The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence is to guns what Orkin is to cockroaches. Or so I thought. Well, still do. But the gun control group now claims otherwise. “There is a very specific type of gun that we want banned – none of them,” Dan Gross, president of The Brady Campaign, told KIRO radio’s Jason Rantz [via mynorthwest.com]. What’s more . . .
All we are trying to do is keep guns out of the hands of people we all agree that shouldn’t have them. Whether you love or hate guns, you agree that a convicted violent criminal, domestic abuser, someone who is dangerously mentally ill, or a would-be terrorist should not be able to get their hands on guns.
Again, I’m more than a little skeptical that the Brady Campaign has abandoned its antipathy to what gun control advocates call “assault rifles” (what you and I call semi-automatic rifles). On its face, Mr. Gross’ “none of the them” remark seems as disingenuous as the “we support the Second Amendment but –” misegos.
But — check this out . . .
[Radio host] Rantz pressed Gross if that meant what is commonly referred to in gun control circles as “weapons of war,” and targeting them.
“What we are focused on is every kind of gun,” Gross said. “Every gun is capable of killing in the wrong hands, or capable of recreation or defense in the right hands.”
“Whether it’s an assault weapon or a handgun, we are focused on keeping those guns out of the hands of the people we all agree shouldn’t have them,” he said. “Rather than focusing on taking certain guns away from all people, we are focused on keeping all guns away from certain people.”
Huh. So I guess The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence just a little slow taking down their webpage Restricting Assault Weapons & High Capacity Magazine Regulations. Which informs us that . . .
Military-style assault weapons have been used repeatedly in mass shootings, including in Newtown, Aurora, and Chattanooga. Recognizing the dangers posed by these weapons, numerous states and municipalities have passed laws regulating their distribution and possession. The Brady Center, in conjunction with law firms like Covington & Burling LLP and WilmerHale assists local governments to defend these laws from attacks.
I’m calling B.S. on Mr. Gross’ assertion that he and his homies are suddenly good with semi-automatic rifles. You know; in the right hands. Which would be the police. And the police only. Going by their track record in that regard.
Meanwhile, connect the dots with this morning’s Quote of the Day, where dedicated anti-gunner Adam Winkler says Democratic Presidential nominee Hillary Clinton’s antipathy to the Heller decision is “out of touch” with both the gun control movement and Dems in general.
I reckon the civilian disarmament industrial complex and their Democratic (big “D”) supporters realize that Ms. Clinton has gone too far with her gun control jihad. They’re trying to walk it back before the election.
As you and I know, Ms. Clinton can’t unring that bell. With a bit of luck, she’ll find out for whom that bell tolls. Metaphorically speaking.
Keep the goal of infringing, change the message, make your coin fooling the people.
I hate people that lie. I especially hate anti-gunners like this clown that try to deceive us. We all know their true goal. They won’t be satisfied until every legally owned gun in this country is confiscated. Period,. Regardless of their pretty sounding lies.
“Regardless of their pretty sounding lies.”
Bury my heart at Wounded Knee.
(Deep in the earth…)
What, gun banners lie about their intentions? Say it ain’t so! Pay no attention to that woman behind the curtain!
She’s not behind it, she’s inside it.
(And she desparately needs a new fashion & clothing advisor.)
“Rather than focusing on taking certain guns away from all people, we are focused on keeping all guns away from certain people.”
Certain people being everybody but LE/Military right?
Brain fart, meant to say ordinary people.
My crappy phone does not understand the edit comment function.
Yep. They can’t shut her up and they realize she’s dragging them down with her. She’s jumped on the crazy train and is making it easy for Trump to win.
The anti gunners are just trying to save some of their friends in congress and the senate.
All they are doing is changing the messaging. Just like in stead of Gun Control we now have “Gun Safety”
Same Kabuki theatre just with a different name. If they can get “A”, then they will simply flip their message and get “B”
Since we have heard all week at the DNC that gun owners are “low education” 3-G types, they believe they can just fool us all.
Don’t be fooled again, this tiger did not change its stripes it just found better PR.
We don’t have a Gun problem we have a people problem. It all starts with the Family, which in my opinion is deteriorating no Values no leadership no guidance for our children to follow. Very Very Sad
Roving packs of feral humans infest the cities. No different than dogs that bite. Its the owner’s fault. Too bad they keep voting their plantation owners back in every time.
A gun ban by any other name…………………………………
They want to keep the guns out of the hands of the wrong people. That means anyone not a LEO or military pretty much, and even they are suspect.
