Gotta love the Brady Center

[absolut_beethoven]

Even if the District's ordinance is struck down, and regardless of how the Justices rule on the individual's "right" to bear arms, their questioning clearly acknowledged the importance of and the need for reasonable regulations on guns.

The above quote from an email - our "friends* at the Brady Center that I received this afternoon.

The problem that the Brady Center has is not that there are too few gun control laws, because let's face it, if 20,000 plus isn't enough for them, then there's absolutely no doubt in my mind that even 20 billion wouldn't be enough for them.

Really, what the Brady Center REALLY wants is only ONE gun control law, because only that one would make them ecstatically happy. And what law is that you might ask? The one banning and outlawing all private ownership of every type of gun, firearm, pistol or whatever you want to call them.

That is their true objective in fighting for every gun control law that ever comes up, regardless of how much it infringes on your other rights, like your right to privacy etc. Because they realize that every gun control law that gets passed, brings them that much closer to their true objective.

 

[drphil]

I was just thinking about how the Brady Bunch is the only organization (that I can think) whose sole purpose is to take rights away from people. I really cant think of another organization like it. It seems like most activist organizations attempt to defend the rights of people.

I agree with you. They will not stop until only criminals have guns.

 

[Sunray]

"...Gotta love the Brady Center..." Yep. Dear Tom, we don't care if you don't live in the U.S., please send money so we can continue our "offensive" against firearm ownership. Told 'em it sounded violent.

 

[El Tejon]

Just where did this "reasonable regulation" nonsense come from and how does it square with "shall not be infringed"?

 

[71Commander]

Here's the whole thing. They are delusional.

Dear Dennis,


As I watched the presentations to the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday, I was constantly aware how critically, and immediately, the Justices' decision will impact gun laws that protect you and your family today, and in the future . . .

. . . from the Brady background check law and the federal machine gun ban to strong state gun laws in California, New York, Illinois, and many others. Please help us defend these laws by making as generous a contribution as you can today to the Brady Gun Law Defense Fund.

As the Court deliberates over the next few months, your support is critical. We need to be prepared for the outcome, whatever that might be. This is no time to play wait-and-see.

A lot of politicians, and many citizens, think the Second Amendment limits our ability to enact common sense gun restrictions. This position got a lot of attention in Tuesday's arguments.

However, it was clear to me from both questions and answers at the Supreme Court hearing that there is broad support from all sides for responsible regulation concerning guns. We need to stress this position to the American public before and after the decision is made in late June.

We are hopeful that the Justices' ruling will uphold the right of people in communities like the District of Columbia to enact sensible gun laws they feel are needed to protect themselves and their families.

Even if the District's ordinance is struck down, and regardless of how the Justices rule on the individual's "right" to bear arms, their questioning clearly acknowledged the importance of and the need for reasonable regulations on guns.

One thing is certain — we have the support of many Americans like you on our side. In a recent Washington Post poll, a solid majority of Americans indicated they would support a law for their communities similar to the one in question in the Supreme Court case.

While I was in the courtroom, Brady staff and activists were at the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court carrying signs and speaking to the media. They were joined and cheered on by passers-by — school children, government workers, and tourists.

We will not wait for the Justices' ruling in this case. We are, and will continue to be, on the offensive. Our voices — your voices — are making a difference!

Now is the time to contribute to the Brady Center as we get ready during the next few months for all the vital next steps that will follow the Court's historic decision.

Please give generously today.

Sincerely,

Paul Helmke, President
Brady Center and Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence

 

[RLsnow]

he should move to england, il gladly take his place in the US...

 

[DonP]

Not just desperate, but greedy too!

Another interesting question, what do they think they can do to influence the court with the donations they are calling for?

The time for being able to influence the thinking of the justices or their senior clerks that do the actual grunt work of analysis and develop the draft of the opinions is long gone now. There are no ads to run, no marches to create that will have one teaspoon of influence on the decision they will be making.

Righrt now the only thing Henigan and Helmke have to hang their hat on is "regulation" of some kind. Otherwise, they have totally failed to influence the gun control debate. It's clear to even the most liberal of law school professors that the individual rights interpretation is going to hold sway.

This is a cheap shot to raise money to pay salaries and travle expenses for Helmke's next fawning appearance on the Today show when they announce their decision in May or June.

"Say goodnight Paul and Sarah".

 

[Kingcreek]

drphil

They will not stop until only criminals have guns.

that should be thier mission statement or the slogan right under thier name on thier letterhead.

