In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Brady Bunch Misleading Gullible Followers Again
Josey1
Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
Brady Bunch Misleading Gullible Followers Again
by Angel Shamaya
Founder/Executive Director
KeepAndBearArms.com
July 19, 2002
KeepAndBearArms.com -- The July 18 press release from Handgun Control, Inc., which still tries to get people to buy its new name, offers gushing praise for a report from the Packard Foundation entitled "Children, Youth, and Gun Violence". The Washington Post ran a full length, pro-Brady editorial based on the same report; it just hit the newsstands today. The report calls for numerous things that please the gun prohibitionist groups to no end.
Among the report's recommendations is a call for regulating guns as consumer products. Most gunowners would be pleased as punch by many facets of such a move if implemented. What other "consumer product" besides a firearm requires background checks to buy one, gets you arrested if you carry it around in ways that displease oath-breaking public servants, or even leads to lengthy prison sentences for mere possession in some cases? The answer of course is none, but Brady's gullible followers don't tend to think about such matters -- they simply latch on to anything that demonizes their targeted inanimate objects.
Stupid Guns
Via heaping praise for this "new" anti-gunner's report, the Brady Klan continues to support any anti-gun group who encourages the implementation of "smart gun" technology -- another facet of this new "study". Their fancy rhetoric for such "only you can use your own property" technology goes as follows: "personalize guns in an effort to prevent unauthorized users from operating the weapon." The dangers of "Smart Guns" are many:
Were such expensive design requirements placed on gun manufacturers, few could afford implementation, and the dangers of such technology are many and varied.
A fallen police officer's partner whose magazine had run dry couldn't pick up his partner's firearm and use it to quell an attack.
If a man was disabled by home invaders while protecting his family, his own wife wouldn't be able to use the firearm to keep from being raped or murdered.
The more moving parts a piece of equipment has, the more likely it is to malfunction. In their utopia, anyone but you would be an "unauthorized user," even if your life depends on immediately authorizing the person trying in vain to use your firearm to keep you from getting killed.
The "ring on your finger" version of "smart" guns can also make "weak hand" shooting impossible. If your firing hand becomes disabled, unless you can get the ring close enough, it will not fire.
If biometrics are involved, even if you have a weapon capable of being programmed to accommodate multiple authorized users, the recognition devices can easily fail -- get a cut or blood on a fingertip, and you and anyone else are S.O.L. It's also conceivable that you could be wearing gloves if it's cold, you're doing garden work, washing dishes, etc. when a need to defend yourself arises. Criminals rarely accommodate to your schedule when invading.
An eventual full mandate that all firearms must have such insane technology -- a generation down the road -- could lead to bans on all firearms without it. (That would require war, of course -- but these anti-rights fools do not care about such things, as long as they convince themselves to feel good about making all people easy to prey upon.)
But again, the willing dupes who support making decent people defenseless don't care for such facts; they just hate guns and wish to disarm people who, unlike them, have the courage, ability and willingness to protect their own lives and the lives of the people they love.
Lock Up Your Life Preserver
Even more sinister, if you've got children in your home and wish to exercise your duty to protect them, these Brady folks and their allies at Packard Foundation are adamant about making it illegal for you to do so. "If they choose to keep a gun in the home, it must be stored, locked, unloaded and separate from the ammunition," the groups opine. Considering all of the many recent and ongoing reports of violent home invasions, this amounts to advocacy for the total surrender of your family's safety. They may as well say:
"If a team of ruthless and murderous home invaders breaks into your home intending to kill you, we want the U.S. Congress and all state legislatures to require you to be defenseless -- even if it means you and your entire family get raped, tortured and then slaughtered."
Their latest press release calls this "common sense" -- words issued by Brady's anti-rights President, Michael Barnes. Jessica Lynne Carpenter could've used a firearm to keep her two siblings from being pitchforked to death right before her very eyes, but her parents followed the Lock Up Your Life Preserver law in Merced, California -- the family is still dealing with the painful kind of loss Mr. Barnes and his kind seek to multiply.
While these gun prohibitionists pretend they stand for the safety of children, the truth is that they are using children as a shield to deflect attention from their chief prohibitionist aims while getting as much gun control as possible passed -- no matter how many children die by their harsh and unAmerican policies.
Sure Thing
"Limiting the flow of illegal guns to youth," is what we need to do, say the gun banners as they praise their new anti-self-defense cohorts. Considering the fact that Britain banned handguns but handgun crime among teenagers and younger adults is steeply climbing there, and considering the fact that hundreds of millions of privately owned firearms exist in America, even a faithful member of the Brady Gang ought to wonder how these measures would accomplish their stated but highly questionable objective. But they don't even bother to ask such questions, while lawful, peaceable American gunowners know that the ultimate objective of Handgun Control, Inc. is the abolition of private firearms ownership. If that weren't so, the Brady Klan wouldn't have openly supported outright gun bans in the recent past.
