No_Brakes23
Member
Wow, someone on the left actually refered to "Judicial Activism" in a context other than as the figment of some conservative's mind. Will wonders never cease?
Brady reacts to DC
- Thread starter Thain
- Start date
- Status
2A is the 2A.
It is there meant to be set in stone. If Brady wants to change the 2A, then that needs to go through the proper channels.
Our founding fathers made doing that very difficult on purpose.
She can't just say, "Well the majority of people from what I can see don't want guns to be around, so despite what the 2A says, we're just going to consider it null and void."
I used to think that Brady was misguided but ultimately had good intentions at heart. Now I'm convinced this is not the case. She has no respect for the judicial system.
It is there meant to be set in stone. If Brady wants to change the 2A, then that needs to go through the proper channels.
Our founding fathers made doing that very difficult on purpose.
She can't just say, "Well the majority of people from what I can see don't want guns to be around, so despite what the 2A says, we're just going to consider it null and void."
I used to think that Brady was misguided but ultimately had good intentions at heart. Now I'm convinced this is not the case. She has no respect for the judicial system.
Thain
Member
Its not about guns, its about control.
xd9fan
Member
its time to start using this Amendment to strike down crap law as much as the First Amendment is used....
1911Tuner - I have to respectfully disagree with your assessment of Mr Brady. Mr Brady has been an advocate for stricter handgun control as much as his wife. I refer to his own biography posted at http://www.bradycenter.org/about/jim.php.
While it is deeply regrettable that he was wounded while serving as a career politician (that includes being the Press Secretary when he was injured) – as you know, when one chooses a career in politics (as well as other occupations such as solder, policeman, firefighter and similar) there is an inherent risk that you must accept - deplorable as that may be, it is reality and has been historic.
I agree that he does not deserve ‘ad hominem’ attacks, but his position is clear and one that I strongly disagree with and is therefore subject to criticism, regardless of his injuries.
While it is deeply regrettable that he was wounded while serving as a career politician (that includes being the Press Secretary when he was injured) – as you know, when one chooses a career in politics (as well as other occupations such as solder, policeman, firefighter and similar) there is an inherent risk that you must accept - deplorable as that may be, it is reality and has been historic.
I agree that he does not deserve ‘ad hominem’ attacks, but his position is clear and one that I strongly disagree with and is therefore subject to criticism, regardless of his injuries.
Travis McGee
Member
My, how the worm has turned! Interesting days indeed.
Jamie C.
Member
shield20 said:
Sarah Brady went from being a relatively unknown, unimportant, probably-moderately wealthy politician's wife, to a well-known, powerful, RICH leader of a business/political organization.
And she got there by using her husband's misfortune and by lying and manipulating the public's thinking with that very misfortune.
I don't have any sympathy for her, and I doubt I'd be allowed to post my full, unedited feelings concerning people like her here.
Jim Brady does have my sympathy. He took a bullet intended for somebody else, while doing nothing more than his job. ( Which shouldn't have involved needing to duck bullets, btw ) ( Oh, and I do remember watching all the news reports on the shooting... saw the tapes of it many times, over the weeks after it happened. )
J.C.
MilsurpShooter
Member
Yes, ignored 70 years of precedent that were altered, distorted, and just pretty much made up to suit goals. This standing pretty much tells everyone before them that "Hey, it doesn't mean this, you guys screwed up, and we're going to fix it"
I just love how the Brady bunch and all of them tout the changes and crow from rooftops when it goes the way they want, but when it goes against them as it has gone against us so many times, the judges are automatically at fault, activists, nuts or just plain wrong. Don't think I heard them say that once when the judges altered an INDIVIDUALS rights as per the 2nd
I just love how the Brady bunch and all of them tout the changes and crow from rooftops when it goes the way they want, but when it goes against them as it has gone against us so many times, the judges are automatically at fault, activists, nuts or just plain wrong. Don't think I heard them say that once when the judges altered an INDIVIDUALS rights as per the 2nd
the pistolero
Member
Not I. The evidence of the unmitigated failure of gun control in general is in and has been for a long time -- more than long enough for those who advocate putting ever more restrictions on owning guns, if they did have good intentions at heart, to see the error of their thinking. I absolutely, positively do not ascribe any benevolent motives or intentions whatsoever to Sarah Brady or anyone who shares her goals.
