![Brady Blog [image]](http://www.bradycampaign.org/common-images/page-headers/brady-blog.jpg)
(This is a transcript of the speech I delivered today at the National Press Club Luncheon.)
Thank you very much for inviting me here today.
Thirty-two people were murdered at Virginia Tech.
That number, in and of itself, was not extraordinary. Every day in our country, on average, about thirty-two people are murdered with guns. When you add suicides and unintentional shootings, the death toll from guns in America each day is about eighty people. And for every death there are another two or three seriously injured.
Since the start of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, while about thirty-seven hundred of our soldiers have died overseas, over one hundred and sixty two thousand of our citizens have died from gunfire here at home. The stories of these daily deaths are generally relegated to the inside pages of the local newspaper, if they are covered at all, and almost no one takes the time to think about how these lives could have been saved.
The stories come too frequently, and their volume brings a sense of inevitability and hopelessness about the toll of guns in America.
The gun epidemic is our monthly 9-11, our weekly Katrina, a continuing Iraq war on our streets and in our schools. It is our daily Virginia Tech. Yet we don’t focus on this threat until we get a Virginia Tech.
And then we allow our political leaders to slowly and deliberately delay, until we are all busy with other challenges. And then our leaders let us down, content that we’re no longer paying attention.
To say that we are sorry that these shootings happened is not enough. We should be ashamed –all of us should be ashamed that we have allowed this to happen. We must all say to the victims at Virginia Tech and their families, and to the families of gun violence victims every day: we have failed you. All of us. We can do better.
To a world community in which citizens generally accept reasonable restrictions on gun ownership, the massacre seemed both horrific and unsurprising. The rest of the industrialized world, after all, has figured out how to respond. After dangerous people used guns to kill people, these countries decided that they should keep dangerous people from getting guns. And guess what? Gun restrictions work.
More people are murdered with guns every day in America than in a year in England. We suffer as many gun deaths every sixteen hours as the Virginia Tech killer’s native country, South Korea, suffers in a year.
Americans are not more violent than everyone else. We are not more criminal. We are not more mentally disturbed or dangerous. Our movies and video games and music may be too violent, but they aren’t much different than those in other countries. Every industrialized country has people who are dangerous, disturbed, distraught, and depressed. But only in America do they have such easy access to guns – and extraordinary firepower at that.
After the Virginia Tech shootings, opinion leaders and politicians around the world – our friends and allies – begged us to take notice and change our ways.
The Times of London editorialized: “It’s so familiar you could write the script yourself. Only the names change – Jonesboro, Columbine, Lancaster County and now Virginia Tech. The simple truth is that Americans themselves remain unwilling to take drastic measures to restrict gun availability.”
The response was the same in Russia, India, Spain, and elsewhere. Australia’s conservative prime minister, John Howard, was most pointed: “We took action to limit the availability of guns and we showed a national resolve that the gun culture that is such a negative in the United States would never become a negative in our country.”
Hearing that legitimate, searing criticism of our country puts me at a loss for words. How do we defend our insane policies towards guns?
Some have suggested that Virginia Tech is a wake up call. But consider all of our previous wake-up calls:
·When a sixteen year old shot nine students, killing two, at a Pearl, Mississippi school in October 1997, that was a wake-up call.
·When a fourteen year old shot eight students, killing three, at a school in West Paducah, Kentucky in December 1997, that was a wake-up call.
·When an eleven year old and a thirteen year old killed five at their Jonesboro, Arkansas school in March 1998, that was a wake-up call.
·The school shootings at Edinboro, Pennsylvania, and Springfield, Oregon, and Lake Worth, Florida, and the six year old who killed his classmate at a Michigan elementary school, and the school shooting at Essex, Vermont – they were all wake-up calls.
·And Columbine. And Red Lake. And just six months ago, the Amish schoolhouse in Nickel Mines. Children throughout the country gunned down in their schools. These were all wake up calls.
How about the workplace shootings? A man with an AK-47 killing four in Orange County, California. A fired worker shooting seven, killing four, in Aikens County, Georgia. An accountant killing four in Newington, Connecticut. A driver killing three in Pelham, Alabama. A day trader in Atlanta, Georgia, killing 12, then himself. The shooting at the Johnson Space Center just days after Virginia Tech. Working people gunned down in their jobs. All wake up calls.
And then there were the Washington, D.C. sniper shootings that terrorized the nation’s Capital for weeks with the threat of gunfire. We recall those ordinary moments that turned out to be the victims’ last: a trip to Home Depot, mowing a lawn, or preparing to drive a bus. Some of you remember living under the threat of the snipers’ guns, living as if in a war zone. That wasn’t enough of a wake-up call.
And these lists are not comprehensive; there isn’t time to list them all. The assassinations of President Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr. and Robert Kennedy, and the attempts on Theodore Roosevelt and Franklin Roosevelt and Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan were certainly wake-up calls, and some even led to the short list of Federal gun laws we have.
So the alarms have been relentless, but our response, again and again, has been to hit the snooze button.
There is no more need for a wake-up call. The need now is for action.
I’m reminded of the bumper sticker: “If you aren’t outraged, you aren’t paying attention.” At moments like this, we’re all paying attention. We’re wide-awake. We’re outraged. At moments like this, change can happen.
How do we go about this change?
As in a twelve-step program, the first step is to admit we have a problem. Our problem is the insane gun policies we have in this country, policies that enabled the Virginia Tech killer to obtain the means to kill – and that enable so many other dangerous people to obtain guns each and every day.
Is “insane” too strong a word to describe our current gun policies? Let’s analyze where we are now:
In almost every state there is no limit on the number of guns you can buy in a single purchase; purchases of multiple guns, whether one hundred or one thousand or more, do require another form notifying ATF, but the guns are sold, and no additional questions are asked about why someone wants an arsenal. Where do you think these weapons end up? Isn’t it obvious why it is so easy for gang members to get guns on the street?
In most states, a felon or other person prohibited from buying guns can simply go to a gun show to an unlicensed seller, and buy any and all the guns he wants, with no identification or background check, no questions asked.
Recall that the guns used by the killers at Columbine were bought from unlicensed sellers at gun shows. The teenaged girl who bought three of the killers’ guns said she wouldn’t have bought them if she would have had to show an ID or do the legal paperwork. Yet here we are, eight years later, and we have done nothing to stop these unchecked, “off the books” gun sales by unlicensed sellers.
Uzis, AK-47s, fifty round magazines, and all manner of military hardware are wholly legal for civilians to purchase under federal law. Even fifty caliber sniper rifles that can shoot down airplanes and have a range of over a mile are available to anyone who can buy a rifle. No permits. No licenses. No wait.
Yet just two years ago, Congress and the President let the ban on high capacity magazines and assault weapons lapse. Law enforcement around the country stood up for the ban; they knew first-hand that these were tools of war, only useful to civilians for large-scale offensive assaults.
Then what happens? These high capacity magazines are apparently used by the Virginia Tech killer in just that sort of mass assault.
And from those unlicensed sellers at gun shows and elsewhere, that military hardware is available to felons, the mentally ill and dangerous individuals.
Suspected terrorists who are deemed too dangerous to fly on airplanes are allowed to buy all the guns they desire from any dealer.
After 9-11, the attorney general would not let the FBI see if suspected terrorists had purchased guns. Law enforcement can no longer check approved gun sales records, as most are destroyed within 24 hours. But the government can search library records to see what books a school kid has borrowed.
We used to get data that showed what types of guns were used in crime and where they came from. We learned that about one percent of gun dealers were responsible for selling almost 60 percent of all crime guns. But now Congress makes that data secret. The police are prevented from finding out about the corrupt gun dealers who flood their cities’ streets with guns.
A bartender can be liable for serving too much beer to a patron who drives, but gun dealers who sell hundreds of guns to traffickers or terrorists are shielded from civil liability.
Is “insane” too strong a world to describe our weak gun laws?
Even the few laws we have are not adequately administered and enforced. The Virginia Tech killer was barred by Federal law from buying guns because he was adjudicated mentally ill and dangerous. But Virginia, like most states, didn’t send the court orders about his mental health to the police, so he could simply lie and buy.
As a result, even our schools, that should be sanctuaries for our children, have been invaded by gun violence.
We must make our classrooms safe, and we should make our communities as safe as we would like our classrooms to be.
What are we going to do about this?
Here are three things we can do:
Number One – Comprehensively and effectively apply the Brady background check system, so no one who we want to prohibit from buying guns can legally buy one.
Effective background checks would have stopped the Virginia Tech killer from buying his guns.
Number Two – Reduce access to weaponry that is not for sport and not for self-defense.
Had Congress and the President not allowed the assault weapons ban to expire, the killer may not have been able to obtain the high-capacity magazines he used in his assault.
Number Three – Give our police and Federal law enforcement the tools and resources they need to fight gun crimes, including illegal gun trafficking and corrupt gun dealers.
This should include a focus on new technologies, such as microstamping and other ballistic identification systems, which might have allowed authorities to identify the Virginia Tech shooter earlier, before his second, most deadly, rampage.
Specific proposals to reduce gun violence that flow from these three general recommendations are on your tables and on our website.
There are other things that we, at the Brady Campaign and Brady Center, working with our Million Mom March Chapters and state allies, are going to do.
We intend to hold our political leaders accountable if they fail to take action, Democrats and Republicans alike.
We offered fair and principled criticism of the Republican controlled Congress for weakening America’s gun laws over the past six years. We intend to be equally critical of the new Democratic Congress if they choose to ignore this crisis.
We will provide expert advice to state governments who want to strengthen their responses to gun violence. Virginia’s leaders are taking steps to prevent individuals who have been adjudicated as dangerous because of mental illness from being approved for a gun purchase, and we are helping them determine how to do so. We are willing to give the same level of constructive assistance to every state of the union.
We are also setting up a website for Americans to answer what they are going to do to stop the gun violence: www.vidivoice.com.
