From commenter Bob (not to be confused with Bob S.), over on The Truth About Guns:
Naturally I thanked him. The +1 indicates that the preceding comment also sang my praises, as did a number of others.+1 Although I generally disagree with MikeB302000, occasionally we can find small areas of agreement. Remember his posts about teaching his son about guns – That was a very intelligent and enlightening conversation.
By the way, MikeB302000 is not an extremist anti-gunner. He’s definitely not an irrational hoplophobe! I imagine there are a few things the Brady Commission has said that Mike would find a little extreme.
I’m glad Mike is around to provide a well-spoken ‘other side’s’ view occasionally.
After a while, though, I got to thinking. Do I find certain things the Brady folks say "a little extreme." I couldn't think of any of the top of my head. Let's see.
From the Brady Campaign About page:
Nope, nothing extreme there that I can see. What else?We should make it harder for convicted felons, the dangerously mentally ill, and others like them to get guns in the first place.
We can do this by passing laws such as requiring Brady criminal background checks on all gun sales; banning military-style assault weapons; and strengthening law enforcement’s efforts to stop the illegal gun market, like limiting the number of guns that can be bought at one time.
Please be a part of our efforts. There are quick and easy ways to sign up to be part of our e-action network, to become involved if you are a victim of gun violence, to become an activist, and to donate.
Thousands upon thousands of people will continue to die and be injured needlessly each year without stronger, sensible gun laws. The Brady Campaign fights for sensible gun laws to protect you, your family and your community.
The Mission Statement:
No, certainly no problem with that. What else?We are devoted to creating an America free from gun violence, where all Americans are safe at home, at school, at work, and in our communities.
The Brady Campaign works to pass and enforce sensible federal and state gun laws, regulations, and public policies through grassroots activism, electing public officials who support common sense gun laws, and increasing public awareness of gun violence. Through our Million Mom March and Brady Chapters, we work locally to educate people about the dangers of guns, honor victims of gun violence, and pass sensible gun laws, believing that all Americans, especially children, have the right to live free from the threat of gun violence.
The Brady Center works to reform the gun industry by enacting and enforcing sensible regulations to reduce gun violence, including regulations governing the gun industry. In addition, we represent victims of gun violence in the courts. We educate the public about gun violence through litigation, grassroots mobilization, and outreach to affected communities.
FAQ: What is the Brady Campaign and the Brady Center's goal?
Again, no problem, nothing extreme at all.Our goal is to protect you, your family and your community from gun deaths and injuries. In America, we make it too easy for dangerous people to get dangerous weapons. There are only a few federal gun control laws on the books, and even those have loopholes. This leads to senseless gun violence affecting tens of thousands.
We should make it harder for convicted felons, the dangerously mentally ill, and others like them to get guns in the first place. We can do this by passing laws such as requiring Brady criminal background checks on all gun sales; banning military-style assault weapons; and strengthening law enforcement's efforts to stop the illegal gun market, like limiting the number of guns that can be bought at one time.
We can also do this by exposing corrupt gun dealers who feed the illegal gun market. Our Brady Center legal staff works to hold those dealers accountable in court and to protect common sense gun laws when they are attacked in court. We work to strengthen law enforcement's efforts to stop the illegal gun market. We also educate the public about gun violence through grassroots mobilization and outreach to affected communities.
Thousands upon thousands of people will continue to die and be injured needlessly each year without stronger, sensible gun laws. The Brady Campaign fights for sensible gun laws to protect you, your family and your community.
What could explain this odd ability of Bob's to see that I'm just a guy with a differeing opinion but to view the Brady Campaign as extremists? If I had to guess, I'd say Bob has been influenced by his more hysterical fellow gun owners. I honestly believe the Brady crowd are no more extremist than I am and if folks would just give them a good look, they'd see that too.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
Prior to Heller-McDonald, Gunb bans were determined to not violate Second Amendment rights. To quote William O. Douglas, who was a member of the SCOTUS at the time of Miller:
ReplyDeleteThe police problem is an acute one not because of the Fourth Amendment, but because of the ease with which anyone can acquire a pistol. A powerful lobby dins into the ears of our citizenry that these gun purchases are constitutional rights protected by the Second Amendment, which reads, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
There is under our decisions no reason why stiff state laws governing the purchase and possession of pistols may not be enacted. There is no reason why pistols may not be barred from anyone with a police record. There is no reason why a State may not require a purchaser of a pistol to pass a psychiatric test. There is no reason why all pistols should not be barred to everyone except the police.
The leading case is United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, upholding a federal law making criminal the shipment in interstate commerce of a sawed-off shotgun. The law was upheld, there being no evidence that a sawed-off shotgun had “some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.” Id., at 178. The Second Amendment, it was held, “must be interpreted and applied” with the view of maintaining a “militia.”
“The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia – civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.” Id., at 178-179.
Critics say that proposals like this water down the Second Amendment. Our decisions belie that argument, for the Second Amendment, as noted, was designed to keep alive the militia. But if watering-down is the mood of the day, I would prefer to water down the Second rather than the Fourth Amendment. I share with Judge Friendly a concern that the easy extension of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, to “possessory offenses” is a serious intrusion on Fourth Amendment safeguards. Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S 143, 150 -51 (1972)
The Second Amendment and Constitution has be judicially amended by the Heller-McDonald cases, but even that amendment has given an extremely limited right: That law abiding citizens are allowed to keep licenced and registered operational firearms for the defence of their homes.
I agree with Justice Douglas that "There is no reason why all pistols should not be barred to everyone except the police."
The right is to bear arms as a member of a militia, not to own firearms outside of that context.
Unless the constitution is properly amended to change that meaning, even the Heller-McDonald right is invalid and illusory.
Mikeb302000,
ReplyDeleteIf you associate yourself with the Brady Bunch, then you're an extremist. I'd still enjoy buying you the drink of your choice and having an afternoon of discussion, since you strike me as a decent human being. But your position on guns is extreme for America.
As for the Brady Bunch, I wouldn't believe anything that they say, even to the extent of reporting on the day's weather, without independent confirmation.
"The right is to bear arms as a member of a militia, not to own firearms outside of that context."
ReplyDeleteSt. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries 1:App. 300
1803
This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty. . . . The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible.
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendIIs7.html
http://law.bepress.com/expresso/eps/1824/
Greg, I may take you up on that sit-down one day, but my question was am I any less extreme than the Bradys?
ReplyDeleteI think we're about the same and it's not all that extreme.
Mikeb302000,
ReplyDeleteLet me know if you're ever in northwest Arkansas or near abouts. As for the Brady Bunch, here in America, they're extreme. In Europe, not so much.