 

[frankie_the_yankee]

As I watched the presentations to the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday, I was constantly aware how critically, and immediately, the Justices' decision will impact gun laws that protect you and your family today, and in the future . . .

So when the glass breaks in the middle of the night, some "gun laws" are supposed to protect me and my family?

?????????

. . . from the Brady background check law and the federal machine gun ban to strong state gun laws in California, New York, Illinois, and many others. Please help us defend these laws by making as generous a contribution as you can today to the Brady Gun Law Defense Fund.

With the violent crime rates in the states listed above, the Bradys are worried about defending gun laws? What about defending PEOPLE? Ever wonder why you never hear the Bradys talk about that?

When the glass breaks, it's me and my family that needs defending, not some gun law.

We are hopeful that the Justices' ruling will uphold the right of people in communities like the District of Columbia to enact sensible gun laws they feel are needed to protect themselves and their families.

You know, I've read the constitution and the Bill of Rights many times. I am aware of a "right of the people" to keep and bear arms. But try as I might, I can find nothing in the constitution that articulates a right of the people "to enact sensible gun laws", whether they "feel" they are needed or not.

And notice that "feeling" they are needed seems to be the defining criteria for the Bradys. This is a bit different from some law that might ACTUALLY be needed. I guess in their twisted minds, all it takes to override an explicit constitutional right is for some people (fools though they may be) to "feel" that the right shouldn't exist.

That sounds like somewhat of a dangerous attitude to me. Who knows what someone may feel is needed tomorrow?

Even if the District's ordinance is struck down, and regardless of how the Justices rule on the individual's "right" to bear arms, their questioning clearly acknowledged the importance of and the need for reasonable regulations on guns.

I have news for these people. Everyone agrees with the need for reasonable regulations on guns. THEY JUST DISAGREE ON WHAT THOSE REGULATIONS MIGHT BE. I think that the NRA and the SAF might have different ideas as to what is reasonable than the Bradys or the VPC.

In point of fact, the Brady/VPC wish list is something like the "reasonable regulations" in place in places like the UK or Japan. I'll bet if they were up front with the American people about that they would find that only a small fringe element (I'd guess under 10%) agrees with them.

Of course I know I'm preaching to the choir here. But these stupid fund raising appeals do not provide a "feedback" link, and I just felt the need to vent.

 

[absolut_beethoven]

We are hopeful that the Justices' ruling will uphold the right of people in communities like the District of Columbia to enact sensible gun laws they feel are needed to protect themselves and their families.

Of course those liars completely ignore informing their members, those too lazy to follow these proceedings or to do a bit of genuine research into them, that quite a few a the justices found NOTHING reasonable about a total ban, or that you had to keep your rifle and shotgun locked up and /or disassembled AND unloaded right up until the time one is attacked!!!

 

[scout26]

Not just desperate, but greedy too!

I got the same e-mail. I counted 5 times/links to give them money.

They're mighty scared.....

 

[Well Regulated]

It comes from Alan Gura:

Just where did this "reasonable regulation" nonsense come from and how does it square with "shall not be infringed"?

MR. GURA: The legislature has a great deal of leeway in regulating firearms. There is no dispute about that.


JUSTICE STEVENS: May I ask this question? Are you, in effect, reading the amendment to say that the right shall not be unreasonably infringed instead of shall not be infringed?

MR. GURA: There is that inherent aspect to every right in the Constitution.

JUSTICE STEVENS: So we can -- consistent with your view, we can simply read this: "It shall not be unreasonably infringed"?

MR. GURA: Well, yes, Your Honor,...

MR. GURA: Justice Ginsburg, that would depend on the licensing law itself. We don't have a problem with the concept of licensing ...


MR. GURA: So we de-emphasize the military aspects of Miller as being ultimately not very useful guidance for courts. And the better guidance would be to emphasize the commonsense rule that I think judges would have really no trouble applying, and we do this all the time in constitutional law: To simply make a decision as to whether or not whichever arm comes up at issue is an arm of the kind that you could really reasonably expect civilians to have.

JUSTICE STEVENS: And how about a State university wants to ban students having arms in the dormitory?

MR. GURA: Certainly that creates some sort of an evidentiary record.

 

[romeo212000]

sniff, sniff smells like desparation and an attempt to deny the facts

 

[Blackfork]

Not just WRONG..

.....these people are evil. They make excuses for evil. They have blood on their hands. They lead people into slavery.

