Sarah Brady illegal rifle purchase

remroc

A few months ago the New York Daily News had a story about Sarah Brady making what seemed to be a violation of Delaware law in that she purchased a rifle and then gave it to her son. In other words a straw purchase. The Delaware DOJ refused to pursue the subject and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms filed a complaint with the Delaware Attorney General's office and ATF. Does anyone know the outcome of this situation? Was this a violation of Delaware law? I read about this in the May 20 edition of The New American.

gunphreak

Brady's campaign claims no laws were broken, but their word has been broken. They claim guns are bad, and I will be the first to say that they are ALL hypocrits. Regardless of what laws were or were not broken, the fact remains that, Sarah Brady DOES want firearms, just not for any of us. For those of us with no political status or status to fame, our lives mean nothing to her or her organization. We should all just lead out the rest of our useless pointless lives.

As far as I'm concerned, this woman has a nice warm spot in Hell waiting for her for the antichristian things she stands for. A National holiday should be declared on that day (fat chance).

Death to Tyrants!!!

-Gunphreak

nitrouz

Maybe her son will do us all a favor with that rifle.

gunphreak

LMAO!!!!

That's a good one!!!!

Death to Tyrants!!!

-Gunphreak

medicjohn

I don't know what the real issue is here, that she bought a gun or the that she gave it to her son. If she completed a valid state transfer form everything is fine, if not she should have to face the same penalties as everyone else. As to what I understand, her stance is that she does not want the wrong people having guns. Do you honestly believe that a convicted Felon should have the ablity to invoke his second amendment right to keep and bear arms. IN addition do you really feel that you need a weapon that had a capacity of over 10 rounds. I don't know about you, but I always hit what I am aiming at with the first shot the other 9, or 4, or 3 rounds are for whatever the next target is, be it man or beast. I think that the main thing I am saying is that you should not condemn someone to a spot in hell for trying to make the country a "safer" place, no matter how misguided the aproach is.

gunphreak

Do I want a convicted felon having a gun?? No. Do they abide by the wishes of law abiders?? No. Do I believe we should have access to mags that hold more than 10 rounds?? No more than what anyone else, including military or law enforcement, do. Should it matter that your law abiding neighbor has an AK-47 with several 40 round mags?? If so, why?? I could care less what someone else has, as long as it isn't pointed my way, but then, the same would be true of a .22 or pellet rifle, so what am I saying??

We have as much right owning whatever we want, being law abiders, as anyone else. Assault is not an instrument, it's a behavior. Loading up a 30 round magazine in a rifle does NOT suddenly turn any of us into killers, period.

Death to Tyrants!!!

Jesus Christ believed in the right to keep and bear arms, Luke 22:36.

-Gunphreak

gunphreak

One more thing. Sarah Brady's stand on gun owners are that they have no rights. She goes down on the books as saying that. That sounds like someone who doesn't want guns in YOUR hands... or mine, or any law abiding citizen. That doesn't sound like the language of someone who doesn't want guns in the wrong hands. Listen to what they're saying, and pay attention to what they aren't saying.

And to that end, I have NOT, I repeat, NOT condemned this woman to hell. She's doing a fine job of that without anyone else's help. You don't think so, check and see just how important Jesus Christ said concerning the importance of being armed, Luke 22:36. Then, check the 10 Commandments where it says "Thou Shalt Not Bear False witness...."

I may not be able to walk on water, and I am certainly not perfect or sinless. I am not judging, however, and I am not about to cast the first stone. I am merely observing, as I will abhor that which is evil. And God shall dispense with His Judgment, and that will be the end of the story.

The Bill of Rights was based on Christian principles. It is in the Bible for all those who wish to learn, and in a language that is NOT open for loose interpretation, so help us. Only an idiot would dare attempt to distort the teachings of the Lord, and Judgment shall await those foolish enough to try. You can't say I didn't warn you.


Death to Tyrants!!!

Jesus Christ believed in the right to keep and bear arms, Luke 22:36.

