Brady's foaming at the mouth over Eric Holder

[Redneck with a 40]

Here's the statement :

http://www.bradycampaign.org/media/release.php?release=1100

These people disgust me, they are giddy over Holder's nomination, which is our worst nightmare.

 

[Titan6]

I thought open mouth kisses were not allowed on the internet?

 

[2TransAms]

Brady's ecstatic because Holden could put them back on the radar.

 

[skwab]

What makes me sick is that what the Bradys stand for and what they claim to stand for are completely different. The claim to want to prevent gun violence. Fine. There's not a single person in this forum who is not against gun violence. But the Bradys could care less about gun violence, they just want the guns. And if they truly focused their resources on preventing the violence and not going after the guns, they could have made a real difference over the years, and be a successful, reputable organization. Very sad. Sorry - had to rant after reading that!

 

[Larry Ashcraft]

Skwab, good post. I would only change one thing:

they just want the guns

No, they want the POWER, if they don't get the guns first, they can't have it. So, their primary target is the guns, the real target is the power that comes from having a disarmed populace.

 

[ServiceSoon]

The Brady's website gets very little traffic.

 

[Gunnerpalace]

Somebody was saying that Sen Coburn was grilling him today, anybody have more info?

 

[SsevenN]

I will never understand the mindset of a statist.

Even if I was in a position to rule people I simply wouldn't want to.

 

[30 cal slob]

January 15th, 2009
Holder: Gun-control options ‘narrowed’
Posted: 03:36 PM ET
WASHINGTON (CNN) — Attorney General-designate Eric Holder conceded during his confirmation hearing Thursday that the government’s options for regulating the possession of firearms have been narrowed in the wake of the Supreme Court’s 2008 ruling that the Second Amendment ensures an individual right to bear arms.

“Reasonable restrictions are still possible,” Holder said, including measures such as a ban on the sale of what are called “cop-killer” bullets.

But, he granted, “we’re living in a different world” since the high court’s 5-4 ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller.

Holder said that he previously viewed the Second Amendment as a “collective right” to bear arms, not an individual right.

The Heller ruling, Holder said, was a “very significant opinion.”

 

[Titan6]

“Reasonable restrictions are still possible,” Holder said, including measures such as a ban on the sale of what are called “cop-killer” bullets.

That is so true. All bullets can kill cops. Therefore we should ban all bullets. Shot too just in case. Quite reasonable indeed.....

 

[elrod]

The Brady's website gets very little traffic.

Looks like it got our attention!

The Heller ruling, Holder said, was a "very significant opinion."

As indeed it is. If there is a bright spot in the RKBA situtation, it is that the SCOTUS members that are subject to retire are those most liberal justices that were on the losing side of that decision.
(This thread is in danger of getting too political, and may get locked!)

Al....

 

[Shung]

Should you remind mister Holder that the court ruled 9-0 (and not 5-4) about the fact that the RKBA was an INDIVIDUAL right !!!?

the 5-4 decision was only about the Heller case and the situation of Chicago..

 

[ServiceSoon]

Should you remind mister Holder that the court ruled 9-0 (and not 5-4) about the fact that the RKBA was an INDIVIDUAL right !!!?

Good point.

 

[Gryphon1410]

Funny that the Heller ruling was said to be an "important opinion." I'd say it's not an opinion but law deemed by the SCOTUS.

 

[benEzra]

“Reasonable restrictions are still possible,” Holder said, including measures such as a ban on the sale of what are called “cop-killer” bullets

...which were banned by Federal law in 1986.

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvcopk.html

Apparently you don't have to know much about Federal law to become Attorney General...

 

[Geneseo1911]

He still has to be confirmed....call you senators. Mr. Durbin & Mr. Burris don't care, but they know I don't like Holder. (Okay, their aids know...... maybe; but I tried)

 

[John828]

Wish it had been Chicago, Shung. Not trying to pick nits and all especially since you're overseas, but it was the District of Columbia. But I do wish it was Chicago, not because I live there, but I would like to have seen Daley swallow a turd.

"If you have to eat a turd, take big bites! Don't nibble around the edges."

That's my philosophy since every once in a while an unpleasant task is necessary, but it is sure better to get it over with rather than dilly-dally around.

ETA: rather

 

[Mohawk]

That sir, is some great advice.

 

[John828]

Still would have wanted to see Daley Jr's rant. He nearly exploded when Heller was released literally, but, man oh man, iff it had been a Chicago decision, he really would have gone "ballistic."

 

[Shung]

yeah sorry John. DoC ... lapsus from my part.

still the 9-0 vs 5-4 statement is true.

 

[Eagles6]

Gunnerpalace,
I saw the video clip with Sen. Coburn and Holder. Sen. Coburn asked what the new administration's plans were. Holder mentioned outlawing "cop killer" bullets and a permanent "assault weapons" ban. He also denied that Zero's administration had plans to restrict or interfere with the right to carry. If you see the video it is obvious that he is lying, especially when responding to the ccw question.

 

[ServiceSoon]

Where can I get the video feed at Eagles6? Cspan.com ?

Edit: Video avail at below link...

http://thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=5249450&postcount=12

 

[7.62X25mm]

Brady's ecstatic because Holden could put them back on the radar.

It's spelled "Holder" -- When you get the name wrong, your credibility goes to hell on you.

I think Holder is gonna be up to his neck in habeus corpus issues, waterboarding, Gitmo.

Besides which, we don't discuss "politics" on the High Road. (Yeah, right . . . )

 

[nutter]

I will never understand the mindset of a statist.

Even if I was in a position to rule people I simply wouldn't want to.

That reminds me of a sci-fi book I read once. (Heinlein maybe?) The constitution they used was a Jefferson Mk 7, which had at its base the assumption that anyone who wanted power was exactly the kind of person you didn't want to give it to. Thus the president was picked randomly from a lottery of all citizens. If you were chosen and refused to serve you were thrown in jail.

 

[tube_ee]

That's kind of how we pick jurors...

We don't have professional, or elected, jurors for exactly this reason.

You've just hit upon the fundamental flaw of republican (small "R") government:

It awards power to power-seekers.

Still, it's better than anything else we've come up with.

I'd like to see a state, maybe a small one, try the jury duty model for their legislature. As it is "republican" in the sense that there are representatives chosen from among the people, it should pass Constitutional muster.

But consider the reaction you have when you get that notice in the mail for jury duty. Are you happy about it? No, you're mad. "Dang it, I've got to go for jury duty!!??!!"

You should have exactly the same reaction to being in charge.

--Shannon