Brady Center to Prevent Gun Ownership: We Don’t Want to Ban Handguns, Only to Ban Handguns
Boy, for a group that only supports “reasonable” gun control restrictions and doesn’t want government to ban handguns, the Brady Bunch sure seem awfully pissed off over a court ruling that has no apparent impact on reasonable gun control restrictions, but does prohibit government from banning handguns (OK, maybe machine guns too, but they’re not responding to that angle, nor are they likely even aware of it).
March 11th, 2007 at 3:53 pm
We can not have people carrying their guns from one room in their house to another room in their house, as the D.C. government admitted their law does. If that is allowed to happen it will be the wild west!
March 13th, 2007 at 4:42 pm
Yeah, right. We’re still waiting for the blood in the streets in Florida after the passing of their castle doctrine.
March 13th, 2007 at 6:47 pm
The funny thing is the anti’s argument was that firearms are only for the militia and one judge said that DC wasn’t a state so the second amendment doesn’t apply.
So if the second goes so does the rest of the constitution.
March 19th, 2007 at 9:50 am
The Brady Campaign is possibly the most dishonest organization in the country. They changed their name from “Hand Gun Control, Inc.” after a survey showed that very few Americans supported a complete ban on handguns.
They continue to try to ban handguns behind the scenes, while gathering support by deceiving people as to their actual goals.
March 19th, 2007 at 1:46 pm
The true intentions of the anti-gun/anti self-defense philosophy really have nothing to do with guns at all. It is, and always has been one person’s CONTROL over another. Consider the issues that liberals rabidly insist as the most pressing: Global Warming(we are all going to die unless you do as we say), sex education(all 10 year old girls must be inocculated for HPV or they’ll get cancer), we must get out of Iraq immediately(or the world will forever hate us), Political Correctness (thought police and MY feelings of self-esteem trump your free speech), cows cause more pollution than cars(you must become vegetarian to save the Earth)…the list goes on and on, ad nauseum. They call themselves “progressive” and it is true because they never propose legitimate solutions to gun crime, only progressively tighter laws that reduce law-abiding access to an effective tool. Personally, I think these nutjobs would be more benefit to Mother Earth by becoming martyrs, sacrificing themselves by voluntarily altering their current life form into a rich organic compost. They are eminently well qualified as their rhetoric is predominently BS.
May 25th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
I never understood why we need to keep handguns legal. They seem to cause much more terror in our society than good.
We’re not living in the 1780’s anymore where we needed to protect our land from takeover by stronger, more established governments – or the Indians (that moral issue’s a subject for a different day). Yes, today, we now have terrorism, but trying to use handguns to fend off that threat is like cooling off the sun by throwing ice at it.
These days all handguns seem to be good for are school shootings and robberies. What’s the point in keeping them legal and therefore saying by implication that we approve of their uses?
May 25th, 2008 at 11:21 pm
Tell that to the 1,000,000+ Americans who successfully use firearms (usually, though not always, handguns) to prevent crimes against themselves or others.