You can tape your video right outside as you leave this luncheon, and we will post it online. Others can upload their personal videos to the site. Instructions will be available at our website: www.bradycampaign.org.
Gun violence prevention should not be controversial. The overwhelming majority of Americans believe that gun violence is a huge problem.
And most Americans believe that guns are too easily available to dangerous people. Most Americans believe that we should have tougher gun laws. Most Americans, including most gun owners, support the policy proposals I’ve suggested.
A small, vocal minority says that more guns are the solution, not the problem. To them I say: we have tried that.
We have tried a system where guns are easily available. We have tried a system where any felon or dangerous mental patient can buy the guns he wants from an unlicensed seller. We have tried a regime of easy access to assault weapons, and limitless gun sales. The result has been almost thirty thousand dead each year. What we are doing now isn’t working.
We can do better.
What we need is outrage – sustained outrage.
Most Americans understand the problem, and they understand the solutions we need. Most people don’t see why a felon or mentally ill person who is barred from buying guns can go to a gun show or respond to a classified ad and buy guns, no questions asked. Most people understand why a gun trafficker or gang member might want to buy ten or twenty guns at a time, but they don’t see why a legitimate gun owner can’t make do with some reasonable limits on the number of handguns you can purchase at one time.
What we need is vigilance – an insistence that we keep fighting for the safety of our children and families here at home, even after the news cycle turns back to the war abroad, the presidential horse race, or the latest celebrity scandal.
What we need is participation, from all sectors of society. In recent years, the business community has risen to fight efforts to force guns into the workplace. The educational community has fought to keep guns out of schools. They and others need to join in our national effort to bring common sense to the issue of guns.
What we need is hope – a belief that the epidemic of American gun violence can be solved, and that America is not fated to lose thirty thousand people to guns every year.
We need a national conversation about our gun problem. We need to ask elected officials and each other: what are you going to do about it?
I would suggest that all Americans have the responsibility to join this national conversation, and become part of the solution to the gun violence problem.
Gun owners need to join this conversation. Almost all gun owners are reasonable, decent Americans, and I believe they’re willing to put up with minor inconveniences like a background check if this will stop guns from getting into the wrong hands. We all endure security lines and metal detectors. We recognize that speed limits apply to the Jeff Gordons and the Paul Helmkes alike, regardless of who can safely negotiate a ninety mile per hour turn.
We should all be willing to endure a little red tape if it helps reduce the amount of yellow tape – at crime scenes – in this country.
Doing something about gun violence will benefit every one of us. Last week, the NRA’s chief, Wayne La Pierre, was quoted as follows: “We just don’t think it’s really gun control to try to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally defective.” I guess it depends on what the definition of “gun control” is, but I’m encouraged to see Mr. LaPierre agree that we should do more to prevent the wrong people from getting guns.
I am publicly reaching out to Mr. La Pierre and the NRA. Let’s set aside past attacks and sit down to see if we can find common ground on some steps to make our communities safer.
Since Virginia Tech, both the NRA and the Bush Administration have signaled publicly their willingness to support some new common-sense measures to make guns less easily available to dangerous people. Let’s sit down and directly address these issues. Let’s do this now.
There will be passionate voices opposing any step forward. They will change the subject, urge delay, impugn motives, call names, and complicate attempts to reach agreement.
But we must act. We can do better. We can’t be a shining city on a hill when we’re an armed camp. We want an America where children are free to go to school without fear of being shot, parents are free to go to work without fear of a shooting, and neighbors can stand on the sidewalk and talk without fear of a drive-by.
Too many of our neighbors are suffering that same pain experienced by the Virginia Tech victims and families every day.
Thirty-two times a day.
What are we going to do about it?
Thank you very much.
(Note to readers: This blog entry, as well as past blog entries, are co-posted on www.bradycampaign.org/blog and www.huffingtonpost.com)
Gun violence: What Are We Going To Do About It?…
…
Mr. Helmke,
You can propagandize through speeches and campaigns as much as you want, but you will not deceive those Americans who take a closer look. You vehemently opposed the decision to strike down the DC gun ban. This ban served to “prohibit the possession of lawfully owned firearms for self-defense within the home,” as described in the “Statement of Facts” from the DC court decision.
Since you so strongly supported this ban, you must categorize it under “common sense gun laws.” If such a ban is “common sense” to you, and you want to see common sense gun laws enacted throughout America, then your vision for America is clear: a complete ban on guns and to make illegal the use of already owned guns for self-defense. Your entire position, then, is suspect and that is why civil-rights supporters such as me will continue to oppose you – because we know your end goal.
Bob McAllister
For Shame, I knew the Brady Campaign was known for cheap shots lies and distortions but to use the deaths of 32 young people to pump up your agenda both public and hidden not to mention your filling your coffers is heinous.
Not one single idea the Brady Campaign has forced on the American public has been successful quite the opposite they all have been utter failures.
The back ground check that was correctly completed did not stop the VT shooter, and would not today. People such as the leaders Brady Campaign leaders have eroded the foundation of the country, and shunned personal responsibility. The Cho’s are on the streets because of people just like you Mr. Helmke.
The NRA has done much more than the Brady Campaign in the area of Firearm safety. They teach safety, and responsibility. The Brady Campaign on the other hand teaches begging for money, whining and blame anyone and anything but the actual cause.
The assault weapon ban that expired and you champion would have done nothing to prevent this tragedy. First Cho was not using a rifle; further what you have dubbed an Assault Weapon has been used in less than one percent of any and all crime in the United States for the last 30 years.
The Magazines used were not banned in the Worthless Clinton Political ban of 1994.
Micro stamping is a conquered up idea of the Brady Bunch. It is difficult and has not proven to have been successful ever! The idea that the police could have predicted Cho’s intentions using it is fantasy at best. Perhaps you should be supporting the police calling the “Physic Friends” would have the same out come as Micro stamping.
Mr. Helmke, you are an ignorant man, what you speak of you know absolutely nothing about.
What are we going to do about it? I have no idea what “we” are going to do. But I plan to expose you and your group for the money and power hungry liars you truly are.
Thank you.
Paul:
“Let’s set aside past attacks and sit down to see if we can find common ground on some steps to make our communities safer.”
I hope this means that you will stop using terms like “gun pushers”. Also, if you really do want to put aside old differences, why don’t you publically give the NRA credit for working on HR 297 (to strengthen the Brady Bill background checks) with John Dingell and Carolyn McCarthy?
Also, it is interesting that you did not mention in your speech the option of arming teachers even though you brought up a perfect example when you mentioned Pearl Highschool in Mississippi (remember Joel Myrick stopping Luke Woodham with a .45 pistol he got from his truck?). I remember Zach writing in your last post that all options were on the table. Was he wrong?
Talk is cheap, as we all know. I guess only time will tell if you are really willing to listen to the other side of the issue. So far, as is witnessed by your speech, you haven’t done so.
Michael
Paul:
Regarding the comment in your press release…”Repeal the so-called “Tiahrt Amendment,” which as an annual appropriations rider bars the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) from sharing data on the sources of guns used in crimes.”
The ATF is already sharing the data with legitimate law enforcement organizations. Look how quickly the Virginia police were able to find the store where Cho bought his guns. What they are not doing is sharing it with people who do not have a legitimate reason for using it (like in law suits against gun makers).
The BATF has legitimate reasons for not sharing this data with anyone who requests it since it could endanger ongoing investigations. In fact, they are among the groups requesting that Congress renew the Tiahrt Amendment.
You, Mayor Bloomberg and his cronies have been very critical of the BATF for not doing their job. Yet, by trying to abolish the Tiahrt Amendment you are interferring with their ability to enforce the law.
You are asking us to all come together to help solve this problem. Maybe you need to look beyond your own selfish interests.
Michael
Initial responses to article (more to come later):
(Quote) After dangerous people used guns to kill people, these countries decided that they should keep dangerous people from getting guns. And guess what? Gun restrictions work. (End Quote)
Other counties did this by banning guns. The BC keeps saying it only wants “reasonable restrictions” and NOT out right bans. Well which is it?
(Quote)More people are murdered with guns every day in America than in a year in England.(End Quote)
1. The population of England is only 30 Million compared to America’s 300 Million. Of course the total number of deaths will be greater in a country that has 270 Million more people. However, look at violent crime rates in each country per 100, 000 population size and you find a higher violent crime rate in the UK than the US.
2. Also, look at violent crime committed with weapons other than guns. The use of knives has risen so much that the entire UK is talking about knife bans also. The simple fact is that in America where concealed weapons for law abiding citizens are allowed, citizens have a means of defense. In the UK, honest law abiding citizens are at the mercy of whatever weapons their attacker has.
Next Paul list a number of shooting instances and questions why nothing has been done to prevent so many deaths from happening. Let’s ask him how many of those events happened in gun free zones and why he insists on disarming law abiding citizens thus making them easy prey for attacker. If the Salt Lake City mall shooting, Pearl, and Appellation law school shootings (just to name a few) have show us anything it is that legally armed law abiding citizens can and do save lives by stopping an attacker in his tracks.
(Quote)As in a twelve-step program, the first step is to admit we have a problem. Our problem is the insane gun policies we have in this country, policies that enabled the Virginia Tech killer to obtain the means to kill – and that enable so many other dangerous people to obtain guns each and every day (End Quote)
Sorry Paul, that first step was to admit the problem not mischaracterize it to fit you agenda. No gun control laws on the books or those proposed by you could have prevented the VT shooting. Before the incident the VT shooter was a law abiding citizen that went through all the legal channels to buy his guns. He endured a background check, bought each gun a month apart and had more than enough time to endure even the longest waiting period you could suggest. Yes he had mental problems that could have been “flagged” but that was a judge not utilizing the proper legal channels (had the judge involuntarily committed him to treatment rather than allowing to voluntarily committing himself, his mental health information would have gone to the state and federal background check system and potentially prevented his from passing his background check).