Stevie-Ray
Member
I couldn't have expressed my feelings about that wretched creature any better than that. End of story.
I think we can all take a small comfort in knowing that Sarah Brady is spitting mad right now, probably not sleeping well and her blood pressure is spiking taking years off her life due to stress etc.
If that stress causes her to retire to that long "Dirt Nap" a little sooner I personally won't shed a tear.
If that stress causes her to retire to that long "Dirt Nap" a little sooner I personally won't shed a tear.
Neo-Luddite
Member
Oh go play with your toy Supreme Court action set out back Paul--the big people are having a conversation.
I know this bozo needs to keep his cushy talking head gig, but to jump right away into the 'will of the people' is being dashed screed---it sickens me how quickly these people embrace the tyrrany of the majority. Based on this evidence, Paul would be a super choice for pogrom organizer / fundraiser.
I know this bozo needs to keep his cushy talking head gig, but to jump right away into the 'will of the people' is being dashed screed---it sickens me how quickly these people embrace the tyrrany of the majority. Based on this evidence, Paul would be a super choice for pogrom organizer / fundraiser.
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
I actually think she could care less one way or the other as long as the cash keeps flowing and she continues with the lifestyle she's built for herself.
She knows what this ruling means, it's a long way from the end of the fight.
As long as she hasn't completely lost the war the paychecks keep flowing.
ArfinGreebly
Moderator Emeritus
Sarah Brady
Sorry, no sympathy.
When a woman uses her husband's injuries as a "platform of infallibility" (you can't criticize me, my husband is crippled!) she gives up any moral authority.
She commits the same crime as Cindy Sheehan: using her "loss" as a club to intimidate and extort based on the "moral authority" conveyed by having experienced something awful, something she can assert an opponent has never had to live through.
"I am unassailable because I have suffered more than you have."
Similarly, you have to be nice to me, 'cuz I've had a bad day. It's nonsense of course.
It's contrived and dishonest.
The antidote to Sarah Brady is Dr. Suzanne Gratia-Hupp. This woman endured more horror than Sara Brady ever will and still landed right side up, with an accurate perception of the causes of her harrowing experience. You want moral authority? You want to talk to Dr. Gratia-Hupp.
Don't be fooled by Brady's external demeanor.
She wants to punish every gun owner for the actions of one man. She seeks to eliminate a whole range of weapons that expressly excludes the one that nearly killed her husband.
You might expect that kind of irrationality in the heat of the moment from someone who's distraught.
You would not expect it, accompanied by blatant dishonesty, from a calm, collected, apparently gracious and well-mannered person.
The depth of perfidy is staggering when you get up close enough. Her husband's disability is nothing more than a PR tool.
This woman wouldn't even get my phoniest crocodile tears.
Don't fall for it.
She's bad news.
Sorry, no sympathy.
When a woman uses her husband's injuries as a "platform of infallibility" (you can't criticize me, my husband is crippled!) she gives up any moral authority.
She commits the same crime as Cindy Sheehan: using her "loss" as a club to intimidate and extort based on the "moral authority" conveyed by having experienced something awful, something she can assert an opponent has never had to live through.
"I am unassailable because I have suffered more than you have."
Similarly, you have to be nice to me, 'cuz I've had a bad day. It's nonsense of course.
It's contrived and dishonest.
The antidote to Sarah Brady is Dr. Suzanne Gratia-Hupp. This woman endured more horror than Sara Brady ever will and still landed right side up, with an accurate perception of the causes of her harrowing experience. You want moral authority? You want to talk to Dr. Gratia-Hupp.
Don't be fooled by Brady's external demeanor.
She wants to punish every gun owner for the actions of one man. She seeks to eliminate a whole range of weapons that expressly excludes the one that nearly killed her husband.
You might expect that kind of irrationality in the heat of the moment from someone who's distraught.