I'm all for diversity, and they have a diverse viewpoint, but there isn't much arguing that it is an evil viewpoint.

I hope we all take a careful look. This is what evil looks like. It's slippery. It has an emotional appeal and an argument. They turn up the volume when you challenge it. They infiltrate, influence, cajol, whine and complain. They can win. With evil.

 

[Beatnik]

Everyone agrees with the need for reasonable regulations on guns.

I count myself as part of "everyone", and unless you're not counting me, then this statement is false.

You might have said "reasonable regulations on who can own guns" or "reasonable regulations on what one can do with a gun", and there may be some discussion there - but your statement boils down to saying that gun X is legal and gun Y is not.

All a regulation or law does is prescribe what penalties one can suffer if one breaks that law or regulation. Rather than open up the discussion of whether barrel shrouds should be legal, I'd rather we all change the discussion. We need to skip right past who should own them, and go right to what should happen to them if they use them inappropriately.

 

[Sheldon J]

At the end of the Heller arguments during the press conference the Brady boy was there and stated that no citizen could be trusted with a gun, that is their version of reasonable.

 

[renaissance_warrior]

I read the latest Brady Bunch shill as well. The desperation of their tone was rather evident. The 'news conference' they held wasn't even mentioned by any news source anywhere.

 

[Ratzinger_p38]

While I was in the courtroom, Brady staff and activists were at the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court carrying signs and speaking to the media. They were joined and cheered on by passers-by — school children, government workers, and tourists.

Oh boy. Cheers from young children too young to know better, some government stooges and TOURISTS! Wow, what a coalition. I dont think we can defeat their children/tourist/agents of the state alliance - we're toast guys!

 

[the pistolero]

.....these people are evil. They make excuses for evil. They have blood on their hands. They lead people into slavery.

A-yep. I agree with that completely. And I know some might think that comment out of line, but I'd rather deal with these cretins with harsh words now than with copper-jacketed lead at 2700 fps later.

 

[novaDAK]

Everyone agrees with the need for reasonable regulations on guns.

Please don't speak for me. I myself would say what part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?

No gun law is reasonable IMO.

 

[Rabid Rabbit]

I saw pictures of Fenty and crew after the arguments. They looked angry, like they knew they've been had and their precious ban is going down the flusher.

 

[frankie_the_yankee]

Quote:
Everyone agrees with the need for reasonable regulations on guns.

Please don't speak for me.

OK, I won't.

I myself would say what part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?

Oh, I think I understand every bit of it.

No gun law is reasonable IMO.

You're welcome to hold that opinion.

But have you considered some of the possible consequences?

And have you considered where our case would be if the attorneys arguing for our side had taken that position in either the briefs or in the oral arguments?

Try this.

Breyer: So if I understand you correctly, you think it is unconstitutional to prohibit people from carrying guns aboard airliners, right?

Gura: Right. Such a prohibition would be an infringement, and the 2A clearly prohibits any infringement. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand, Your Honor?

Breyer: And you also think it is unconstitutional to require background checks and/or limit in any way the purchase, possession, and carrying of machineguns, right?

Gura: Correct, Your Honor. Again, all of those things are infringements. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand, Your Honor?

Breyer: So under your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, Al Qaeda death squads could legally and openly board airliners carrying MP-5's and shoot up the passenger cabin at 40,000 feet, right?

Gura: Well You Honor, the shooting itself would be against the law of course. And remember, the other passengers could carry MP-5's themselves if they wanted to. I sure would. So we could count on the rest of the passengers fighting back if Al Qaeda tried to do something like that.

The important thing here, Your Honor, is, "What part of shall not be infringed do you not understand?"

Get it?

So let's keep it in the real world and leave the bumper stickers on our trucks.

 

[RLsnow]

I do love the Bradys they make me all tingly inside

I also love how pro-gun people always seem to keep the steam on there`s always something to fight and that`s is why i think you are winning.

 

[paul]

Frankie

That is exactly what I'd like to see happen...
I was very disappointed with our side's version of "not be infringed".
One can only hope that this will be the basis of many future rulings in favor of freedom.
P

 

[frankie_the_yankee]

Frankie

That is exactly what I'd like to see happen...
I was very disappointed with our side's version of "not be infringed".
One can only hope that this will be the basis of many future rulings in favor of freedom.
P

So you're saying that you wanted to see the cause of gun rights go down in flames, not to be re-visited again for 100 years, right?

Because that's what would have happened if our side had argued some extreme position like that.