(Quote)In almost every state there is no limit on the number of guns you can buy in a single purchase; purchases of multiple guns, whether one hundred or one thousand or more, do require another form notifying ATF, but the guns are sold, and no additional questions are asked about why someone wants an arsenal. Where do you think these weapons end up? Isn’t it obvious why it is so easy for gang members to get guns on the street?(End Quote)
So, you want to limit a criminal to only making one straw purchase a month at the expense of law abiding gun collectors? Most guns end up in criminals hands through illegal means (including straw purchases) not through lawful means. However, you want to punish the law abiding for the actions criminals.
Here’s an idea. Some kids use false IDs to buy beer. Only one or two beers won’t effect their driving as much as 4 or 5. So, why not just pass a law to limit the number of 12oz bottles or cans anyone can buy to one or two per day?
(Quote) In most states, a felon or other person prohibited from buying guns can simply go to a gun show to an unlicensed seller, and buy any and all the guns he wants, with no identification or background check, no questions asked.
Recall that the guns used by the killers at Columbine were bought from unlicensed sellers at gun shows. The teenaged girl who bought three of the killers’ guns said she wouldn’t have bought them if she would have had to show an ID or do the legal paperwork. Yet here we are, eight years later, and we have done nothing to stop these unchecked, “off the books” gun sales by unlicensed sellers. (End Quote)
Notice the careful use of the word “seller” and not “dealer”? In many states face to face transfers between private parties are allowed. This is the law and it is independent of location. Such a private sale can happen in a house, a parking lot, a park, etc. What the Brady’s want to do is ban this private party sale at gun shows and then claim than an “out side of gunshow” loophole exits. I can already hear them saying that the same private sale that used to occur at gun shows has simply moved to “other places” and that sales much also be banned.
(Quote) Uzis, AK-47s, fifty round magazines, and all manner of military hardware are wholly legal for civilians to purchase under federal law. Even fifty caliber sniper rifles that can shoot down airplanes and have a range of over a mile are available to anyone who can buy a rifle. No permits. No licenses. No wait. (End Quote)
This is misleading and definitely intentional deception. The “Uzis and AK47s” that are available to citizens without federal regulation are semi-automatic clones that look like military weapons but function EXACTLY like semi-automatic hunting rifles. The full auto military versions that the BC makes you invasion is actually HIGHLY regulated under the 1934 NFA Act requiring a federal tax stamp and said weapons tend to cost at least $15,000+. As for a 50 caliber rifle “shooting down aircraft”, this is a completely asinine statement. These rifle are used by the military to disable aircraft WHILE THEY ARE PARKED ON A RUNWAY by shooting through the aircrafts engine components. Again, this is NOT shooting them down in flight. And as for the distance, this is also a ridiculous claim. While the bullet may travel a mile less than .00000001 % (and this is a conservative estimate) has the skill to actually shoot an accurate and precise shot at this range. Most avid and skilled shooters can’t even shoot out to 600 feet accurately, let alone a mile.
(Quote)Yet just two years ago, Congress and the President let the ban on high capacity magazines and assault weapons lapse. Law enforcement around the country stood up for the ban; they knew first-hand that these were tools of war, only useful to civilians for large-scale offensive assaults.(End Quote)
More crap. All the ban did was make large capacity magazines still in circulation before the ban more expensive. And by “large capacity” we are usually (as was the case in the VT shooting) talking about 15 round magazines instead of 10 round magazines. As for the VT shooting, the shooter was shooting (relatively) slow aimed shots not rapid spray fire (which would have been far less accurate) and has plenty of time to reload as needed. Reloading fifteen 10 round magazines instead of ten 15 round magazines would have made absolutely no difference.
(Quote)A bartender can be liable for serving too much beer to a patron who drives, but gun dealers who sell hundreds of guns to traffickers or terrorists are shielded from civil liability. (End Quote)
Yes, the bartender is held accountable if the individual appears to be too impaired to drive and is still served alcohol. This is not analogous to gun dealers because gun dealers can’t usually tell if someone is going to commit a crime with the gun. Plus, the gun dealer actually does a background of the individual to determine that he is, by all verifiable standards, a law abiding citizen and not prohibited from owning the weapon. The proper analogy would be to see how many bartenders that gave a patron a breathalyzer test which came back clean and then served the patron was later charged based on the patrons actions after having that drink.
(Quote) The Virginia Tech killer was barred by Federal law from buying guns because he was adjudicated mentally ill and dangerous. But Virginia, like most states, didn’t send the court orders about his mental health to the police, so he could simply lie and buy. (End Quote)
THIS IS SIMPLY A LIE. As was said before, federal law required a person be INVOLUNTARILY committed to mental treatment for that person to be declared “Mentally Incompetent” and thus barred form owning the gun. The Judge allowed Cho to be voluntarily committed which didn’t prohibit him from owning a gun. This was a failure of the Judge’s judgment NOT THE LAW.
(Quote) What are we going to do about this?
Here are three things we can do:
Number One – Comprehensively and effectively apply the Brady background check system, so no one who we want to prohibit from buying guns can legally buy one.
Effective background checks would have stopped the Virginia Tech killer from buying his guns. (End Quote)
Translation = Bar anyone that has had mental treatment from owning a gun. This is ridiculous. This sets the precedent to deny Constitutionally protected rights to anyone with anxiety attacks, eating disorders, post partum depression, post traumatic stress, etc. that seeks treatment.
(Quote) Number Two – Reduce access to weaponry that is not for sport and not for self-defense.
Had Congress and the President not allowed the assault weapons ban to expire, the killer may not have been able to obtain the high-capacity magazines he used in his assault. (end Quote)
So, if he was forced to have 10 round magazines instead of his 15 round magazines he wouldn’t have committed mass murder. This statement is so asinine that it doesn’t even need any further response.
(Quote)Number Three – Give our police and Federal law enforcement the tools and resources they need to fight gun crimes, including illegal gun trafficking and corrupt gun dealers. (End Quote)
In other words, allow law enforcement to use small clerical errors as an excuse to shut down honest gun dealers. Also, allow law enforcement agencies to punish dealers for the actions of criminal that end up with firearms they originally sold. This would disproportionately affect honest firearms dealers just because their business is located in a high crime area.
So Zen pretty much fisked this one. I posted over on Huffington saying pretty much the same thing but it convieniently got deleted. So much for freedom of speech.
So Zach, care to comment on your president calling for more bans when you have stated the BC wasn’t promoting bans?
This is worth repeating, as I’ve done many times on other posts.
BC wants to ban handguns cause they’re small.
BC wants to ban fifty cals cause they’re big.
BC wants to ban “assualt rifles” cause they’re medium sized and shoot and intermediate cartridge.
Tell me again Zach, what guns do you and the BC bunch NOT WANT TO BAN?
And this time I would appreciate a response which is longer than a single word.
You’re right, this is a wake up call. I am going to teach my girlfriend, sister, and mother how to defend themselves with the best tools so that they are not victims of violence. I will pester my local representitive to eliminate Victim Disarmament Zones, like schools, so crazed killers cannot choose a location that is guaranteed by the government to be free of lawful methods of self defense. I am tired of the taboo surrounding guns, which has ensured that only criminals use them because normal citizens have been told that they are inherently evil and dangerous. I will challenge any fear-mongering related to firearms.
I look forward to working in the same spirit as the Brady Campaign to reduce violence, but only if they will come out with strong positive support for lawful gun ownership and use. So far, I have not seen that, other than the typical noise about “most gun owners are reasonable people that agree with our common-sense solutions.”
All you guys have to do is spend half of that speech talking up the benefits of gun ownership — without ifs and buts — and you could rule the world. But you just can’t bring yourselves to say anything nice about those icky, scary guns.
I just had to respond to one quote.
“Most people don’t see why a felon or mentally ill person who is barred from buying guns can go to a gun show or respond to a classified ad and buy guns, no questions asked.”
This is the saddest statement of American education and culture if regular citizens do not understand why two law-abiding individuals can exchange personal property used to defend their right to life without filling out a government form and getting approval.
Does anyone even understand the principles this country was founded upon? Are we so tied up in the pragmatist, short-term, political-media world that we throw away our very core in order to reduce “gun violence” by 4.7%?
Yes, Paul threw felons in there to make it go down easier, but if people don’t understand why we don’t have a government check on every last thing in life just because there is one for *almost* everything right now, then the country is already doomed.
Taken from “Debating Gun Control” in the Washington Post (Dennis Henigan, Legal Director for the BC).
Washington: For every columbine and VA tech, there are stories of lives saved because people were allowed to carry guns and subdued a crazy man on the rampage. All the worst shootings in this country happen in gun-free zones. Countries that outlaw the public carrying guns have seen increased in gun violence, kidnapping and other crimes. Look at Washington — there is a gun ban, but this is one of the worst cities in American for gun violence. Any law you pass isn’t going to stop one crazy man who would trade his life for others. If you believe in the Constitution, then every citizen who can pass a background check is entitled to own a gun.
Dennis Henigan: This is a nice presentation of NRA talking points, reflecting the mythology that paralyzes our nation’s gun policy and costs untold innocent lives. Of the nation’s homicides, a tiny number happen on “gun-free” college campuses. Is your solution to arms students on college campuses? Two words summarize why that would be a tragic folly: beer and hormones. Our national discussion should not be distracted by crazy ideas like arming students to ensure that, at best, shooters like Cho would be involved in a crossfire that would no doubt still claim many lives regardless of its conclusion. We need to be talking about strong policies to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people so that no one has to die.
Wow. Is that Dennis Henigan or Fred Astaire? Because I’ve never seen someone dance around a question like that before!
Here’s another good one:
Dennis Henigan: Of the nation’s homicides, a tiny number happen on “gun-free” college campuses.
Paul Helmke (in support of his position in recent speech): “Some have suggested that Virginia Tech is a wake up call. But consider all of our previous wake-up calls:
·When a sixteen year old shot nine students, killing two, at a Pearl, Mississippi school in October 1997, that was a wake-up call.