You would not expect it, accompanied by blatant dishonesty, from a calm, collected, apparently gracious and well-mannered person.
The depth of perfidy is staggering when you get up close enough. Her husband's disability is nothing more than a PR tool.
This woman wouldn't even get my phoniest crocodile tears.
Don't fall for it.
She's bad news.
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
re:
Greebly...by GAWD! Have you ever seriously thought of runnin' for office? If you speak the way that you write, you could be a serious contender in some kinda election.
Greebly...by GAWD! Have you ever seriously thought of runnin' for office? If you speak the way that you write, you could be a serious contender in some kinda election.
mike101
Member
"If anyone ever had doubts about what the Brady's really want this should make it clear"
BINGO. Their previous "Cause du Jour" was the assault rifle issue (last week). They claim that they are not anti-gun, and that their only interest is to reduce gun violence. I told them (on Helmke's blog) that assault weapons account for less than 2% of all guns used in crime. I sent them a link to DOJ stats. They don't care about anything as mundane as actual facts. They will no doubt continue to get their stats from Grimm's Fairy Tales. :banghead:
BINGO. Their previous "Cause du Jour" was the assault rifle issue (last week). They claim that they are not anti-gun, and that their only interest is to reduce gun violence. I told them (on Helmke's blog) that assault weapons account for less than 2% of all guns used in crime. I sent them a link to DOJ stats. They don't care about anything as mundane as actual facts. They will no doubt continue to get their stats from Grimm's Fairy Tales. :banghead:
CAPTAIN MIKE
Member
Case Headed for the Supreme Court?
There's a good chance this ruling may be appealed to the Supreme Court, where the 2nd Amendment and the right to carry will be directly impacted by the ruling. I know that some are 'concerned' about our 2nd Amendment right being 'front and center' before the Supreme Court of the United States, but as for me, I was quite impressed with the analysis and findings of the Justice Department memo most of us saw some time ago when the previous Attorney General was still in office.
As a result of that memo, I believe the that it would be a good thing for the 2nd Amendment (and the central issue of whether or it is a "personal" (individual) right or a collective right) to be front and center before the highest court in the land. There would no doubt be numerous "friend of the Court" briefs submitted before the decision is finally reached; however, it is time we laid to rest - once and for all - what the Constitutional Amendment really means. I for one would like it clean and direct. The "militia" phrase in the first part of the 2nd Amendment is consufing to many, and I for one would like to see the Supreme Court of the United States of America say once and for all that the right to bear arms is an individual right, end of story.
There's a good chance this ruling may be appealed to the Supreme Court, where the 2nd Amendment and the right to carry will be directly impacted by the ruling. I know that some are 'concerned' about our 2nd Amendment right being 'front and center' before the Supreme Court of the United States, but as for me, I was quite impressed with the analysis and findings of the Justice Department memo most of us saw some time ago when the previous Attorney General was still in office.
As a result of that memo, I believe the that it would be a good thing for the 2nd Amendment (and the central issue of whether or it is a "personal" (individual) right or a collective right) to be front and center before the highest court in the land. There would no doubt be numerous "friend of the Court" briefs submitted before the decision is finally reached; however, it is time we laid to rest - once and for all - what the Constitutional Amendment really means. I for one would like it clean and direct. The "militia" phrase in the first part of the 2nd Amendment is consufing to many, and I for one would like to see the Supreme Court of the United States of America say once and for all that the right to bear arms is an individual right, end of story.
mike101
Member
"The "militia" phrase in the first part of the 2nd Amendment is consufing to many, and I for one would like to see the Supreme Court of the United States of America say once and for all that the right to bear arms is an individual right, end of story."
__________________
So would I. I don't see how they could possibly rule against us. I don't think they will agree to rule on the issue, though.
__________________
So would I. I don't see how they could possibly rule against us. I don't think they will agree to rule on the issue, though.
IMO, those of you who are worried about a potential SC case are worried about the wrong thing.
The case law we have now in many areas is so anti-2A that it could not get much worse, regardless of what a SC ruling might say.
The states that have strong 2A protections are unlikely to change them any, no matter what the SC says. Those of use who live in socialist utopias like Illinois, need a SC ruling to regain one of our lost liberties.
