Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com

Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/)
-   Legal and Activism (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/f97/)
-   -   Brady Shows Its Colors (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/f97/brady-shows-its-colors-25883/)

canebrake 04-10-2010 02:30 PM

Brady Shows Its Colors
 
Brady Shows Its Colors

From the Second Amendment Foundation.

Following the dismissal of a second lawsuit against the District of Columbia by Dick Anthony Heller in U.S. District Court (his first lawsuit resulted in the 2008 Heller ruling), the Brady Campaign for the Prevention of Gun Violence was a little too quick on the trigger in its press release applauding Judge Ricardo M. Urbina's decision.

Brady Campaign President Paul Helmke, who has garnered quite a bit of self-created publicity lately in his war against Starbucks Coffee, admitted quite by accident that his organization still believes in banning entire classes of firearms, despite the 2008 Supreme Court ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller that such bans would not pass constitutional muster.

But that doesn't matter to the Brady Bunch. Their agenda has always been one of gun prohibition, not control. The kinds of controls they consider "common sense" are so Draconian in nature that they actually discourage firearms ownership, and lower the civil right to keep and bear arms to the level of a highly-regulated privilege.

Helmke admonished politicians and legislatures "at all levels" to "stop using the Second Amendment as an excuse for inaction" against what the anti-gun lobby has cleverly dubbed "gun violence." (After all, what is the difference between "gun violence" and any other kind of criminal violence that results in someone being injured or killed? Is someone any less dead if they are stabbed, strangled, burned or bludgeoned? Helmke's crew has never explained that, but evidently they think there is a difference.)

Millions of Americans understand that the Second Amendment is not "an excuse" for anything. Law-abiding citizens are not "hiding behind" a constitutional guarantee when they oppose the imposition of extremist regulations like those adopted in the District of Columbia, which Helmke finds so reasonable. These regulations include an onerous registration process requiring a ballistics check of the handgun, a written test and proof of good eyesight.

District regulations also ban so-called "assault weapons," the definition of which has become so nebulous over the years that just about any firearm someone does not like could fall within its scope, particularly if it is a semiautomatic. The Brady group is just fine with that; they think it is a grand idea. Helmke says the aforementioned politicians and legislatures "should follow the District's example and pass the strong, common sense gun laws Americans need and demand to protect their communities."

The Brady Campaign has been disingenuous at best over the years. It was on the losing side in the Heller case, but subsequently turned around and claimed that since there is an individual right to keep and bear arms, and the door has been left open to "reasonable regulation," then it is reasonable, in their opinion, to essentially regulate gun ownership into extinction. The right would still exist, but exercising it would become a regulatory nightmare.

The Brady Campaign is not now, nor has it ever been, to "prevent gun violence." Their campaign has always been to prevent gun ownership.

--- Alan Gottlieb and Dave Workman

Alan Gottlieb is founder and executive vice president of the Second Amendment Foundation.
Dave Workman is senior editor of Gun Week. They are co-authors of 'Assault on Weapons: The Campaign to Eliminate Your Guns.'

CA357 04-10-2010 02:41 PM

"The Brady Campaign is not now, nor has it ever been, to "prevent gun violence." Their campaign has always been to prevent gun ownership."

And that's it in a nutshell. Ban the Brady bunch!

pandamonium 04-10-2010 06:09 PM

These brady bunch folks are pathetic,this is supposed to be a free country( albiet a country of laws) I respect thier opinion, I wholehartedly disagree with it , but I don't see where, in The Home of The Free, that I should have to give up my 2A rights because these people have an opinion that guns cause crime, much like the way matches have been proven to cause arson. Thier opinions are NOT backed by proof, therefore,opinion. I have lots of opinions, I don't feel I have the right to force others to live thier lives according to them. They don't like guns? Fine don't own one. If these creepy minded control freaks want to have a crusade, if they want to spend thier money and efforts to REALLY save lives, they should focus thier energy on drunk drivers or gang crimes, areas where innocents die every day. Our Legislators should be asamed of themselves for even entertaining these people when it comes to challenging our BILL OF RIGHTS, just because they throw money around and call it lobbying( just another name for bribery and blackmail IMO), these polititians buy into this crap. Where will it end.

doctherock 04-10-2010 06:44 PM

Guy was dumb enough to put himself in harms way for the president and take a round to the head. Should have ended there, hes wasting precocious court time with his communist campaign, time where something better could be being accomplished. I could go on and on about this jack knob but better stop before i blow a gasket.