In other words, these anti-rights socialists are still very much the enemies of a free people, they should still be monitored, and they should still be exposed for their ugly intentions at every turn.
Let us hope the public servants in government do not follow too many of these people's life-threatening recommendations. If they do, Brady is leading us into a time where longsuffering gunowners ("the people") will have no choice but to fight, physically -- to remain armed, as intended by America's Founding Fathers. Were such an unfortunate time to arise, the disarmed peasant organizations and their sheep who continue to assail our rights would do well to to obtain firearms and ammunition.
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=3481
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
by Angel Shamaya
Founder/Executive Director
KeepAndBearArms.com
July 19, 2002
KeepAndBearArms.com -- The July 18 press release from Handgun Control, Inc., which still tries to get people to buy its new name, offers gushing praise for a report from the Packard Foundation entitled "Children, Youth, and Gun Violence". The Washington Post ran a full length, pro-Brady editorial based on the same report; it just hit the newsstands today. The report calls for numerous things that please the gun prohibitionist groups to no end.
Among the report's recommendations is a call for regulating guns as consumer products. Most gunowners would be pleased as punch by many facets of such a move if implemented. What other "consumer product" besides a firearm requires background checks to buy one, gets you arrested if you carry it around in ways that displease oath-breaking public servants, or even leads to lengthy prison sentences for mere possession in some cases? The answer of course is none, but Brady's gullible followers don't tend to think about such matters -- they simply latch on to anything that demonizes their targeted inanimate objects.
Stupid Guns
Via heaping praise for this "new" anti-gunner's report, the Brady Klan continues to support any anti-gun group who encourages the implementation of "smart gun" technology -- another facet of this new "study". Their fancy rhetoric for such "only you can use your own property" technology goes as follows: "personalize guns in an effort to prevent unauthorized users from operating the weapon." The dangers of "Smart Guns" are many:
Were such expensive design requirements placed on gun manufacturers, few could afford implementation, and the dangers of such technology are many and varied.
A fallen police officer's partner whose magazine had run dry couldn't pick up his partner's firearm and use it to quell an attack.
If a man was disabled by home invaders while protecting his family, his own wife wouldn't be able to use the firearm to keep from being raped or murdered.
The more moving parts a piece of equipment has, the more likely it is to malfunction. In their utopia, anyone but you would be an "unauthorized user," even if your life depends on immediately authorizing the person trying in vain to use your firearm to keep you from getting killed.
The "ring on your finger" version of "smart" guns can also make "weak hand" shooting impossible. If your firing hand becomes disabled, unless you can get the ring close enough, it will not fire.
If biometrics are involved, even if you have a weapon capable of being programmed to accommodate multiple authorized users, the recognition devices can easily fail -- get a cut or blood on a fingertip, and you and anyone else are S.O.L. It's also conceivable that you could be wearing gloves if it's cold, you're doing garden work, washing dishes, etc. when a need to defend yourself arises. Criminals rarely accommodate to your schedule when invading.
An eventual full mandate that all firearms must have such insane technology -- a generation down the road -- could lead to bans on all firearms without it. (That would require war, of course -- but these anti-rights fools do not care about such things, as long as they convince themselves to feel good about making all people easy to prey upon.)
But again, the willing dupes who support making decent people defenseless don't care for such facts; they just hate guns and wish to disarm people who, unlike them, have the courage, ability and willingness to protect their own lives and the lives of the people they love.
Lock Up Your Life Preserver
Even more sinister, if you've got children in your home and wish to exercise your duty to protect them, these Brady folks and their allies at Packard Foundation are adamant about making it illegal for you to do so. "If they choose to keep a gun in the home, it must be stored, locked, unloaded and separate from the ammunition," the groups opine. Considering all of the many recent and ongoing reports of violent home invasions, this amounts to advocacy for the total surrender of your family's safety. They may as well say:
"If a team of ruthless and murderous home invaders breaks into your home intending to kill you, we want the U.S. Congress and all state legislatures to require you to be defenseless -- even if it means you and your entire family get raped, tortured and then slaughtered."
Their latest press release calls this "common sense" -- words issued by Brady's anti-rights President, Michael Barnes. Jessica Lynne Carpenter could've used a firearm to keep her two siblings from being pitchforked to death right before her very eyes, but her parents followed the Lock Up Your Life Preserver law in Merced, California -- the family is still dealing with the painful kind of loss Mr. Barnes and his kind seek to multiply.