·When a fourteen year old shot eight students, killing three, at a school in West Paducah, Kentucky in December 1997, that was a wake-up call.
·When an eleven year old and a thirteen year old killed five at their Jonesboro, Arkansas school in March 1998, that was a wake-up call.
·The school shootings at Edinboro, Pennsylvania, and Springfield, Oregon, and Lake Worth, Florida, and the six year old who killed his classmate at a Michigan elementary school, and the school shooting at Essex, Vermont – they were all wake-up calls.
·And Columbine. And Red Lake. And just six months ago, the Amish schoolhouse in Nickel Mines. Children throughout the country gunned down in their schools. These were all wake up calls
Hum, all sound like “gun Free” school zones to me. I especially like how Henigan shifts the point from crime happening in gun free zones because criminals (not guns) know that there is little resistence where people are unarmed to pro-gun advocates wanting to “arm everyone.” Once again, dancing and twisting to fit the agenda.
It is almost embarrassing. The BC is perpetuating one giant lie that is eventually going to crush what little credibility they have left.
MOLON LABE
Just an observation.
Paul always states that there are only 3 categories of gun violence.
1. homocide
2. suicide
3. accidental shooting
The one glaring ommision is self defense, which is also refered to as justifiable homocide. Just saying homocide is misleading if these numbers are lumped in there as well.
As all of you also know as well, when the BC talks about “children” being cut down by gun violence, they define “children” as anyone under the age of 24.
What do you suppose would happen if I were to get on the TV and claim that the United States military is using “child soldiers” in Iraq and afganistan, and is actively recruiting more “child soldiers” here at home.
Since the term “child soldier” has a specific context associated with it, the above statement would be very misleading, if not an out-right lie.
The point being, when two 23 year old gang bangers shoot it out over drug turf and one of them dies, this is a child killed by gun violence to the BC.
When a cop must shoot a 23 year old gang banger who has just pulled a weapon out, this is a child killed by gun violence.
I wonder why the BC doesn’t get on the TV and get in a public tizzy about cops running around shooting children.
One more obervation, I’m been practicing my BC think.
If the BC is against gun violence, doesn’t that mean that the BC is in favor of violence committed with any other weapon other than a firearm?
Is the BC in favor of knife violence?
Is the BC in favor of baseball bat violence?
Of course not, but if they change their name to simply the “Brady Campaign Against Violence”, instead of GUN violence, they would be forced to address the social and economic conditions which cause people to feel so hopeless that they resort to violence of any kind instead of focusing on some inanimate chunk of metal,wood and plastic.
The gun is a whipping boy.
Remeber everyone, there was no violence on planet Earth prior to the invention of the firearm. Swords were merely ornamental status symbols.
(quote)Tell me again Zach, what guns do you and the BC bunch NOT WANT TO BAN?(quote)
Single shot rifles of .30 calliber or less. Of course they would require registration, a one-year waiting period, and must be stored dissassembled in three peices with a trigger lock and “lo-jack” device attached. You would also be limited to 20 rounds of ammunition at any one time. If the BC really got what they wanted than they would require them to be stored at a government run facility and you could only retreive them upon presentation of a hunting license during a specified two week period. I am sure only a “modest” fee would be charged to you for the storage of “your” rifle.
The truth is, you realy don’t need any other type of gun than the above because I say so! (sarcasm intended)
Kaveman:
Great post! You are right, Paul does not talk about armed self-defense even though suppsedly support it. Also, neat twist on “children” being killed by gun violence.
I guess the knife can cut both ways!
Michael
Here’s what a Brady supported politician is doing w/ his bill to ban “large capacity storage devices”. Since he didn’t have enough support to get it passed individually in the legislature, he pushed it as an amendment to a bill strengthening child exploitation laws. Of course it went through a committee that is notorious for passing every anti-gun bill presented.
Does the BC support or oppose this action?
tinyurl.com/32ckrs
Fact:There are more than 270million+ guns in private hands in this country. Guns are a fact of life.
Fact:Something on the order of over 3 BILLION rounds of ammo are sold every year. Odds are much greater that you’ll be abducted by aliens than ever get shot.
Fact:EVERY State that has CCW on the books has seen reduced violent crime rates.
Fact:NO law will stop an insane, lying CRIMINAL from acquiring a gun.
Fact:NO Full Auto LEGALLY owned weapon has EVER been used to commit a crime.
Fact:”Assault” weapons are nothing but a buzz word. Like the difference between a Pinto and a Corvette. They are both cars. Using BC’s logic, everyone who owns a Corvette is responsible for all speeding and traffic deaths.
Fact:NO gun ever manufactured has ever loaded, cocked, and fired itself.
Fact:When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.
Fact:The mere presence of a gun, saves MANY more lives, than are taken by criminals who commit crimes using guns.
Let’s just use the BC’s logic on several other aspects of life.
Fat people should pay more for gasoline, because they do more damage to roads by the increased wear and tear on the roads due to their weight.
Women should pay more in taxes than men, due to filling landfills, sewers, and increased water usage, because of their use of sanitary products that men do not use.
I could state many more examples using BC’s twisted logic…..but, I’m saving them for later.
The BEST Gun Control….is a Steady Hand!!
Good news everybody, I just called the BC to ask why they have been absent lately to respond to issues raised in this forum. I was assured that it is simply a technical glitch that they are currently addressing.
They explained that on ALL of their key boards, the buttons F,L,A,T,O,U,T,L,I,E,S no longer work the way they used to. They are simply trying to figure out a way to respond with out using these anymore.
Kaveman:
That was good for a chuckle!
Michael
Paul said…
“And then there were the Washington, D.C. sniper shootings that terrorized the nation’s Capital for weeks with the threat of gunfire. We recall those ordinary moments that turned out to be the victims’ last: a trip to Home Depot, mowing a lawn, or preparing to drive a bus. Some of you remember living under the threat of the snipers’ guns, living as if in a war zone. That wasn’t enough of a wake-up call.”
So let me see if I got this right. At the time of the DC shootings, there was a total handgun ban and all rifles and shotguns held by civilians were required to be kept in a partially disassembled state.
Now this led to the condition of “living as if in a war zone.”
(Quote) We offered fair and principled criticism of the Republican controlled Congress for weakening America’s gun laws over the past six years. We intend to be equally critical of the new Democratic Congress if they choose to ignore this crisis. (End Quote)
Translation: “FAIR” and principled criticism = “opposing ANYONE that disagrees with us.”
(Quote) Gun violence prevention should not be controversial. The overwhelming majority of Americans believe that gun violence is a huge problem.
And most Americans believe that guns are too easily available to dangerous people. Most Americans believe that we should have tougher gun laws. Most Americans, including most gun owners, support the policy proposals I’ve suggested. (End Quote)
“Trust us, we have no unbiased figures to support these claims but, this is what Kelli’s insight tells us”
(Quote) A small, vocal minority says that more guns are the solution, not the problem. (End Quote)
LOL…. Yes, so small a minority that they are dominating you website compared to you ‘quite majority’ that are no place to be found here.
(Quote)To them I say: we have tried that.
We have tried a system where guns are easily available. We have tried a system where any felon or dangerous mental patient can buy the guns he wants from an unlicensed seller. We have tried a regime of easy access to assault weapons, and limitless gun sales. The result has been almost thirty thousand dead each year. What we are doing now isn’t working.(End Quote)
Actually the BC has opposed ANY measure that has ever (since its birth as Handgun Control Inc.) been suggested. They have prophesized Armageddon type wars in the streets every time a canceled carry, castle doctrine or stand your ground law has been proposed. The result of the enactment of each of these has been either a reduce in crime rates or no change at all.
As for assault weapons, after the ban they fought for went into affect it was deemed by the US Justice Department (in a study commissioned by Bill Clinton) to have absolutely NO effect on crime because “assault weapons, even before the ban, were only used in less than 1%-2% of all gun crimes.
(Quote)What we need is outrage – sustained outrage.(End Quote)
Yes, because the facts and logic do not support what the BC’s antigun agenda, they need to push for their agenda on a platform of allowing emotion bused responses of mischaracterizations, fear mongering and outright lies as a ground for making and serring public policy decisions.
(Quote) Gun owners need to join this conversation. Almost all gun owners are reasonable, decent Americans, and I believe they’re willing to put up with minor inconveniences like a background check if this will stop guns from getting into the wrong hands. We all endure security lines and metal detectors. We recognize that speed limits apply to the Jeff Gordons and the Paul Helmkes alike, regardless of who can safely negotiate a ninety mile per hour turn. (End Quote)
For one, since the BC was founded they have operated under the message that “we need just a little bit more ‘reasonable’ restrictions.” They say that gun owners need to be willing to “compromise” a little and endure just a little more “inconvenience.” The problem with this is that gun owners have been doing this for 70+ years and NO new restriction or “inconvenience” is ever enough. The BC and other anti-gunners ALWAYS WANT MORE.
As for speed limits, the ultimate goal of the DMV and DOT is not an outright ban on all automobiles. The DOT doesn’t push for reduced speed limits, waiting periods on vehicles and/or, limited types (e.g. ban on all V8 or bigger engines, ban on “assault” SUVs, etc.) of vehicles that can be owned, limited times of day for driving, etc. every time a drunk driver kills someone.
(Quote) We should all be willing to endure a little red tape if it helps reduce the amount of yellow tape – at crime scenes – in this country. (End Quote)
Would that include “enduring” the allowance of CCW on some otherwise “gun free” zones (e.g. campuses) as it has been shown that gun owners DO reduce the number of victims (amount of yellow tape) that end up being killed in such incidents? Or, is it only the pro-gun side that is expected to “endure” incontinences and red tape.
[story]
Two illegal aliens, Ralphel Resindez 23 and Enrico Garza 26, probably believed they would easily overpower a home alone 11 year old Patricia Harrington after her father had left their two story home.
It seems the two crooks never learned two things, they were in Montana and Patricia had been a clay shooting champion since she was nine. Patricia was in her upstairs room when the two men broke through the front door of the house. She quickly ran to her father’s room and grabbed his 12 gauge Mossberg 500 shotgun.