In California, they’ll call the gun ban: Public Safety, Education, and Immigration Reform for Safety and Freedom.
And the Children. Mustn’t forget the Children.
“Every gun is capable of killing in the wrong hands, or capable of recreation or defense in the right hands.”
Holy crap. That’s something I would expect Wayne LaPierre to say.
Could be the Brady folks have had an epiphany and they have finally woken up to reality. I doubt it. They are not worthy of our trust. But I’m saving the quote, just the same.
Now, just how they think they can define “dangerously mentally ill” or “would-be terrorist” remains to be seen.
Well exactly.
Some 40m Americans take anti-depressants. Are they all too mentally ill to keep and bear arms?
Plenty of left-leaning politicians consider The People of the Gun — those of us who share the Founding Fathers’ opinion that the Second Amendment is a bulwark against government tyranny — proto-insurrectionists.
Would-be terrorist if you will. And I sure hope you and they don’t. That could get really ugly.
Easy if you actually want a gun and plan on some recreational fun with it, you must be mentally ill, because only a crazy person could find something so destructive to be fun. And if you actually want a gun to defend yourself, then you are obviously a terrorist because only a terrorist is barbaric enough to use a gun on somebody.
There was only once catch, and that was Catch-22.
Unsaid:
Dangerously mentally ill is someone who WANTS to own a gun.
Would-be terrorist is someone who DOES own a gun.
^^^ Ding, ding, ding! Give that man a cigar!
Hmm… I don’t know… Cigars are dangerous. ?
Only to Clinton interns. 😛
My favorite of the jokes when Hilary stated the Clintons were broke when they moved out of the White House:
They were so poor, they had to smoke Bill’s old cigars.
It’s easy and fun to lie your face off when there are no real consequences.
There’s a stack of treaties somewhere in a cabinet to back this up.
If I have all the power and nobody is else is strong enough or willing to take me on I can tell you whatever damn thing I need to to get you to comply or acquiesce and you wont do squat later on when I back off what I said.
I can laugh in your stupid face and all you’ll be able to muster is a pitiful “b…b…b…but you said!!!!”
What are you gonna do? Spend millions of dollars and decades of your life writing letters? Filing suits? None of that will matter and in the end you’ll die bitter, broke and jaded and whatever you claimed I promised or said will be forgotten and what I wanted will survive generations. My name is government.
The same Brady Campaign that used to be called “National Council to Control Handguns” before changing to “Handgun Control, Inc,” before changing to “Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence?” …the one that partnered with the “National Coalition to Ban Handguns” before those guys changed their name to the “Coalition to Stop Gun Violence?” …Yeah… okay. My apologies for not taking their word.
I knew the woman who founded Handgun Control, Inc., which merged with the Brady Campaign. Lila Sapinsly’s husband was our family doctor. He was shot to death outside our local hospital in Providence, R.I. Which stiffened my mother and father’s anti-gun animus. And yet, as Edna Mode pronounced, here we are.
I know who Edna Mode is!
…and I don’t know how I feel about that.
I’d feel pretty good about it. Edna Mode is awesome (just don’t ask her for a cape).
Reading the linked article in mynorthwest.com, we see that he’s still telling the same old lies.
“We have no way of enforcing those laws because right now that convicted domestic abuser can go into a gun show and buy a gun – no questions asked,” he said.
Gun show loophole, dontchaknow. Those gun shows are just places for people to go and commit felonies.
Here’s my message to the Brady Bunch.
Why can your organization not understand the simple liberty of living ones life, having a good woman, raising children to be honest citizens, enjoy time with friends and protecting yourself and what you created with armaments.
We don’t care if a bad guy has a gun…if we have them. It’s the people’s check and balance, not against government but the the only measure that concerns a criminal.
The antis believe that everyone is a potential “bad guy.” Projection per chance?
Not just chance, Robert. Nearly all of the progressive’s wish list of restricts is projection. They know they are incapable of being trusted, therefore all others must be the same.
Pandering phemocrats pandas projection per perpetual perception…people prefer protection.
Exactly. We see decent folks and criminals. They do not percieve the difference – that’s why they say ‘everyone is decent… until he isn’t’. So, everybody is potential criminal.
“(K)eeping those guns out of the hands of the people – we all agree – shouldn’t have them” is the joker phrase. Especially since “we” don’t all agree in the least just who those folks might be. Unfortunately, that sounds good and right to a lot of people who simply don’t know any better; those who think it is someone else’s responsibility to make them feel safe – even if they know they are not currently safe at all!