AcidFlashGordon 04-10-2010 11:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by canebrake (Post 267653)

District regulations also ban so-called "assault weapons," the definition of which has become so nebulous over the years that just about any firearm someone does not like could fall within its scope, particularly if it is a semiautomatic. The Brady group is just fine with that; they think it is a grand idea. Helmke says the aforementioned politicians and legislatures "should follow the District's example and pass the strong, common sense gun laws Americans need and demand to protect their communities."


The Brady buttheads also rely on the "legal" definition of an assault weapon:

Definitions

A genuine assault weapon, as opposed to a legal definition, is a hand-held, selective fire weapon, which means it's capable of firing in either an automatic or a semiautomatic mode depending on the position of a selector switch. These kinds of weapons are heavily regulated by the National Firearms Act of 1934 and are further regulated in some states.

However, current "assault weapon" legislation defines certain semi-automatic weapons as "assault weapons." A semi-automatic weapon is one that fires a round with each pull of the trigger, versus an automatic weapon which continues to shoot until the trigger is released or the ammunition supply is exhausted. These kinds of "assault weapons" are sometimes referred to as military-style semi-automatic weapons.

An example of assault weapon legislation is the Federal 1994 Crime Bill. The bill in part outlaws new civilian manufacture of certain semi-automatic assault weapons. It also prohibits new civilian manufacture of "large capacity ammunition feeding devices" declared certain weapons as assault weapons, and states a semi-automatic rifle is an assault weapon if it can accept a detachable magazine and has two or more of the following:

* A folding or telescoping stock
* A pistol grip
* A bayonet mount
* A flash suppressor, or threads to attach one
* A grenade launcher.


[The 1994 Crime Bill expired on September 13, 2004. See Semiautomatic Assault Weapon (SAW) Ban QUESTIONS & ANSWERS from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.]

They don't want to hear the REAL statistics of violence involving these "assault weapons" either:


Assault Weapons: The Weapons of Choice?

The following summary of police statistical surveys is excerpted from Kopel, David B, Rational Basis Analysis of "Assault Weapon" Prohibition. (Kopel's paper contains the citations for these surveys and lists a few more studies as well.)

* California. In 1990, "assault weapons" comprised thirty-six of the 963 firearms involved in homicide or aggravated assault and analyzed by police crime laboratories, according to a report prepared by the California Department of Justice, and based on data from police firearms laboratories throughout the state. The report concluded that "assault weapons play a very small role in assault and homicide firearm cases." Of the 1,979 guns seized from California narcotics dealers in 1990, fifty-eight were "assault weapons."

* Chicago. From 1985 through 1989, only one homicide was perpetrated with a military caliber rifle. Of the 17,144 guns seized by the Chicago police in 1989, 175 were "military style weapons."

* Florida. Florida Department of Law Enforcement Uniform Crime Reports for 1989 indicate that rifles of all types accounted for 2.6% of the weapons used in Florida homicides. The Florida Assault Weapons Commission found that "assault weapons" were used in 17 of 7,500 gun crimes for the years 1986-1989.

* Los Angeles. Of the more than 4,000 guns seized by police during one year, only about 3% were "assault weapons."

* Maryland. In 1989-90, there was only one death involving a "semiautomatic assault rifle" in all twenty-four counties of the State of Maryland.

* Massachusetts. Of 161 fatal shootings in Massachusetts in 1988, three involved "semiautomatic assault rifles." From 1985 to 1991, the guns were involved in 0.7% of all shootings.

* Miami. The Miami police seized 18,702 firearms from January 1, 1989 to December 31, 1993. Of these, 3.13% were "assault weapons."

* New Jersey. According to the Deputy Chief Joseph Constance of the Trenton New Jersey Police Department, in 1989, there was not a single murder involving any rifle, much less a "semiautomatic assault rifle," in the State of New Jersey. No person in New Jersey was killed with an "assault weapon" in 1988. Nevertheless, in 1990 the New Jersey legislature enacted an "assault weapon" ban that included low-power .22 rifles, and even BB guns. Based on the legislature's broad definition of "assault weapons," in 1991, such guns were used in five of 410 murders in New Jersey; in forty-seven of 22,728 armed robberies; and in twenty-three of 23,720 aggravated assaults committed in New Jersey.

* New York City. Of 12,138 crime guns seized by New York City police in 1988, eighty were "assault-type" firearms.

* New York State. Semiautomatic "assault rifles" were used in twenty of the 2,394 murders in New York State in 1992.

* San Diego. Of the 3,000 firearms seized by the San Diego police in 1988-90, nine were "assault weapons" under the California definition.

* San Francisco. Only 2.2% of the firearms confiscated in 1988 were military-style semiautomatics.

* Virginia. Of the 1,171 weapons analyzed in state forensics laboratories in 1992, 3.3% were "assault weapons."