Resindez was the first to get up to the second floor only to be the first to catch a near point blank blast of buck shot from the 11 year olds knee crouch aim. He suffered fatal wounds to his abdomen and genitals. When Garza ran to the foot of the stairs, he took a blast to the left shoulder and staggered out into the street where he bled to death before medical help could arrive.
It was found out later that Resindez was armed with a stolen 45 caliber handgun he took from another home invasion robbery. The victim, 50 year old David Burien, was not so lucky as he died from stab wounds to the chest. /end story
Taken from LibertyPost
I guess that people like Paul and Kelli would have rather these two monsters had done terrible things to this girl, she did use a legal firearm, known to Kelli as a dangerous weapon.
Again your logic at the BC is far removed from common sense, and every time something like this happens you’re further marginalized.
Kudos to the 11 year old!
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=185167
This is the link
The story Turboguy posts shows that a firearms can provide safety for those weaker than a would be attacker. This isn’t just true for the young.
Story taken from News 12 in Augusta, Ga:
Teen breaks into neighbor’s house, ends up shot
He broke into her home…so she shot him.
19-year-old Justin “Brent” Haynie was arrested this morning for breaking into the home of his Lexington Drive neighbor, Theresa Wachowiak.
The 56-year-old woman shot him before he escaped, and he survived.
It was a burglary gone bad for Haynie. Little did he know his target was within arms reach of a revolver.
“Terrible. Scary, really,” said neighbor Joann Hatchell. “I looked and this guy was sitting here and I didn’t recognize him.”
19-year-old Justin “Brent” Haynie was slumped over Hatchell’s picnic table. He’d been shot.
“I said, ‘Oh my God, that’s Mary’s grandson’,” Hatchell told News 12.
The young man lived next door and often helped Hatchell with yard work, which is why she never imagined he’d break into the home of another neighbor, 56-year-old Theresa Wachowiak.
Woken up at 3:30 a-m, Wachowiak was startled by the intruder.
“She was initially, but she’s a strong lady,” said Sgt. Calvin Chew of the Richmond County Sheriff’s Office.
Sgt. Chew says what she did next may have saved her life: “She had a gun in her nightstand, and she was able to retrieve the gun during the assault and ended up shooting the suspect.”
Shot in the chest, Haynie then left, leaving a bloody trail to Hatchell’s yard.
News 12 found Haynie’s cousin, Patrick, who didn’t want his face shown on TV.
“I think that I’m glad he’s still living, but maybe it’ll make him not do some of the things he’s done,” Patrick Haynie said.
Hatchell, whose morning was unlike any other in her lifetime, fears what could have happened.
“Do you own a gun, and if not, do you want one now?” we asked her.
“Yes. I would love to have a gun,” she said. “I’m telling you, you’re not safe anymore.”
Brent Haynie is still recovering from that gunshot. He faces several charges, including burglary, aggravated assault, kidnapping and possession of a knife during the commission of a crime.
We’re told relatives have not been allowed to visit Haynie in the hospital because he’s been placed under arrest.
Link to story above (with video):
http://www.wrdw.com/crimeteam12/headlines/7209111.html
Courtesy of NBC Augusta (Ga):
http://www.nbcaugusta.com/news/local/7300076.html
(site has video coverage of story as well)
UPDATE: Suspected Intruder Dies After Being Shot By South Augusta Homeowner
A homeowner took matters into his own hands Wednesday afternoon.
He shot an intruder while he was on the phone with 911.
The homeowner used a high powered rifle, similar to an A-K 47, to defend himself when he noticed his house had been robbed.
He also noticed several of his guns were missing.
While he was on the phone with 911, he saw the burglar come back into his house.
The homeowner told investigators that because some of his guns were missing, he opened fire.
Investigators say they believe he was acting in self-defense, but it’s still early in the investigation.
The intruder was identified as Erroll Royal. Royal died at an Augusta hospital a shot time after the shooting.
The following story is an example of a gun being used to defend a man’s life against an armed. In this case the victim fired his gun at the attacker and although the attacker wasn’t hit by the gunshot he fled the area.
These are the type of incidents (where no one is injured and/or killed) of self-defense that most often don’t make it into numerical statistics but are, nonetheless, REAL instances of self-defense.
—
http://www.wmur.com/news/13239825/detail.html?rss=man&psp=ne ws
(Site has video coverage of story also)
Hampton Falls, New Hampshire
From Manchester’s WMUR.com of May 2, 2007
Police: Homeowner Confronts Intruder, Fires Rifle
A homeowner made a daring move on Monday night when he discovered an intruder in his Hampton Falls home.
Police said the man arrived at his Kensington Road home and noticed shadows inside. He grabbed a shotgun and went inside.
The homeowner and an armed, masked intruder came face-to-face, and police said the homeowner fired his rifle.
The shot missed the burglar, who ran to the basement of the home.
Police said the owner of the home then called 911. Somehow during that time the intruder escaped.
State and local police responded and searched the area but did not find anyone. Nothing had been taken from the home.
Police said that the home has been the site of a previous break-in where several people wearing dark clothing were found inside. They are investigating the most recent burglary.
I would like to know whether or not, and to what degree, the Brady Campaign supports Mayor Michael Bloomberg and his “Mayor’s Coalition.” It seems that Bloomberg is really taking heat lately because many of those who joined his Coalition thinking that his interests were to combat gun violence are now withdrawing from the Coalition after learning his true agenda; draconian gun control, revocation of the Tihart Agreement, gun bans, etc…
I think knowing the BC’s support or lack there of of Bloomberg would really clear the air about the BC’s true agenda.
So again, if someone from the BC or supporters can explain their position in relation to Bloomberg and his coalition it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.
Paul:
It must really stick in your craw that the HR 297 (the only piece of “gun control”) legislation that is likely to get passed in this Congress is being sponsored by the NRA and not the Brady Campaign. I think it shows what a paper tiger the BC really is now.
I have said this before here. If you want to get enough support to become a real force they need to do something that shows they really support the rights of gun owners, even if only the ones that you consider “politically correct”.
A start might be to recognize the NRA for what is is doing by working with Carolyn McCarthy and John Dingell. It strengthens the Brady Bill NICS check which you keep on talking about here.
You are very quick to attack the NRA when they do something you consider wrong. How can you disagree with what they are doing here?
You want people to reach out to you and work together to help solve this problem. Lead by example.
Michael
Seems a few people here are posting about civilian self defense. Here’s an entire web site that chronicles nothing but, and they provide a link to the actual newspaper article.
http://claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/blogger.html
I also wanted to share this little classic. Keep this in mind when the BC tries to “argue” their postion.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=teMlv3ripSM&mode=related&search=
LOL… Thanks, kaveman,
I love it.
“This isn’t an argument… it’s just contradiction.
… an argument is not the same as contradiction.
… an argument is a collective serious of statements to establish a definite proposition.”
That skit describes Kelli’s and the entire BC’s inability a form a logical argument to support their beliefs.
All they do is create empty factless claims (from their emotion and personal insight of course) that stand in direct contradiction to the facts and logic produced by the pro-gun side.
They simply choose to continue believing their ideas rather than even acknowledge the other sides facts.
Oh my GOD Children mowed down by an Evil assault weapon in California!
The Ralston Middle School students were waiting for a bus when the SUV jumped a curb in the school parking lot and then rammed into a tree before stopping, said Belmont Police Lt. Dan DeSmidt. Five to seven children were hit, including the youngsters who were pinned on the ground when the vehicle came to rest outside the gymnasium
Where is the Brady outrage! Why is the Brady Bunch not demanding a Ban on SUVs!
Paul, Zack, Kelli…..
Oh I forgot silly me. There no Money for the Brady’s in whining about vehicles.
Melody,
Ironically, a ban on SUVs would be legal, since the constitution and bill of rights does not provide for a right to own them specifically.
PauL:
Since I have been posting here, I have tried to be respectful and refrain from calling names but it is getting harder and harder.
Under your column Brady President Urges Changes In Gun Laws Post-Virginia Tech you write…
Repeal the so-called “Tiahrt Amendment,” which as an annual appropriations rider bars the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) from sharing data on the sources of guns used in crimes.
In a recent article, Michael Sullivan (Acting Director of the BATF) wrote about gun trace data
“ATF considers this information law-enforcement-sensitive because it is often the first investigative lead in a case. We treat it no differently than fingerprint matches and other crime-scene information, since disclosure outside of law enforcement can tip off criminals to the investigation, compromise cases and endanger the lives of undercover officers, witnesses and confidential sources.”
“Let me be clear: neither the congressional language nor ATF rules prohibit the sharing of trace data with law enforcement conducting criminal investigations, or place any restrictions on the sharing of trace data with other jurisdictions once it is in the hands of state or local law enforcement. In fact, multi-jurisdictional trace data is also utilized by ATF and shared with fellow law-enforcement agencies to identify firearm-trafficking trends and leads. Additionally, nothing prohibits ATF from releasing our own reports that analyze trace-data trends that could be used by law enforcement.”
http://www.scrippsnews.com/node/22041
Legitimate law enforcement has access to any gun trace data they need. As written by Mr. Sullivan this is considered sensitive data and sharing it unneccesarily could compromise criminal investigations.
You are amazing! You would be willing to endanger criminal investigations (as possible Mayor Bloomberg did in his “stings”) in order to accomplish your own selfish interests. Where is your support for the BATF who is charged with enforce Federal firearms laws?
And you wonder why people don’t trust you or your motives?
Michael
Paul, BC, and friends….
Still waiting for a response to #27…
Horse the silence is deafening, is it not? We pro rights people have completely taken over this blog which was supposed to be for the anti rights people to outnumber us.
