Robert Hairless
Member
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2003
- Messages
- 3,983
Everyone misses the point. Look at the facts:
It's evident--and should be obvious--that the DC gun ban did nothing to protect either Reagan or Brady. The ban was in place long before either of them were shot.
In fact the ban might have made Jim Brady more vulnerable to attack because Hinckley knew that he didn't have to worry about being intercepted by an armed citizen. Everyone knew about the DC ban by 1981, and everyone knew that the homicide rate in DC doubled immediately after the ban was put in place.
It was not a temporary upsurge in homicides. Since 1976, the homicide rate in DC always has been significantly higher than in the rest of the United States.
The Brady Campaign has the same facts I've just given you but they are outraged at the idea of removing the ban and fights to have it retained. But why? The DC gun ban did not protect Brady and it has been killing large numbers of other people every year.
A normal wife who loved her husband should have said--immediately--that the ban was worthless and might even have been partly responsible for her husband's injury. A normal man who had been paralyzed because the ban doubled the homicide rate where he was shot should be working for the repeal of the ban. But those two people fight to keep the ban.
Are Sarah and Jim Brady so angry and warped that they want as many people as possible murdered in Washington, DC and the rest of our country? Otherwise why do Sarah Brady and her husband Jim fight so hard to keep the gun ban that kills Americans, and why do they fight to extend it everywhere in the United States?
What do the Bradys have against Americans? Why do they want people defenseless against murderers?
- The Washington, DC, gun laws were enacted in 1976. They were, and are, among the most stringent gun control laws in the country.
- James Brady was shot on March 30, 1981. That was about five years later, when John Hinckley, Jr. tried to assassinate President Ronald Reagan.
- Reagan fully recovered. Brady never did: he is paralyzed.
It's evident--and should be obvious--that the DC gun ban did nothing to protect either Reagan or Brady. The ban was in place long before either of them were shot.
In fact the ban might have made Jim Brady more vulnerable to attack because Hinckley knew that he didn't have to worry about being intercepted by an armed citizen. Everyone knew about the DC ban by 1981, and everyone knew that the homicide rate in DC doubled immediately after the ban was put in place.
It was not a temporary upsurge in homicides. Since 1976, the homicide rate in DC always has been significantly higher than in the rest of the United States.
The Brady Campaign has the same facts I've just given you but they are outraged at the idea of removing the ban and fights to have it retained. But why? The DC gun ban did not protect Brady and it has been killing large numbers of other people every year.
A normal wife who loved her husband should have said--immediately--that the ban was worthless and might even have been partly responsible for her husband's injury. A normal man who had been paralyzed because the ban doubled the homicide rate where he was shot should be working for the repeal of the ban. But those two people fight to keep the ban.
Are Sarah and Jim Brady so angry and warped that they want as many people as possible murdered in Washington, DC and the rest of our country? Otherwise why do Sarah Brady and her husband Jim fight so hard to keep the gun ban that kills Americans, and why do they fight to extend it everywhere in the United States?
What do the Bradys have against Americans? Why do they want people defenseless against murderers?