* National statistics. Less than four percent of all homicides in the United States involve any type of rifle. No more than .8% of homicides are perpetrated with rifles using military calibers. (And not all rifles using such calibers are usually considered "assault weapons.") Overall, the number of persons killed with rifles of any type in 1990 was lower than the number in any year in the 1980s.

Gary Kleck, in Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control (Walter de Gruyter, Inc., New York 1997), summarizes the findings of forty-seven such studies, indicating that less than 2% of crime guns were assault weapons (the median was about 1.8%). According to Bureau of Justice Statistics, (Criminal Victimization in the United States, 1993, May 1996) offenders were armed with a firearm in 10% of all violent crimes. That would mean less than .20% (one-fifth of one percent or 1 in 500) of violent crime offenders used an assault weapon (1.8% X 10% = .18%).

Last Crow 04-11-2010 12:10 AM

Gun laws donít work. England is a good example.
This is from reson.com This is only two paragraphs from the story:
Gun Control's Twisted Outcome
Restricting firearms has helped make England more crime-ridden than the U.S.
Joyce Lee Malcolm from the November 2002 issue
Nearly five centuries of growing civility ended in 1954. Violent crime has been climbing ever since. Last December, London's Evening Standard reported that armed crime, with banned handguns the weapon of choice, was "rocketing." In the two years following the 1997 handgun ban, the use of handguns in crime rose by 40 percent, and the upward trend has continued. From April to November 2001, the number of people robbed at gunpoint in London rose 53 percent.
Gun crime is just part of an increasingly lawless environment. From 1991 to 1995, crimes against the person in England's inner cities increased 91 percent. And in the four years from 1997 to 2001, the rate of violent crime more than doubled. Your chances of being mugged in London are now six times greater than in New York. England's rates of assault, robbery, and burglary are far higher than America's, and 53 percent of English burglaries occur while occupants are at home, compared with 13 percent in the U.S., where burglars admit to fearing armed homeowners more than the police. In a United Nations study of crime in 18 developed nations published in July, England and Wales led the Western world's crime league, with nearly 55 crimes per 100 people.
Link to full story:
Gun Control's Twisted Outcome - Reason Magazine

pandamonium 04-11-2010 05:51 AM

It is only logical that if you remove the ability of law abiding citizen to protect themselves then, all your doing is making all citizens potential victims. I for one DO NOT like NOT having the ability to protect myself and my loved ones from those who would seek to do me or mine harm. If we are not allowed to protect ourselves who is going to do it. There will ALWAYS be those who will take from the defenseless. The police aren't going to do it. I live in NJ, a may(read won't) issue state,to me then, all I can try to do is never let myself be caught unawares, when my wife and I go to a restraunt I allways sit with my back to the wall facing the entrance, or in any public place I am allways scanning the crowd, because if I can't defend myself then I want to try to get out of the way at least if things get ugly. I truly wouldn't doubt if the brady bunch was origionaly started by the feds, with the way things are going these days, I can see why they would like the populace disarmed.

alsaqr 04-13-2010 03:57 PM

Quote:

Guy was dumb enough to put himself in harms way for the president and take a round to the head. Should have ended there, hes wasting precocious court time with his communist campaign, time where something better could be being accomplished. I could go on and on about this jack knob but better stop before i blow a gasket.
Jim Brady is the poster child for his domineering wifes pathetic anti-gun crusade. She wheels Jim out onto the stage and he just sits there 95 percent of the time looking brain dead. He seldom says anything unless he is questioned by some breathless far left, anti-gun blissninnie. Then he repeats the same old trash that has been drummed into his badly damaged brain by his wife and her partners in crime.

Several years ago I talked with a former member of the Brady bunch who saw the light and told Sarah Brady to pound sand. The Brady bunch debaters were instructed by Sarah to play the race card when they found themselves on the losing end of a gun debate. They were instructed to call the pro-gunner a racist.

bkt 04-13-2010 05:13 PM

As long as we have legislators who ban "armor-piercing" frangible ammo, barrel shrouds (you know "those shoulder things that go up"), and "heat-seeking bullets", the Brady Bunch and their evil ilk -- face it guys, these people aren't stupid. They're evil. -- will keep pushing and legislators, who really ARE this stupid, will keep helping 'em out.

Now go buy more ammo. Preferably for a gun you don't own since that will give you incentive to get a new gun, too.

robocop10mm 04-13-2010 06:37 PM

Jim Brady is a prop used by his nut job wife to further the left wing agenda of CONTROL.

Gun control is not about guns, it's about control.


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:55 PM.

Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.