Paul! I enjoyed your speech that comes up when I log into this site. I found a few small problems with your little diatribe though, and I’ll write them out so you don’t make the same mistakes in the future:
1. That the Brady Assault Weapon Ban would have had any effect whatsoever. Sorry man, but the evidence points to the contrary. When Columbine was committed the assault weapon ban was in full swing, yet did not prevent a single shooting from occurring, not did it prevent the murderering cowards from getting the full capacity magazines.
2. Law enforcement did not stand up for the ban. The Chiefs of Police Association did, but they are not law enforcement officers. Those are political appointees. There is a difference. Ask line officers if they supported that law, you’ll get a resounding no. I’m a police officer and found that more “Assault Weapons” were sold after the ban went into effect than ever before.
3. “Reduce access to weaponry that is not for sport and not for self-defense.”
Unfortunately for your side of the argument the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States was not written for “sport.” Maybe you should go ahead and give the Federalist Papers a read. If you had you might have found this out a long time ago. The Second Amendment was meant to arm the citizenry so they could defend themselves from a tyrannical government’s standing army.
4. “After dangerous people used guns to kill people, these countries decided that they should keep dangerous people from getting guns. And guess what? Gun restrictions work.”
Gun restrictions work. Just like they did to prevent the shootings in Washington DC. Just like they prevented the wackos that perpetrated the North Hollywood shootout. Both of which were in places where by far the most restrictive gun laws are on the books, and both were during the 1994 Assault Weapon Ban. Gun restrictions, contrary to what you seem to think, do not work.
I thank you in advance for releasing the necessary corrections to your speech and look forward to you retracting your incorrect statements.
Banning guns will be no more effective than banning drugs, prostitution, gambling, alcohol, and crime in general. I’m sorry but the gun control crowd lives in an alternate universe when it comes to “common sense”.
Out of one side of their mouth they want “tougher” restrictions or total bans on the rights of law abiding citizens then out of the other side of their mouths they fight for softer sentences of violent criminals advocating the early release of the thugs that commit the gun violence. It’s insane how ignorant most gun control nut jobs are.
Wherever I go, everyone is a little bit safer because I am there.
Wherever I am, anyone in need has a friend.
Whenever I return home, everyone is happy I am there.
‘It’s a better life!’
-A permit to carry holder
In 1929 the Soviet Union
established gun
control. From 1929 to 1953, over 65 million dissidents, unable to
defend themselves,
were rounded up and exterminated. In 1911, Turkey established gun
control. From
1915-1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were
rounded up and
exterminated. Germany established gun control in 1938. From 1939 to
1945, 13 million
Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally ill, and others, who were
unable to defend
themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. China established gun
control in 1935.
From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend
themselves, were
rounded up and exterminated. Guatemala established gun control in 1964.
From 1964
to 1981, 1,0100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were
rounded up and
exterminated. Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to
1979, 300,000
Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated. Cambodia
established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million
“educated” people,
unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
That places total victims who lost their lives because of gun control
at approximately
one billion in the last century. Since we should learn from the
mistakes of history, the
next time someone talks in favor of gun control, find out which group
of citizens they
wish to have exterminated.
Lest we forget the more recent, Australia forced the surrendering of
640,381 personal
firearms to be destroyed; a program costing the government more than
$500 million
dollars. The results Australia-wide: Homicides are up 3.2%, Assaults
are up 8%, and
Armed robberies are up 44%. In that country’s state of Victoria,
homicides with firearms
are up 300%.
Over the previous 25 years, figures show a steady decrease in armed
robberies and
Australian politicians are on the spot and at a loss to explain how no
improvement in
“safety” has been observed after such monumental effort and expense was
successfully
expended in “ridding society of guns.”
A few more facts to consider…
Paul, BC, et al:
Suppose any of you had a son or daugher in those classrooms at Virginia Tech when the madman came barging in. Would you honestly feel more comfortable, “safe” and “secure” for your child, knowing that NOBODY present was allowed by school policy to possess the means of self defense, and therefore unable to put a stop to Cho’s violence?
I’m not saying every student and teacher should go out and arm themselves- just those willing to put in the time and effort to be safe, sane and proficient with their firearms, and acquire a basic understanding of the laws of self defense. Even just a handful of such persons in each building could (and in more than one instance has) made a huge difference.
There’s a difference between feeling safe, and actually BEING safe. It’s called life and death. I know what I’d want for my child.
If it saves just one life . . .
A licensed ccw’er shot and killed an armed robber (who had an accomplice) in Ohio.
Now the law abiding citezen who shot this criminal has been forced out of his house by enraged family members of the killed criminal.
I imagine the Brady Bunch would have rather the law abiding citizen die, than this criminal (only 15 years old, under probation for the same offense).
The law abiding citizen was 25. Just so we know, both were of the same race.
This man shoots a criminal who pulled a gun on him, and now he is the bad guy…at least to the “hood”. The law abiding citizen isn’t facing criminal charges. He faces revenge from his neighbors for shooting a “good boy” with a criminal past.
The killed criminal’s accomplice is now charged with murder, as he participated in the armed robbery.
http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/cu yahoga/117740407596600.xml&coll=2
This was a few weeks ago. The law abiding citizen and his fiancee are now homless. His house boarded up from neighborhood retaliation. They stay with friends when they can.
I guess the Brady Bunch can twist this around and say that the fiancee would have a place to live if her soon to be husband had just been shot and killed, instead of protecting himself.
Oh…Toby Hoover from some other anti-gun group says “another kid killed”. She doesn’t say “another criminal killed”.
It’s all for the children, no matter if they are criminals themselves.
If gun violence actually stopped, the BC and other groups like this would have to actually get REAL jobs.
Shootings like VA Tech and Columbine and the others are what they NEED to survive.
They HOPE for things like these shootings, so they can ask YOU for money so they can keep standing on their weak soapboxes.
“Fact:NO Full Auto LEGALLY owned weapon has EVER been used to commit a crime.”Quoted from ss427isaudio1
Incorrect. There have been exactly two murders with a full auto weapon. In one the perpetrator was a police officer with the Dayton Ohio police department, and a 13 year veteran. The other was also in Ohio and involved a legal machinegun owned by an Anesthesiologist who shot and killed another doctor.
If you’re going to post a “fact” you’d better make darn sure your facts are straight.
Mr. Helmke:
I came here because I watched your speech at the National Press Club. While you seem like a very sincere man, you made a great many misstatements, assumptions unsupported by fact and statistics that differ with others I’ve found published elsewhere by the DOJ, BATFE and other government agencies. Rather than argue these minutiae, I would like to take you at your word: that you’d like to sit-down with the NRA and other gun rights organizations to find common ground on what can be done about violence. (Gun or otherwise.) Every “gun crime” has a criminal — a PERSON — attached to it. Guns don’t kill anyone without a person who pulls the trigger. Modern firearms very seldom ever just “go off” by themselves. (They might NEVER do so if they hadn’t been tampered with, like the police officer who was shot by his own gun when he dropped it in a parking lot. He had “adjusted” the trigger mechanism.)
By way of introduction, I’m a gun owner and gun rights activist in Michigan. I’m NOT a hunter, but support hunting rights. (And enjoy the good things my hunting buddies bring me!) Because of my high-profile job, I have a CCW permit and carry daily. I have been trained and know the law well. You could assume the same for just about any CCW permit holder in my state.
To stop the misuse of guns and reduce “gun violence,” it is obvious that you must work WITH the so-called “gun culture” instead of against it, since the vast majority of Americans own guns. This makes sense, and I’m hopeful because you seem to recognize this. So far, so good.
From my experience with the NRA, they’ve never failed to answer the call by law enforcement or concerned citizens groups to lend their expertise on the issue of guns. In fact, they run more gun safety programs than ANY other organization, not to mention training programs, bar none. I believe that a meeting of minds could produce good strategies that would truly impact violent crime in a meaningful way if both parties come to the table without a pre-determined political agenda. I’d be willing to work to arrange such a meeting or series of meetings if you are willing to do a bit of work as well.
By that, I mean that a few things must be agreed to before any meaningful dialog can take place:
1. STOP using the term “assault weapons.” The Clinton ban of ‘94 did NOT ban any true assault weapons! True assault weapons are either full-blown machineguns or “select fire” weapons that can be switched between semi-auto (one shot per trigger pull) to fully automatic. NONE of the banned weapons were of this type. They were semi-auto firearms that are no deadlier, more accurate or powerful than the legal versions. They simply have a military appearance. The term “assault weapons” was coined by Josh Sugarman of the Violence Policy Center who admitted on his website that he was trying to get guns banned by the public’s confusion over what is or is not a machinegun. With such baggage, the term should be retired. To talk about it now to knowledgeable gun owners is like talking about the effectiveness of beads and rattles to a physicians convention. Let’s put this one to bed for good.
2. Due to the above, STOP pushing for a new “assault weapons” ban! To do so betrays lawful gun owners — they KNOW it’s not about getting machineguns off the street — you’re going after their lawfully owned guns! If you abandon this idea, you lose nothing. According to the BATFE’s own website, the ‘94 ban had no measurable effect on crime, and the guns on the banned list were very seldom found at crime scenes — to the point of negligability. So this is a non-issue where crime is concerned. The Virginia Tech shooter didn’t use such weapons, nor did the Columbine killers. So let’s retire this idea as well.
3. Stop targeting the .50 caliber rifles! Since NO crime has been committed with one on U.S. soil to date, this is another NON-ISSUE. Yes, they are powerful. They CAN be accurate over long distances, but only in the most skilled hands. They’re VERY expensive, and each round costs more than three dollars. They’re big and heavy, the exact opposite of weapons preferred by gangs, drug dealers and other criminals. So again, when you propose to ban these guns, you ARE targeting law abiding gun owners! (They ususlly use these for competitions. They can also be used for extremely large game.) Let’s agree that this is a non-issue so that we can move forward.