Nobody can accurately predict just who, why or where someone will decide to do harm with a gun… or anything else. Unwillingness to recognize that indisputable fact puts the lie to everything else they say.
The only rational response to those who would harm others is defense. And all it entails. Wonder how far down this “feel safe” road people will go before they get the idea…
“Wonder how far down this “feel safe” road people will go before they get the idea…”
Until they get to the station, and board the train…
History proves that beyond any doubt.
“Whether you love or hate guns, you agree that a convicted violent criminal, domestic abuser, someone who is dangerously mentally ill, or a would-be terrorist should not be able to get their hands on guns.”
No, I don’t agree, actually I think that list of dangerous people you cite should be in a prison somewhere, so I don’t have to worry about them getting anything or doing anything bad. If the people are dangerous, remove them from society, if they aren’t, then they should have the same rights as anyone considered not dangerous.
If, what you are actually saying is, we have zero ability to reform, continually incarcerate, or otherwise protect society from this list of known dangerous people, and we have to limit their access to dangerous things because the “system” is a joke, just say that and limit their access to a whole bunch of other things as well as guns. And then get after fixing it.
Root cause; it’s a thing. Don’t just put buckets under a leaking roof; fix the f’ing roof.
“…dangerously mentally ill, or a would-be terrorist…”
Do you really want to give the government the authority to decide who is dangerously mentally ill (they just released the guy who shot Reagan, AND Brady, but missed the certain signs of insanity in most of the recent mass shooters) or give them the authority to imprison “would-be terrorists”? These guys can’t run a post office efficiently! Or the TSA, or Obama Care. On a State level most of them can’t even run a DMV.
You absolutely should NOT want to give the government the authority to decide who is dangerous because they will inevitably determine danger as that which is dangerous to their power, not that which is dangerous to you.
Try this thought experiment: If every passenger boarding an airliner was issued an NAA pistol in .22 LR for the duration of the flight, what would be the odds that anyone on that flight, even the pilot, would even consider hijacking it to fly it into a building?
THAT is the Second Amendment
ROFLMAO
Yea, the Brady Brownshirts don’t want to take guns away.
…and mosquito’s don’t drink blood, The sky isn’t really blue, and Their really is no quoto for speeding tickets…
Is there a way we can just round up all of these idiots and throw them into a volcano? They are not only insulting our intelligence with every word that they utter but they are polluting the gene pool something fierce.
“What we are focused on is every kind of gun,”
They are getting ready to go after Heller if Hillary is elected and she changes the SCOTUS back to firmly anti gun, mark my words you will see massive new restrictions on handguns at the state and local levels if she is elected which will fly in the face Heller but the anti gunners wont give a damn because they know the SCOTUS will back them. Vote, vote Trump, swallow your pride and vote trump or our 2A rights are FUBAR.
I guess there’s two options:
(1) Dan Gross is lying
(2) Dan Gross is telling the truth.
Hmm..
Somehow neither of those options are reassuring.
He’s lying about telling the truth.
“All we are trying to do is keep guns out of the hands of people we all agree that shouldn’t have them. Whether you love or hate guns, you agree that a convicted violent criminal, domestic abuser, someone who is dangerously mentally ill, or a would-be terrorist should not be able to get their hands on guns.”
We all agree? This guy is definitely living in some alternate universe. Again and again he repeats that “we all agree” on some point that he and his anti-2A ilk somehow believe must be a universal truth. The man is delusional.
The point of the Second Amendment is that because you can NEVER keep weapons (arms) out of the hands of such people then you MUST allow all people to have the arms they need to defend themselves, their families, their communities and their country.
Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Che and Pol Pot, to name a few, could easily be described as: “,,,,convicted violent criminal, domestic abuser…dangerously mentally ill…terrorist….” And given the political opportunity they were happy to label their opposition with just those same pejoratives simply for the act of opposing them and their political goals. HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS DIED!
There is no way to prevent criminals, abusers and terrorists from obtaining whatever arms they want in order to perpetrate their crimes. All efforts by government to do so must only serve to make their victims helpless before their attacks and helpless before their own government. This is the primary reason that the Second Amendment contains the words; “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” With NO QUALIFIERS.
The risk that some people who would would prefer not have arms will indeed get those arms and commit crimes, even atrocities with those arms, cannot outweigh the value of an armed populace prepared to defend against the greater atrocities of an out of control government that can and will brand its opponents as criminals and dangerously mentally ill in order to justify rounding them up and imprisoning them, or worse.