-Gunphreak

medicjohn

Right. Jesus wanted his disciples to be able to defend themselves so they could spread the word of god. And he knew that they would be persecuted for their beliefs, hence the need to arm themselves. As for the false witness thing maybe you should check your feelings about the woman vs. the things she is trying to do, then review the things that you have said. Pacifism is what Jesus preached(matthew 5:38-48), and one of the core belief in christianity. To end; 1)Brady bill is worthless and ineffectual 2)don't be so sensitive, we all have the same beliefs or we wouldn't be talking here.

gunphreak

I have been paying very close attention for over 10 years on that woman. Nothing she says brings me to any other conclusion other than Article II of the Bill of Rights is for the STATE and that WE THE PEOPLE have no right to it. Her overall goal is an outright ban on all handguns and semiautomatic rifles, extremely and stupidly strict regulation on all other types of firearms, and registration to ultimately lead to confiscation. This goes directly against Christian teachings. As a result, this has proven a pathway to tyranny 100% of the time this has been practiced within the last century. I'm waiting to see how UK and Australia fare with their recent legislation.

Do not confuse pacifism with proper coexistence. Throughout the Old Testament, God has has enacted His Will to destroy an unclean and immoral populace. He has led his people to war, and has punished those same leaders when they began following his path. The Law was written in the first 5 books of the Bible, which were rather harsh for things we do today quite often. Within the New Testament, Revelations acknowledges a War in Heaven and Earth. He has authorized the laws of the land to enact judgment, and has ordained those who prtect God's people from them. The Bible is a Book of War (not to be confused with warmongering), not a manual for pacifism. This War is spiritual in its wording, and thereby has virtues to which we should understand that immoral slaying is NOT the works of God. Whereby there is no problem leading in a misguided person to see the light, and there is virtue in doing so, to which a single victory is achieved, turning and running in the face of imminent danger (turn the other cheek) seems less to be inclined with proper conduct toward mankind, and has more to do with the laws of the land, and the punishment and consequences that follow. His Laws haven't changed (Hebrews 13:8). The only thing that has changed is the route for repentance.

I have not slandered that woman. She goes on record for saying she believes gun owners have no rights. The language indicates all of us, not criminals. The semantics, the mere meaning of words, leaves a big question to be answered: Who fits the description of the "wrong" person? She also goes on record for saying that registration will ultimately lead to confiscation. This woman has nothing but ill intent for those of us on this board, and the 81 million estimated gun owners out there. I'm not putting words in her mouth. When she spoke them, at that time, I couldn't believe it.

Death to Tyrants!!!

Jesus Christ believed in the right to keep and bear arms, Luke 22:36.

-Gunphreak

salzo

MEDICJOHN- I do not think that you understand the second amendment. Gun issues are not placed to a vote, to decide how much of the right we are allowed to enjoy. Doesnt matter if you think we do not need high capacity mags, or that felons should not be allowed to exercise the right, and it does not matter if "the majority" agrees with you. What matters, is that the second amendment prohibits the federal government from enacting laws that infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. The second amendment is not a "guaranteor" of rights-The second amendment is a prohibition placed on the federal government with respect to enacting laws that deal with guns. It does not matter if the majority of US citizens have the same feelings that you do, because it is not up to popular vote how much of the right will be enjoyed. The federal government is prohibited by the constitution, both article one section 8, andthe second amendment, from making laws that deal with guns.

"Sometimes the people have to give up some individual rights for the safety of society."
-Bill Clinton(MTV interview)

sfetty

Salzo, your post was music to my ears!

gunphreak

Exactly what I've said all along. Article II of the Bill of Rights is bestowed by God. Any attempt to change it is outright opposition to God's people. The attempts made by our own government prove to be nothing more than malevolence toward us, period.

Death to Tyrants!!!

Jesus Christ believed in the right to keep and bear arms, Luke 22:36.

-Gunphreak

The firearms consultant

I read somewhere that dear Sara makes over 140,000 dollars a year from her "Organization". That organization is dedicated to the destruction of our Constitution. That makes her a hipocrit and a prostitute. She is only in it for the money reguardless of what happened to her husband. I can't verify the 140gs but where else could she make that kind of money except by preying on the emotions of the ignorant. If you are anti-gun you truely are ignorant. By focusing on an object you will never solve the violence problem.
John

I might not always tell you the truth, but I will never lie to you!

gunphreak

That is true. I am not fully convinced that is Sarah Brady's full intent. I see things as she wants them in the HANDS OF THE ELITE ONLY. Others cannot be trusted, period. And therefore she is exactly what you said, Consultant.

Death to Tyrants!!!

Jesus Christ believed in the right to keep and bear arms, Luke 22:36.