4. While you have a legitimate concern about those who repeatedly buy mass purchases of guns, the strategy of prohibiting bulk purchases for all is a BAD one. For instance, if a collector wants to buy an entire collection from an estate or other collector, such a law gets in the way — and collectors aren’t the ones causing trouble! (Such laws have prevented heirs from inheriting gun collections from parents or relatives.) Firearms trainers will often buy dozens of guns for their classes. In fact, there are any number of reasons why a law abiding person might want to buy several guns at once. The one-gun-a-month law in Virginia didnt’ stop the campus shooting. What is needed are tough laws against unlicensed re-sale, delivering guns to known criminals and other penalties. We do NOT limit the rights of the law abiding! Let’s agree to back off on this as well, and instead focus on those who misuse this right.
5. “High-Capacity clips.” Again, it has never been proven that having more than ten rounds in a firearm produced more death. A skilled shooter can change a magazine (the ACTUAL TERM, not “clip” favored by Hollywood) in well under a second. Most unskilled ones can as well. Shooters and the public can see through such insincere strategies when the law permits POLICE to be exempt from such restrictions! For example, an armed citizen faces a criminal attack alone, and statistics show that more often than not, there is more than one attacker. Police, on the other hand, often travel in pairs, and / or have back-up nearby. So why tie the hands of the private citizen by giving him ten shots to save his / her life while police can have nearly unlimited firepower? While we have speed limits, there is no limit to the power a car can have. That’s because we all know that there are times in life when a burst of speed is called for. Similarly, it makes no sense to limit the firepower of civilian firearms. If we can trust a citizen to own a gun, and / or to carry it, then what makes us trust them less with a few more shots? Trying to limit “clip capacity” is another BAD idea that needs to be put to rest.
If these things can be agreed to, the way is wide open for developing strategies that are effective in reducing and, ideally, eliminating gun — and any other — violence. Where we tend to agree:
A. Including LIMITED mental health information in the NICS background checks. We can fix what happened in Virginia. What we must watch out for are overly broad definitions of “mentally defective.” We don’t need people denied their right to self-defense simply because they take Zoloft or something. This IS a potential “slippery slope,” so we must approach it as such, yet I think there is room for compromise and a reasonable expectation for success.
B. Better public education. Even though they can’t drive or won’t be able to for many years, we teach our children all about cars and how to avoid getting hit by one. We need to teach kids, and even most adults, what to do if they encounter a gun. Considering how many are in circulation, this is truly “common sense.” Even though she’s not a shooter and has no interest in guns, my wife knows how to make mine safe if something ever happened to me. We NEED to make the public part of the solution, and this is a good first step.
C. Trigger locks. Some gun owners see them as a “stealth tax” because they’re forced to buy one with a gun whether they need it or not. Also, mandating their use without any exceptions renders a gun useless for self-defense in the home, and there are several examples of how a locked gun resulted in death. That said, we don’t sell cars without door locks and safety belts even though we’re forced to PAY for them. Including a trigger lock with each gun is a reasonable compromise. We just can’t FORCE people to use them. This is the line where government intrusion bumps-up against personal freedom and responsibility. Have penalties for gun owners whose weapons are misused and found to have been unlocked, perhaps, but NO MANDATORY LOCK LAWS.
There are certainly a good many other ideas we could cobble together, and I think that a true meeting of the minds, conducted rationally and respectfully, could be the best thing that ever happened to drastically lower gun crime and misuse. I’m excitedly waiting to see it happen and stand ready to help facilitate it in any way that I can. In the meantime, thank you for reading.
According to Fox News:
GREENSBURG, Kan. — Four Fort Riley soldiers and a reserve police officer were arrested for looting cigarettes and alcohol from a store in this tornado-ravaged town, the state adjutant general’s office said.
Source:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,270380,00.html
While it is true, most police and military (I myself am former Army Infantry) are honest and law abiding, these fields are capable of containing some “bad apples.” Yes, I would say that these bad apples are disproportionately few.
However, the BC prides itself on using both the actual existences of and the mere possibility of statistically rare events (most I would say are even statistically less frequent than a corrupt cop or military figure) to push for its agenda,
So, I challenge the BC with this question. Why does the BC believe in forcing law abiding citizens to trust their lives and the lives of their family to those that may be just as bad as the criminals attacking them?
Zen,
…because they want us to live in a totalitarian state? Of course many who fall in the BC crowd are the same ones who will go after police for any perceived violation of civil rights. So they want to take guns out of the hands of private citizens, but they also want to tie the hands of law enforcement. Hmm, maybe we should just establish some kind of secret police totally loyal to specific gov’t officials. And since they’re loyal only to those few, we should just imbue those individuals with all political authority. Then perhaps create a corps of highly trained shock troops to deal with “dissenters” and “undesirables.” That should end gun violence, right? (so long as you don’t get out of line)
Well, I just got back from a five day FTX in the Army Reserve. We went through firearms training on all the weapons used by the US miltary and the most common by terrorists. Oddly enough, there wasn’t a single “assault weapon” mentioned. None of the firearms that were presented were shown to be used “firing from the hip”. Progunprogressive has a nice treaty on his site about the effectiveness of “microstamping”.
It’s nice to be sleeping in my own bed again.
What are we going to do about it?
DJStuCrew has some excellent ideas. Before any meaningful progress involving the BC can take place, however, the BC will have to stop it’s dogmatic fixation on demonizing guns, the NRA, gun owners, sellers, and manufacturers.
As a side note, they also need to stop pretending already to be experts on the function of firearms because every time they open their mouth on the subject, it becomes laughably obvious they are a pathetic group of metrosexuals who’ve never even learned to shoot. If they want to speak with any credibility whatsoever on the subject, they first need to become educated by someone other than propaganda/BS artists like Michael Moore.
Then again, if your goal is to perpetuate propoganda to the ignorant, why bother to learn from hands on experience?
No wonder they’re afraid of guns. All they actually “know” about guns is from the movies.
They’re afraid to trust other ordinary citizens with guns because they don’t even have the knowledge or confidence to trust themselves. Whether this is an inherent insecurity, mental disorder, or ignorance that can be overcome through an experience most of us call REAL LIFE, depends on the individual.
Here’s what we can do about it:
Politely invite a member of the BC to the range. Something deep down tells me that most are too closed minded or fearful to say yes to the idea of being around all the “demon firearms,” but we should at least give them a chance.
Paul, if you’re ever in Idaho, please drop me a line or email. My contact info should be in the registration files for this website. I think your motives may well be sincere (although misguided in methodology) and I’d like to meet you in person, look into your eyes and shake your hand to make sure. Then I’ll know whether there is hope for the BC.
Quick question for the BC.
What is the difference between “gun trafficing” and “illegal gun trafficing”?
Breaking news on Parker vs. District of Columbia
This morning the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia denied the District of Columbia petition for a hearing before the entire court! This is a strong signal that the court believe that the ruling of the three judge panel was proper.
Now it is up to the district to accept the ruling or start the appeals process to go in front of the Supreme Court. If they do appeal and the Supremes decide to hear it, many believe (including Laurence Tribe, Harvard) that it will be upheld.
Michael
And the Virginia AT has told Mayor Bloomberg to stay the hell out of their state:
http://www.vcdl.org/pdf/AG_McDonnell_letter_to_Bloomberg.pdf
The “High Capacity Magazine Ban” that Il Senator Kotowski so ethically attached to a child exploitation bill has stalled for the time being.
Overall a good day.
Could you just please hurry up and capitalize off this tragedy? I can’t get my check book out fast enough! Should I make the check out to Commie Bitch?
I can’t believe 32 of my classmates died and all this dumb bitch wants to do is push her political motives. I wonder if her pussy was wet as she watched the news coverage.
Probably the classic case: now that hubby can’t fight back, she’s become queen of the household and now wants the world.
Dear U.C.
Re Post # 52, it sounds like you a Virginia Tech student. While I don’t think the language is necessary, I can understand the sentiments if you were/are a student there.
I am sorry if you lost friends and/or classmates. I hope that they did not die in vain.
Sincerely,
Michael
3 Questions:
1) If you were in one of the rooms Cho entered in Norris Hall that morning, would you have wished you had a gun?
2) Do you think that a psycopath isn’t going to find a way around ANY national, state-wide, or school ban on handguns?
3) How many could he have killed with a suicide bomb in the weight room?
CHALLENGE: I’ll bet none of you gun haters will answer any of these questions.
One simple question for the BC Bunch.
What gun-control law would the BC NOT support?
If you are unwilling or unable to answer this question, you need to ask yourself why.
Now if you’ll excuse me, I need to go clean a bunch of dirty guns.
I can not help but notice the loyal minions of the Brady Campaign have been silent, after the vacant diatribe Paul spewed out this time. Could it be that they are too embarrassed that their Commander made another tedious, hollow, and poorly thought out statement?
Or perhaps, the Brady Bunch loyalists, with their room temperature I.Q’s are still stumped the multi-syllable words being used.
At a party last Saturday night, I had the misfortune to meet one of the Brady’s best and brightest. She had never met me prior but proceeded to ramble about silver BMW parked in the host’s driveway had a NRA sticker in the rear window. Further how dare they put such a decal on the vehicle. Continuing to babble the owner should be arrested. I smiled the entire time, and mention the First amendment allows for such displays, as well the bizarre displaying “Kerry in 06” posted on their rear bumpers. At this point I informed this dim-witted woman that the vehicle was indeed my Husbands. She then announced she supported the “Brady Campaign”. My response how wonderful that you are supporting hypocrisy, and brazen lies. At this point her Husband came over took her by the arm and said, he was sorry that she had just been taken off her medication, and she was not well.
True Story….
Hi Paul & the Brady Campaign ~
I just got a chance to read Paul’s excellent speech to the National Press Club luncheon (sorry … I’ve been away these past few days) & I wanted to thank you for addressing the many past questions raised regarding what exactly the Brady Campaign believes in ~ & is working towards ~ in terms of current & future gun control measures. Of course, you folks undoubtedly knew beforehand, that there would be several naysayers responding.
Best,
Kelli
Melody,
Are you sure you didn’t meet our very own Kelli at the party?