“If you concede that the very government that the Second Amendment was intended to allow you to protect yourself from has the authority to create, maintain and enforce a list of persons who, in the opinion of that same government, may not exercise their Second Amendment protected right to keep and bear arms, how will you keep your name off of that list?” – Cliff H
They know bans are a no go in the current political environment, so they will try for background checks on all transactions until there are enough changes in Congress. If they get the background checks, that is one step closer to registration, and that is an acceptable outcome for them.
They will double down on efforts for bans at the state level in the mean time.
Lies, liars, and f ing liars.
The only “bell” will be the sound of cash registers ringing up record sales over the next few months. I just need one more pre-ban lower and I’ll consider myself set. Unfortunately those are now running well north of $1k if they are from a manufacturer where one can prove date of manufacture (Colt and a few others).
“..you agree that a convicted violent criminal, domestic abuser, someone who is dangerously mentally ill, or a would-be terrorist should not be able to get their hands on guns.”
Yes, we can agree on that.
Where the disagreement begins is in the how to make any of that happen. I am of the opinion that violent criminals are going to get guns regardless of any laws. I am of the opinion that a ‘domestic abuser’ sounds terrible but is in actuality quite a vague description and therefore hard to do anything about. I am of the opinion that ‘would-be terrorist’ is something you made up and therefore can be ignored. I am of the opinion that if someone is dangerously mentally ill they should be under professional medical supervision and not roaming the streets.
So starting from our rare agreement point in this debate…. tell us what your ideas are on the subject.
I have to agree with RF here. I think they’re trying to reign in their hardline disarmament image before the election to elicit support, because in the past two years they’ve created a PR nightmare by going for the proverbial throat. They want to see Hillary elected, a democrat controlled congress and a stacked SCOTUS; then it’s back down the rabbit hole of gun control. Let’s face it, antis have never argued in good faith, and I don’t believe they are starting to now.
Give them nothing.
I concur.
Roll back the clarity of goal, get “her” in, then go gang busters.
It’s BS. For years they have been spouting “weapons of war” and “off the streets.” And it’s BS. I don’t buy any of it – at all. Total BS.
Today they don’t want it – after Hilary is elected, they will be back to their usual disarmament agenda. For one reason or other, stating this supports their cause for now, but it’s a lie.
And I do not want a million dollars either.
I will totally believe this when they push for repeal of the gun ban they previously pushed for, in Maryland Connecticut California…
When Dan Gross says “hello,” he’s lying.
Dissembling know-it-all weasel. It’s just like socialism; criticize socialism on the basis of historical evidence and it turns out the person you’re talking to is some other kind of socialist and modetn socialism is completely different, and no one who understands would conflate it with prior things that used the same name. Basically you’re wrong because you’re not up to date on the latest batch of BS the anti-gunners are ready to swear to for the next week or do.
“would-be terrorist” = every person.
People would have to “Prove they are innocent” before they could purchase a firearm.
Assault is an behaveor not an device and theres still an assault weapon ban on federal papers in 3 editions called the nfa branch + anti gun states are not forced to allow all federal allowe ………
At this point I cannot believe anyone who wants to see HiLIARy win the Presidency at face value of what they say. If someone is supporting Clinton for POTUS, they are supporting a pathological liar and by my accounting cannot be trusted any more than her.
I do agree with RF that it may be that the Brady Bunch is scared by HiLIARy’s radical jihad against the Second Amendment and think they are now lying to try to win the Election for Hildebeest.
This Election is, for me, about stopping the further advance of Progressivism across the board in America. If we do not, the Democrats will reconfigure The United States into a failing European Socialist Democracy and there will be no “do overs” or “fixes” after even just four years of HiLIARy’s rule.
So, this guy can take his pre-election lies and put them where the Sun don’t shine.
We already are a European-style socialist democracy — when you count business tax breaks/incentives/penalties in addition to the numerous welfare entitlement programs, our government interferes and redistributes just as much as any European welfare state.
Yes, I agree with you. It may not be too late to reverse some of these things and act to insure they don’t reappear. If HRC gets elected my concern is the Democrat Progressives will take it further beyond the point of no return.
Today (literally) the Democrat meme is that the RNC Convention was dark and scary, while the DNC Convention was optimistic and celebrating all the wonderful accomplishments of Barak Obama. I see it as the RNC was about how damaged and dysfunctional America has become under the Democrats while the DNC was unicorns and rainbows celebrating false paradigms in a cheerful spate of utterly disingenuous propaganda.