While these gun prohibitionists pretend they stand for the safety of children, the truth is that they are using children as a shield to deflect attention from their chief prohibitionist aims while getting as much gun control as possible passed -- no matter how many children die by their harsh and unAmerican policies.
Sure Thing
"Limiting the flow of illegal guns to youth," is what we need to do, say the gun banners as they praise their new anti-self-defense cohorts. Considering the fact that Britain banned handguns but handgun crime among teenagers and younger adults is steeply climbing there, and considering the fact that hundreds of millions of privately owned firearms exist in America, even a faithful member of the Brady Gang ought to wonder how these measures would accomplish their stated but highly questionable objective. But they don't even bother to ask such questions, while lawful, peaceable American gunowners know that the ultimate objective of Handgun Control, Inc. is the abolition of private firearms ownership. If that weren't so, the Brady Klan wouldn't have openly supported outright gun bans in the recent past.
In other words, these anti-rights socialists are still very much the enemies of a free people, they should still be monitored, and they should still be exposed for their ugly intentions at every turn.
Let us hope the public servants in government do not follow too many of these people's life-threatening recommendations. If they do, Brady is leading us into a time where longsuffering gunowners ("the people") will have no choice but to fight, physically -- to remain armed, as intended by America's Founding Fathers. Were such an unfortunate time to arise, the disarmed peasant organizations and their sheep who continue to assail our rights would do well to to obtain firearms and ammunition.
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=3481
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
Comments
by Joe Sudbay, Public Policy Director, Violence Prevention Campaign
When the issue is guns, the Bush war on terrorism quickly finds itself taking strange and tortuous turns to avoid offending its dark masters in the gun lobby. The most recent example involves government records, and can be summed up with a descriptive and bizarre bumper sticker slogan: guns don't kill, books do.
Faced with the question, "Which is more dangerous, a terrorist with a book or a terrorist with a gun?" most Americans would opt for the gun. Most Americans except for the Bush Administration's leading law enforcement officer, pro-gun, pro-NRA Attorney General John Ashcroft.
Two headlines tell the story. In December 2001, The New York Times reported, "Justice Dept. Bars Use of Gun Checks in Terror Inquiry." Last month, the Associated Press reported, "FBI visits libraries to monitor reading habits of those it suspects of terrorism ties."
After the September 11th attacks, the FBI accessed the audit logs of the Brady Law's National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) to see if suspected terrorists had been purchasing guns in violation of the law. The FBI believed that it had the legal authority to do this because the guns would have been illegally purchased. However, soon after this process began -- and after the FBI determined that at least two individuals on the terror watch list were gun purchasers -- the Attorney General corralled the FBI and ended their inquiry. Since then, the records have been off limits to FBI personnel.
Instead, agents are being dispatched to America's bookstores and libraries to see what terror suspects are reading. FBI agents were granted the power to obtain information related to "books, records, papers, documents, and other items" through the USA Patriot Act, passed in the wake of the September 11th attacks. The Bush Administration apparently made sure this new power was clearly defined in the new law. Yet despite its belief that the FBI lacked the authority to check the gun records, the Bush Administration and John Ashcroft have never sought similar authority to see if terrorists had purchased guns. So while FBI agents may be able to discern if terrorists' reading lists include copies of Soldier of Fortune and American Rifleman, agents lack the authority to see if they ever used this information and actually attempted to purchase a weapon.
Rather than offend the NRA -- which spent $500,000 on Ashcroft's behalf in his failed 2000 Senate re-election bid -- the attorney general has chosen to protect the perceived Second Amendment "rights" of terrorists. Apparently the American Library Association lacks the NRA's clout with the Attorney General: the First Amendment is undoubtedly trumped by the Second.
Or as an essay titled "Freedom vs. Security" in the July 8, 2002, edition of Newsweek succinctly observed: "The FBI is finding out all it can about the 1,200 people rounded up since September 11 -- except whether they have ever bought firearms. It's not that the government doesn't have that information, but the Justice Department will not share it because of an NRA-sponsored law that says that information about people buying guns -- even illegal immigrants! -- can never be shared with anyone. Ashcroft defends this policy. Perhaps someone should remind him that we are at war."
Perhaps someone should also remind Mr. Ashcroft and President Bush that the interests of the American public should take precedence over the interests of their gun lobby patrons.
Joe Sudbay
Public Policy Director
Violence Prevention Center
http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/2002/07/15_Guns.html
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878