Sarah B is on the Loose

[GHF]

She was on GMA this morning.

Check out the Washington Post. She will be on an on-line interview at 1200 ET.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/03/29/DI2006032901373.html

Reagan Assassination Attempt: 25 Years Later

James and Sarah Brady
Fmr. White House Press Secretary/Chair, Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence
Thursday, March 30, 2006; 12:00 PM

Former Reagan White House Press Secretary James Brady and Sarah Brady, chair of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, reflect on the attempted assassination of President Reagan 25 years ago on March 30, 1981. James Brady was seriously wounded in the attack, and the Bradys have since lobbied for stronger gun control laws. In 1993 President Clinton signed into law the "Brady Bill," which mandated a waiting period and background check on handgun purchases.

Submit your questions and comments before or during today's discussion.

____________________


Submit a Question or Comment

_______________________

Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.

 

[GTSteve03]

chair of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence

Oh those violent guns! When will they learn to start acting like civilized folks and stop randomly shooting!

 

[The Drew]

which mandated a waiting period and background check on handgun purchases.

TEMPORARILY mandated waiting periods.....

 

[El Tejon]

Ask her if a background check would have stopped her husband's attempted murderer from legally purchasing a pistol, or illegally purchasing a pistol.

 

[DonP]

I left a question

I don't expect them to respond but basically I asked why, since the passage of the Brady Bill, they feel 47 states now allow citizens to carry concealed? Also why, with all these new guns on the street, does violent crime continue to drop?

With each state passing CCW the entire Brady organization becomes increasingly anachronistic. Gun control was a really minor issue in the '04 campaign and almost every analyst admits that Kerry rushing back to vote for the AWB hurt him at the ballot box.

I wonder if gun control has become the third rail of politics now?

Now we're in another election cycle and outside of our own Gov. Blago and Daley bleating about passing an Illinois version of the AWB, I don't hear much chatter about gun control in any other races.

Methinks it's a dead issue on a national basis and when Jim and Sarah are gone, the issue will pretty much go with them. Then it's the long climb back to normalcy and true common sense.

 

[boofus]

There was a complete handgun ban in effect at the time of the shooting. All long guns have to be disassembled and rendered harmless. The US Secret Service were literally riding around on their backs. Police reinforcements had a response time of about 1.3 seconds maximum. And they still weren't able to keep the madman from turning jim brady into a drooling vegetable.

Yeah, passing a few more laws will make gun control really work.

What's next? Making every citizen a US Secret Service agent so response time is cut to 0 seconds? Oh no wait that would mean every citizen could carry a gun...

and when Jim and Sarah are gone

That would definitely be a cause for celebration, the ammo and BBQ will be on me.

 

[LAR-15]

Question submitted

 

[RKCheung]

Here's my submitted question and their answer (emphasis mine):

Los Angeles, Calif.: The National Academy of Sciences came out with a report in 2004 stating that no proof has been found that gun control has lessened violence. In light of this, what justification do you find for continuing to promote additional restrictions on your fellow law-abiding citizens, especially when gun ownership is on the rise and levels of crime and violence are at historic lows?

James and Sarah Brady: In the first place, lets make it clear we don't want restrictions on law abiding citizens beyond making sure that all gun purchasers undergo a complete and comprehensive background check. Our purpose is to keep guns out of the wrong hands. Since the Brady Law passed 1.3 million illegal purchasers have been stopped by the background checks. We must now be sure ALL sales undergo background checks.

Blatant lies and complete avoidance of my question, of course.

 

[ElTacoGrande]

Blatant lies, of course.

They are such liars. You look at their website and it says they don't want to ban guns and then they have a big section about why they need to ban "assault weapons". Banning is banning.

In the first place, lets make it clear we don't want restrictions on law abiding citizens beyond making sure that all gun purchasers undergo a complete and comprehensive background check.

If that were true I would SUPPORT them and they wouldn't even really be in conflict with the NRA.

 

[stevelyn]

The Brady Trash are in defensive mode right now due to the successes of pro-gun legislation throughout the states. Even their home state of Delaware is coming around and warming up to the idea of the right to carry.
The lies and garbage they're spewing during these press opportunities for attention reflect their desperation.
The best thing we can do is keep them on the run and jab them with legislative bayonets everytime they slow down.

 

[El Tejon]

steve, that image gives me so much joy!

 

[stevelyn]

They must of slowed down.

Nebraska just stuck them by passing their right to carry bill.

 

[K-Romulus]

"both sides of mouth"

Here is the funniest part of the transcript:

Fairfax, Va.: You said earlier that you only support gun bans if locality votes for them. Why did you support and continue to call for 1994 Assault Weapon Ban that was passed on Federal level?

James and Sarah Brady: I was speaking of bans on all firearms. There has to be a line drawn between legitimate firearms and weapons of war. We don't sell rocket launchers to the civilian population - and assault weapons fall in that category. They have no legitimate purpose except in war.

 

[LAR-15]

I asked if they were mad at Reagan for signing the FOPA 1986

 

[Wiley]

I wonder what the Brady's position on gun control was prior to the assasination attempt.

 

[madmike]

Last time, someone asked her why she exposed her son to cancerous tobacco smoke.

Hearing her try to weasel around that one was fun.

 

[baz]

K-Romulus

I had to read it twice, but on a second reading I understood her "logic" and it is not particularly inconsistent (i.e. it is probably not fair to say she is talking out of "both sides of the mouth."

As I read it, she supports bans on all firearms only at the local level. She is saying that at the Federal level she's only supported bans on "weapons of war," not "all firearms." It is not an inconsistent POV.

Of course, it is a POV that completely evades the 2nd Amendment issues in either banning all firearms (at whatever level), or banning "weapons of war" which were clearly encompassed by the original intent and meaning of the 2nd Amendment.

 

[madmike]

Yes, not a federal ban. Only local bans. And not local registration. Just federal registration.

It's all weaseling to avoid having the integrity to state her position: Making all civilian gun ownership to "Those people" (meaning the lower class scum. You know: YOU) illegal. Of course, SHE is clearly SUPERIOR, so her buying a rifle to give to her son without transferring it through a FFL was okay. She KNOWS they're not criminals. But YOU just might be.

Hypocritical c#@$

 

[TexasRifleman]

SUPERIOR, so her buying a rifle to give to her son without transferring it through a FFL was okay

Seriously you have all got to drop that crap. That was a gift of a firearm and it's as legal for her to do as it is for any of us. It's not a straw purchase, it's fine, it's done all the time.

You seriously gotta stop telling that story like she did something wrong there, it only makes us look like we don't understand the very rules we argue about.

 

[madmike]

Of course it's okay...so why does she object when WE do it?

 

[progunner1957]

Gun control is not about guns - it's about control.

The Bradys have not one whit of integrity, honesty, character or decency. The want to disarm We The People and leave us defenseless at the hands of criminal predators - just like the politicians in England did to their citizens. We all see how that stroke of genius reduced crime in England.

The Brady's efforts are not about guns - it's all about control. Gun deaths are less than 20,000 per year in the United States. Cigarette smoking kills 440,000 per year in the United States - over 22 times as many deaths as caused by guns -, yet we don't see the Bradys trying to outlaw smoking - "for the children."

According to the Bradys, people have a right to smoke, but not to own guns, especially those awful black rifles. I read the Bill of Rights just yesterday and didn't see "the right of the people to smoke shall not be infringed," but I did see "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Imagine that.

 

[Henry Bowman]

Texas SIGman is right that the transfer was not illegal (assuming same state of residence). But Mike has a point in that the Brady Bunch advocates for laws requiring every transfer to go through an FFL.