just making rules for those that were not part of the militia. No conflict with the constitution.

Heller changed that.

Chicago, opps, that would be Cook county, oops, really Illinois, responded to Heller with a big FU. They continued the no issue stance they had always had.

Here’s the thing to internalize, they were responding to the Supreme Court giving them a big FU. They only had reasonable, safety oriented laws about guns. They didn’t stop people from hunting. They were just making sure the state was as free from gun [related] violence as possible. How dare the Supreme Court let all those guns loose in the streets of Chicago. There will be blood in running down every sidewalk when all those gun tottingtoting idiots start shooting it out over parking places.

In a facebook or G+ conversation, one of the infringers was telling me about this horrible bar fight they had personally observed. They knew that both of the people brawling were armed with firearms. It was so scary and dangerous, who knew what would happen?

My reply was “We do know, the guns stayed in their holsters, because that is what we do.”

When the Supreme Court fast tracked McDonald and said that the Second Amendment applied to the states, the gun infringing states again responded by making “may issue” but with so many hoops to jump through that it became all mostalmost impossible to actually get permission from the state to exercise your rights.

Again, the left felt like they were responding to an attack on them. The Court was forcing redneck culture on them.

And we see the same thing, now, in Bruen. The Court was asked “Whether the Second Amendment allows the government to prohibit ordinary law-abiding citizens from carrying handguns outside the home for self-defense” by the plaintiffs, and the defendants restatement “Whether the Second Amendment prohibits New York from requiring residents who wish to carry a concealed firearm in public to have an actual and articulable need to do so.”

The above quotes are from the original application for cert. and the response.

Bruen answered the question extremely well. The Court said that states could not require “good cause” when deciding to issuing permission to exercise a right.

But Bruen went on to tell the inferior courts how they should address future second amendment cases. This was the big win for us. Not the removal of “good cause” but because that was a part of the rearticulated statement of how the inferior courts need to rule in 2A cases.

The gun infringers took this as a huge FU.

Of course they did. They had to. The Supreme Court refused to listen to reason. The Supreme court again decided that gun toting assholes could carry without being strictly vetted. To make sure they were worth of the government granting them permission to exercise their rights.

Of course they responded in kind. They don’t see this as just a return to reason, they see this as having victory yanked from their grasp. This turned everything around.

They responded with a bowl of spaghetti that they threw against the wall. They have two goals in this action, to find out which arguments stick and are allowed, and the other is to require as many suits as possible of their opponents.

It doesn’t cost the State of New York anything extra to have a dozen cases running. All the lawyers and all the paralegals they are using are either salaried or being paid for by your taxes. Everyone that is filling these cases is paying some lawyer to represent them.

O.F.F. is reported to be spending $60,000 per month on its one case. In reality, that number should be closer to $250,000 per month.

These cases eat money. The state has done everything in their power to make it expensive. If the courts strike down “churches are sensitive places” this is a win, it is still a long path until the decision sticks. Unfortunately the state doesn’t have to stop enforcing “parks are sensitive places” because that question wasn’t asked.

Our team has to find multiple people that have standing to challenge that part of the law. Each part of the list of sensitive places has to be challenged.

It is going to be a long battle and they show no signs of stopping.