Originally Posted by maestro pistolero
I have no idea who this individual is, either. But what's the point of having a means to post anonymously under a screen name if the ideas presented are not assessed on their merits, but rather than on the pedigree of the writer...
I'm aware of that point of view and don't fully share it. The fact is that not all opinions are equal. The opinion of my doctor about my health deserves much more attention than that of my mechanic, and if that weren't the case I'd need a new doctor.
It's a matter of credibility. There's a difference between the opinion of someone who has appropriate education and experience in the subject matter to which the opinion relates and that of someone lacking appropriate qualifications. In court, only someone whose qualifications have been established may testify as to an opinion, and there's a reason for that.
I know something of the qualifications and track record of Alan Gura. I know something of the qualifications and track record of Alan Gottlieb and the Second Amendment Foundation.
Furthermore, smoking357's opinion is not supported by citation or reference to objective evidence, but rather by conjecture and assumption. That might be one thing when the person stating the opinion has established his credibility and qualification. It's another thing when the person is an anonymous denizen of cyberspace without established reputation. In effect, the merits of smoking357's opinion can't be assessed -- only whether it "sounds good."