CNN’s Piers Morgan [Not Shown] Scoops Sarah Brady Visionary Award

Back in the day, mainstream journalists were extremely careful about which awards they accepted. The odds that Walter Cronkite would have accepted a gong from The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence are about as high as the odds that Natalie Gal [above] will attend the 2014 International Conference on Hypernuclear and Strange Particle Physics. But you would … Read more

Scientific American: Socialism Stops Gun Deaths

It’s not very scientific and it sure ain’t American. But John Horgan at scientificamerican.com just up and goes for it in a rant entitled A modest proposal for curbing homicides: Socialism. Well, not at first. At first, the author admits that his previous belief in a cause and effect relationship between gun control and crime control may have been a tad hasty. “The link between homicides and easy access to guns—like the link between real violence and media violence—is tenuous. You can make the cause [sic] for or against a causal relation, depending on what society or time period you examine. Complexities like these lead to complaints that ‘social science’ is an oxymoron.” Hey, you said it. Needless to say, Horgan’s polemic goes downhill from there . . .

Read more

The Truth About The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence

. . .

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence is dedicated to .  . .wait for it . . . preventing gun violence. To that end, the gun control group beats the drum for “common sense” gun regulations: rules [supposedly] designed to prevent criminal access to firearms. Like most of the regulations the Brady Campaign champions, it seems like a reasonable stance. Who wants criminals to have guns? Like most of the regulations that the Brady Campaign champions, things are not exactly what they seem . . .

Read more

“If someone’s not complying with what the government requires of somebody, that’s usually a sign that you can’t trust them to follow the rules with something like a gun”

So sayeth Paul Helmke. The President of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence made the pro-Stalinist—I mean, pro-government remark whilst in support of proposed changes to the New York City police department’s concealed carry permitting process. This from a man who presumably has never been “arrested, indicted or convicted for a crime or violation, except minor traffic violations.” Such as a speeding ticket (I kid you not). Oh wait; it doesn’t matter. Helmke doesn’t live in The Big Apple nor carry a gun, presumably. In fact, it really doesn’t matter to anyone else, either, because New York City is already denying concealed carry permits to anyone save celebrities and other politically connected pals. But the language of the new regs is flat-out unconstitutional. fox.com charts the strange ch-ch-ch-changes . . .

Read more

Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence Reveals 2010 Political Endorsements

As an American, I respect your right to vote for whomever you please in the forthcoming midterm elections. If, however, you cherish your right to bear arms without “sensible” gun laws restricting that right, never mind the NRA’s realpolitik endorsements. Click here or make the jump for the list of candidates endorsed by The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. And then vote for their opponents.

Read more

Time for A New Assault Weapons Ban? Or AR-15s For Philly Cops?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLSNLeoab8c

As far as The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence is concerned, it’s always time for an assault weapons ban. Oops! Did I say assault weapons? I mean home defense guns. Of course, it’s hard to euphemize an AK-47 and SKS when said weapons are strewn on the street by fleeing felons. Not to mention the brace of Bushmasters found in their van. In fact, the cache chronicled by philly.com provides ample ammunition for gun control advocates, their media supporters and the police (more on that later). “Philadelphia police ‘outgunned’ in last week’s shooting” the paper’s headline and the Brady Bunch blog proclaims. Only one problem: they weren’t.

Read more

Scarecrows and Gun Shows

In the wake of the McDonald ruling by the Supremes, anti-gun groups are (predictably) in a froth. Sadly for the rest of us, the McDonald ruling has left a whole lotta wiggle room regarding what is – and is not – permissible in the way of new regulations. While Messrs. Bloomberg and Daley and the Mayors Against Illegal Guns go after individual sales of guns through gun stores, sporting goods stores, and the like, the Brady Bunch seems to be focusing on the much-vaunted “gun show loophole.” They’re pressing for legislation that would require guns to be sold through an entity that holds an FFL (Federal Firearms License). Their argument: forcing sales through FFL holders will eliminate the sale of guns by private parties, and thus eliminate the transfers of guns “under the radar” of the Feds. Balderdash.

Read more

NRA versus Brady Campaign: Compare & Contrast

The NRA show just wrapped up this afternoon. It was a three-day event – a trade show/seminars/celebration of values. The average attendee spent a couple of hundred dollars to attend the show, including tickets for the two keynote events. If you’re a high-roller, you could drop an extra thou and get better seats. But you’d see the same event. The trade show was a huge part of the event. If you just wanted to see that for a single day, you’d spend a lot less. Well, to get in. (A new trend: people ordering goods from vendors via iPhone, Crackberry, etc.) Now let’s look at how the other side rolls. Here’s the details of The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence upcoming shindig . . .

Read more

Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence Releases Dodgy Poll on Starbucks Open Carry Policy

Whenever I’m confronted (confronted I tell you) by a poll from an advocacy group, I pay attention to the man behind the curtain. Only in this case—The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence’s survey on whether or not Starbucks should allow guns on premises (presumably where it is legal to do so)—it’s a woman. And how. Lake Research declares that “We’re a woman-owned business with a commitment to diversity. We have a strong client screen built upon our core values, working only for pro-choice candidates, clients with whom our labor friends can work, and good corporate citizens. Check our competitors’ client lists – you’ll find many cannot say the same.” Ain’t that the truth. “Our principals are leading information and political campaign strategists, serving as tacticians and senior advisors to a wide range of advocacy groups, labor unions, non-profits, government agencies, companies and foundations, as well as dozens of elected officials at all levels of the electoral process.” And that. Now, those “results” . . .

Read more