The case law we have now in many areas is so anti-2A that it could not get much worse, regardless of what a SC ruling might say.
The states that have strong 2A protections are unlikely to change them any, no matter what the SC says. Those of use who live in socialist utopias like Illinois, need a SC ruling to regain one of our lost liberties.
gunsmith
member
Arfin...I wish I had said that!
You have summoned up how I feel about the evil brady's with out making fun of his obvious physical disabilities.
Obviously you were paying attention in school and know what taking the high road means.
You have summoned up how I feel about the evil brady's with out making fun of his obvious physical disabilities.
Obviously you were paying attention in school and know what taking the high road means.
Carl N. Brown
Member
Brady/HCI supports the BAN in DC.
Brady/HCI supports the Hughes Amendment.
Brady/HCI equates "reasonable regulation" to bans. Period.
Sarah and Jim are just fronts: the policy was set by
Nelson "Pete" Shields years ago when the outfit was
called Handgun Control Inc.
Brady/HCI have been bovine excrementing for years about
the true meaning of the Second Amendment.
Brady/HCI has gloated for years that no gun control law
was ever overturned on Second Amendment grounds. Oops.
The ruling in the Parker case states what I gathered years ago:
"right of the people" means the same thing in the First,
Second, Fourth Amendments: the individual citizens.
When the US Constitution speaks of the States and the United
States or the President, Congress and Courts, they have
Powers and Authorities. USC does not say that government
has Rights. If the Second Amendment was about the Power
or Authority of the States to arm state militias, the language
would have been the States have the Power or Authority.
The two judges' opinion states that it was common practice in
stating a general principle of law to give an example of a
government interest. The right of the people to keep and
bear arms shall not be infringed; for example, because
a well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free
state. In other words, the militia may be the government's
most important reason for having an armed citizenry, but
it is not the only reason.
Also, the judges raise the point that "a free state" is a
term that refers to the nation as a whole, not to the
political subdivision called a state.
Brady/HCI supports the Hughes Amendment.
Brady/HCI equates "reasonable regulation" to bans. Period.
Sarah and Jim are just fronts: the policy was set by
Nelson "Pete" Shields years ago when the outfit was
called Handgun Control Inc.
Brady/HCI have been bovine excrementing for years about
the true meaning of the Second Amendment.
Brady/HCI has gloated for years that no gun control law
was ever overturned on Second Amendment grounds. Oops.
The ruling in the Parker case states what I gathered years ago:
"right of the people" means the same thing in the First,
Second, Fourth Amendments: the individual citizens.
When the US Constitution speaks of the States and the United
States or the President, Congress and Courts, they have
Powers and Authorities. USC does not say that government
has Rights. If the Second Amendment was about the Power
or Authority of the States to arm state militias, the language
would have been the States have the Power or Authority.
The two judges' opinion states that it was common practice in
stating a general principle of law to give an example of a
government interest. The right of the people to keep and
bear arms shall not be infringed; for example, because
a well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free
state. In other words, the militia may be the government's
most important reason for having an armed citizenry, but
it is not the only reason.
Also, the judges raise the point that "a free state" is a
term that refers to the nation as a whole, not to the
political subdivision called a state.
Carl N. Brown
Member
I noticed that Ernest McGill filed a per se amicus curiae brief.
Has GEErnest posted on THR on the Parker decision yet?
(G. Ecylesheimer Ernest, Publius II, Powtamack Institute
and Firearms Policy Journal)
Has GEErnest posted on THR on the Parker decision yet?
(G. Ecylesheimer Ernest, Publius II, Powtamack Institute
and Firearms Policy Journal)
Carl N. Brown
Member
finally a grain of truth in a Brady press release
“This ruling represents the first time in American history that a Federal appeals court has struck down a gun law on Second Amendment grounds.”
“This ruling represents the first time in American history that a Federal appeals court has struck down a gun law on Second Amendment grounds.”
gunsmith
member
and it's about time
The people are the people, why is that so complicated?
The people are the people, why is that so complicated?
- Status