-Gunphreak

medicjohn

Salzo- You would be correct in the assumtion that I am not a constitutional scholar. However, the federal gov't does have say over what we can or can't do, or own to a certain extent. By using interstate trade laws they can in fact control what is sold. Then by extension those who we "vote in," do have control over those issues. So when the monkey makes his way around the mulberry bush, it does come down to a public vote issue. This can be circumvented by voting for those that will give the gunowners a voice in repealing the laws that have been made. The Gov't has shown that they will bend over backwards and trash established rights if it will get them another 4 years in office, which is why we have to make sure that the people we send to Washington are the ones who best meet our ideals and beliefs.

salzo

Medicjohn-Ahh yes John. Take out your liberal guide to constitutional revisionism, and pull out "interstate commerce." Wht not use one of the other two clauses that you and your destructionist pals use when you want to pass off unconstitutional measureas as constitutional- 14th amendment equal protection, or General welfare clause. Those three clauses make up the holy trinity of deconstructionists like yourself.
Actually, you are incorrect. The government DOES not have the authority to control what is sold in the name of interstate commerce. They use the "interstate commerce" clause to justify any power they assume that they do not have the authority to assume under the constitution. Sure they do it, but that does not make it right. The interstate commerce clause was intended to keep trading practices fair among the several states. It was never intended to be a trump card for the federal government so that they could regulate anything they want if it might or might not go across state lines. the founders gave the federal government very narrow powers(see article one section 8), common sense would dictate that the founders would not give very limited powers to the federal government,enumerate those specific powers, but throw in a couple of trump cards so that they could do what they were specifically prohibited by the constitution from doing. What is the point of enumerating specific powers in the constitution at all, if the intention of the founders with respect to the "interstate commerce clause" was that the federal government can regulate everything and anything that might or might not cross state lines? Doesnt make much sense does it?
If that was the intention of the founders, there would be no bill of rights, no article one section 8-the constitution would be a couple of paragraphs basically saying "the federal government can do what it wishes with respect to anything it wishes to influence."



"Sometimes the people have to give up some individual rights for the safety of society."
-Bill Clinton(MTV interview)

gunphreak

You got that right, Salzo.

Death to Tyrants!!!

Jesus Christ believed in the right to keep and bear arms, Luke 22:36.

-Gunphreak

medicjohn

First things first, I am NOT a liberal. I am a moderate. I have served proudly in the military, I am a gun owner, and I vote pro-gun. I just happen to agree with some of the laws that you don't. That does not make me an anarchistic, tree-hugging, long haired hippie. OK?
Second the founding fathers weren't the ones who enacted interstate trading laws as they are known today. I seroiusly doubt that Ben or George or John thought that we would have the problems we do now or they would have addressed them more closely in the constitution. Everything that has come about after that has made things the way they are. The original idea was to give the federal gov't as little power as possible, but still allow it to act as an adhesive for the fledgling colonies. The years went by and the federal gov't made itself more powerful giving us the end product that we have today. I totally agree with you that this is ridiculous, that they have enabled themselves to control what they want. I was trying to make the point that right or wrong (which it is) that this is how they have it worked out to bone us. I was not trying to say that I agree with it.

gunphreak

Ok. Good enough.

All I want is the public servant (government) to not try to be the master. This is dangerous, like a Gestapo is.

Death to Tyrants!!!

Jesus Christ believed in the right to keep and bear arms, Luke 22:36.

-Gunphreak

medicjohn

Amen.

prebanguy

Ok here goes my 2 cents worth. When the sereial sniper was on the loose. Of course Sarah Brady was whining about the availability of sniper weapons in the United States. Her defenition of a sniper weapon is basically any rifle capable of hitting targets at long range. Sort of like the 30.06 she bought for her son. California Senator Diane Feinstein, one of the key players in the assult weapons ban, has a concealed carry permit. She is also strongly opposed to concealed carry. She got a gun and a permeit when her life was threatned. But its ok for her shes important right? Rosie Odonnel, who said "all gun owners should be imprisonned", has bodyguards for her children who carry glocks with high cap mags. Is that hypocrassy I smell? Wake up people. These liberals don`t care one bit about you and your families. Anyone who tells you differently deserves to be pistol whipped.

Madjack

Just noticed Rosie's name pop up. Wanted you all to know that her body guards have been trained in the use of Uzi's also. Got their training here in Nevada. But, of course, she doesn't believe any of us "peasants" should have one.
Just like Sarah, Diane, Barbara (Boxer), and the rest. They're all lying sacks of dog * who want to destroy the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Direct enough for you?

Forget the Jones's.....I keep up with the Simpsons!

gunphreak

I hear you. Been preraching that message for years now.

Abolish the ATF!!!!

Death to Tyrants!!!

Jesus Christ believed in the right to keep and bear arms, Luke 22:36.

-Gunphreak