She of course said this about a police officer who posted here (in Mandating Guns) that he supports citizens arming themselves for self-defense:
(Quote) (Post #47, Mandating guns)
But I must say, the police officer who claims (above), that he actually encourages people to possess guns ~ because he can’t assure their safety ~ well … that’s unbelievable (and I would add, very wrong for him to do). I hope his superior sees what he wrote above, and fires him
(End Quote)
Kelli:
I wonder if you support Paul’s call to repeal the “Tiahrt Amendment” when Michael Sullivan (Acting Director of the BATF) has called for it’s renewal since he believes it is a critical law enforcement tool. (See my Post #34)
http://www.scrippsnews.com/node/22041
This is part of the hypocrisy that most of us see in the Brady Campaign. The acting director of the BATF (which is responsible for federal enforcement of firearms laws) says this (the Tiahrt Amendment) is an important tool but Paul Helmke thinks he knows better and wants to repeal it. How is this supporting legitimate law enforcement efforts? On top of that, Paul continues to support Mayor Bloomberg’s “stings” even though the BATF did not find any evidence of illegal activity.
This is not a case of the BC against the NRA or GOA. It is the BC against the BATF. Paul does not even acknowledge that what he wants to do it contrary to what the BATF thinks is best. And since the information is already available to all legitimate law enforcement, the only reason that Paul could possibly support repealing it is that then the information could then be used to sue gun makers and sellers.
Michael
Kelli:
BTW, today the Washington D.C. Appeals court denied the petition by the city for the entire court to reviewed “Parker vs District of Columbia”. This means that the overturning of the D.C. handgun ban on 2nd Amendment grounds stands and affirms the individual right to keep and bear arms.
The city’s options are to either appeal to the Supreme Court or to start allowing the people of DC to have functional handguns in their homes for self-defense. If they do decide to appeal many (including Laurence Tribe from Harvard) believe that the individual right will be reaffirmed.
Should be interesting.
Michael
Kelli,
I missed the clarification/addressing of what the BC stands for and is trying to accomplish. I think the bulk of us here have effectively proven that the BC’s end goal is to make illegal nearly all firearms and make it illegal to use a firearm for anything other than “sporting” purposes (so home/family defense is out). If you’re looking for a reference, try “32 dead: What are we going to do about it? Post 118.”
On a separate note, something I don’t think anyone else has mentioned (but I might have missed it skimming through) is the part about buying a hundred or a thousand guns in one purchase. Wow! I wish I had that kind of money! A new Glock for example: Let’s say you get an average deal and find one for $500. One hundred would cost…$50,000. One thousand would cost $500,000. And since I don’t think gun dealers are going to finance the purchase of large quantities of guns, I’m fairly confident that the average joe isn’t going to use a down payment on a house to buy guns instead. Even a little Kel-Tec usually runs between $250 and $300. And if you’re going with used guns, I think you’ll have to look around before you find a pawn shop ready to sell 100+ used guns. I’d be curious to see examples of people making triple, or even high double-digit purchases of firearms.
Lastly, regardless of the convenience or inconvenience of the background check, not being able to use a firearm in my own home for self defense (which the BC-lauded DC gun ban forbade) is a pretty insanely massive inconvenience. While all the BC supporters in Congress, entertainment, etc have their own armed security (with real, live, probably semi-automatic handguns), developing super-ninja skills to defend home and family against an attacker (double-super for armed or multiple attackers) is a little outside the realm of possibility for most of us.
Mac
Kelli:
Re Post #57, it is more like a “few” BC supporters responding here not “naysayers”. You can pretend all you want but from Day 1, this blog has been dominated by the pro-civil rights side not those supporting the Brady Campaign.
Michael
I have read this blog for several weeks now. During that time I read a dozen of Paul’s blogs and hundreds of the comments that have followed. Overall I am very disappointed with the debate skills of the gun-control supports. They often repeat the same propaganda even when posed with a question that clearly discredits their argument.
I have come to understand why this happens and why it is futile to argue with these people. Education! Now I am not saying that they are uneducated simpletons. Quite the opposite. I am sure many of them are very intelligent people, with college degrees and awards. The issue is with how they were taught to think. Let me explain. There are two basic, but opposite, way to look at a problem.
The Scientific Approach. A scientist, engineer or other right brained person is taught to look at ALL of the available information and develop a hypothesis based on that information. They continue to test the validity of their hypothesis by constantly gathering new information. That is why some former gun-control proponents have changed their view on the subject and why in general right brained people are more open to new ideas.
The Intuitive Approach. I am not sure what to call this approach since there is not a formal name that I know of. This is how most liberals, lawyers and left brained people are taught to think. Develop a hypothesis based on your personal philosophy, ideals or intuition. Search out and gather the information that supports your hypothesis. Discredit, ignore or alter the information that contradicts your hypothesis. This give rise to statements such as “I know it’s true, just because.” or “I don’t have the facts to back up my argument, but my intuition tells me it is correct.” A good example of this is how a defense attorney operates. They seek to discredit or have thrown out any evidence that can hurt their case. While this may be good for our judicial system it is NOT proper for an intellectual debate.
If not for the Scientific Approach the Earth would still be the “Center of the Universe” and “Flat”.
Please keep up the dialog. I find the exchanges “fascinating”
A challenge for the BC. Are you willing to debate me on live TV?
Kaveman,
TV? Yes. Live? No. And TV only if they can take any and all liberties when editing.
So, “I don’t hate anyone and I think every law abiding citizen should be allowed to own firearms. I love this country and don’t want to see its founding principles die,” becomes, “I…hate… every law abiding citizen. Firearms…should…own …this country. Love… should be allowed…to… die. I don’t want … founding principles. I … hate anyone … I … see.”
Then the next big news story on the BC page will be Paul Helmke decrying the evil gun owners that post on the BC blog. Heck, I wouldn’t be surprise if he quoted my series of “…” statements in his next blog entry.
Mike68, great observation. Although you may have missed that some of the anti-civil rights crowd also likes to bring up issues that have been thoroughly put to rest in the comments of previous posts. I repeatedly find myself asking, “Didn’t we already address that a month ago and you admitted to having no answer?” Maybe the anti-crowd is suffering from mild memory disorders.
Mac
Front page article in New York Times about Laurence Tribe and individual right to keep and bear arms. This is very unusual for the Times to publish something like this which supports the individual rights interpretation of the 2nd.
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=11413
Michael
Washington Times op-ed on Parker vs D.C. and what might happen if appeal to the Supremes.
http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20070509-085430-7751r.htm
Michael
Here is a great video on the truth about firearms in society. For example,it shows how the murder rate in DC went up after DC implemented their gun ban even as the overall US murder rate went down.
It is a 20/20 video with John Stossel but appears to be more up to date than the “myths, lies, and downright stupidity” segment we all have seen. In fact, this video talks about the recent Parker decision that threw out the DC gun ban and the recent VT shooting.
http://www.weaponvideos.org/viewvideo/58/20_20_In_Touch_segm ent_on_gun_control/
I’m deeply disgusted that you can lie on such a level. You have NO idea what you’re talking about!
“Suspect” has absolutely no legal meaning whatsoever. You’re not guilty of anything, you’re not innocent of anything, so why should you be punished? You yourself, Sarah Brady, might very well be on a terrorist watch list right this minute!
As for the Virginia Tech Disaster, I spit at you! Do you know how many of your gun laws that psycho-Cho obeyed? He followed your one gun a month law, he bought ten round magazines for his guns, he even waited more than a week before he carried out his well-thought crime.
What’s your excuse for wanting to disarm people, but not lock up criminals for more than a year?
What’s your excuse for demanding that people be helpless when the FBI has told you over and over again that CRIMINALS DON’T OBEY THE LAWS!!!!!!!!
Rebecca: Welcome to the Brady Bunch Blog, Where the facts are distorted, and the lies are labeled truth. A “Suspect” here in the Brady Bunch site means any law abiding gun owner or anyone who disagrees with the Brady distorted belief. Where Sarah Brady can straw purchase a firearm and it’s acceptable.
What you need to realize, this site is a vehicle for special interest, money grubbing, and part in parcel of Elite left.
What it is not is “non-partisan, grassroots organization”
Hang around sister always a good laugh to be found here, especially the few Brady supporters. We Second Amendment supporters, are labeled “Gun toting Thugs”
P.S. I have been dubbed the title of “Dishonest, deceitful Blogger”
Although I am a staunch supporter of the 2nd Amendment and an INDIVIDUAL’s RIGHT to keep and bear arms, as an educated person, I still try to look objectively at ALL sides of the issue. I’m always on the lookout for valid, credible evidence refuting my beliefs on pro-gun stances. After looking at the BC home page, I may have to convert over to the gun-control/anti-freedom/rights side. You can imagine my panic when I realized that Ladies Home Journal, complete with Dr Phil’s smug mug adorning the cover, was joining the “Illegal gun” fight. Together with Rosie O’Donnell and Liberal Hollywood, they should really strengthen the anti-gun argument since they have such credibility on 2nd Amendment issues. This formidible team has me really second guessing why in the world I believe that I have the inherent right guaranteed by the Constitution to procect myself and my family.
This has been such a wake up call for me. Not only am I going to reconsider my stance on the 2nd Amendment, but I’m also going to add more sugar to my Creme Brulee recipe and change the way I deal with my inner child.
Just saw a story on CNN about a 10 year old boy found guilty of smashing a homeless vets’ face in with a brick. The problem is obvious. Our brick laws are some of the weakest in the world. Anyone of any age can walk into any Home Depot and buy an unlimited amount of bricks with no questions asked, no background check, no ID, no permit, just cash-n-carry.
Where is the outrage?
Brick Control Now!
13 year old Katie reveals the idiocy of gun control efforts in Canada
You Go Girl!
http://www.weaponvideos.org/viewvideo/69/Katie__s_Firearm_Fa cts___the_idiocy_of_gun_control/?vpkey=080418bd3b
Kaveman (re: #72),
I can appreciate your concern, but it’s not necessarily