If HRC gets elected it’s “game over”. If DJT gets elected there’s a chance to begin to undo the damage the Democrat Progressives have done and are doing. The World has changed and we may never be able to put everything back we once had, but we can adapt and find better answers than the Democrats offer.
We don’t want to ban them but we’ll sure as hell spend some bucks to defend any law that manages to get passed which does. Because rooting for the tyrant is totes different than being one I guess.
At least Gross is aptly named…and disgusting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4F4qzPbcFiA
I can’t believe it took this far down to see this, but this pretty much sums it up.
They don’t want to ban ‘assault weapons’. They want to ban all guns, and this is just the low hanging fruit.
The PV journalist then told Bayer “well, we can’t say we want to ban guns. Can we do that? We got to hit that.”
“Right,” Bayer agreed. “You got to say you want ‘common sense gun legislation.’ … you say you want to ban guns altogether, that’s just going to piss everybody off.”
“You have to take that sort of moderate, ‘we just want to have common sense legislation so our children are safe!’ You say shit like that, and then people will buy into it.”
Additionally, Bayer responded, “for sure,” when asked if Hillary would support and press a full ban of firearms.
I love how gun-grabbers think a simple rewording of the same concept is enough to win people over. You can call it a “bilirubin-fortified biological byproduct” all you please, but at the end of the day, it’s still a turd.
I agree that some people should not be allowed firearms. The very same people who should be behind bars, without a gun store in the facility. Wasn’t that easy? No violation of any Amendment.
“We don’t want to ban assault weapons.” – Brady Campaign
Right. Put this one on the chalkboard next to the DNC saying “We don’t want rig the primary against Bernie Sanders.” Except these guys are so stupid that Robert didn’t have to hack their email server. He just went to their website.
In terms of sheer pathologically lying dishonesty, anti-gunners are surpassed ONLY by Holocaust deniers… and not by much.
Hmmm….so the gungrabber and confiscator’s greatest trick he ever plays on the world will be to convince us that he doesn’t exist? Nice try.
Didn’t expect to see a Baudelaire reference here. Good show!
I expect that groups like this stand to lose a lot, namely relevance and the associated donation stream, when Hillary puts the world on her shoulders and blathers on about protecting the children at any cost while never acknowledging that self defense is a constitutionally protected right.
That being said, I don’t think that anyone in their right mind would consider this to be a case of “The enemy of my enemy is my friend” however.
“Would be terrorists”
With the move to declare the NRA a terrorist organization, its not a stretch to declare all private gun owners “would be terrorists” especially if we subscribe to the 2A as a check to government tyranny. The left adores a all powerful government.
I don’t trust anybody who still insists on referring to them as ‘assault’ weapons!
I feel so much better now. I guess I can expect them to come out in support of the more restrictive semi auto ban that just got passed in Ca. Such a relief.
Let me ask one question, Are their lips moving? If so, they’re lying!
In the story of the fox and scorpion A scorpion and a frog meet on the bank of a stream and the scorpion asks the frog to carry him across on its back. The frog asks, “How do I know you won’t sting me?” The scorpion says, “Because if I do, I will die too.”
The frog is satisfied, and they set out, but in midstream, the scorpion stings the frog. The frog feels the onset of paralysis and starts to sink, knowing they both will drown, but has just enough time to gasp “Why?” Replies the scorpion: “Its my nature…”
And if you think they’ve changed your judgment is suspect.
The Brady Bunch has a well-established record in court of opposing any semblance of firearms freedom, for any person, anywhere. They have NEVER weighed in on the side of a gun owner, dealer, or manufacturer (even the ACLU has done that much). They were the prime complainant in every lawsuit brought against firearms manufacturers, that finally led to the feds outlawing such bogus lawsuits. Most recently, they brought a frivolous suit against an ammo supplier for supplying ammo to a person legally qualified to receive it (the Aurora shooter), and when the judge bitch-slapped them for barratry, they walked away and stuck their own sock-monkey grieving parent clients with the winner’s legal bills. So they’re not just liars, but an all-around class act.
RF, you mean Dr. Charles Potter and Handgun Alert? The Providence shooting in 1970.
There is another option. It could be them going though stages of grief at a loss. Another option is that they realize that they have a lousy hand and its not getting any better. Instead of concentrating on what firearms people own, they are moving on to restricting the who. In any case its a small win and additional pressure needs to be applied to win the struggle.
Comments are closed.