Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 4/1/2006 8:17:34 AM EDT

In a Friday interview with the Washington Post, Jim and Sarah Brady state: "In the first place, lets make it clear we don't want restrictions on law abiding citizens beyond making sure that all gun purchasers undergo a complete and comprehensive background check." (Although they do still support local bans on all firearms if "a locality has voted it in themselves", and state or national bans on firearms which they claim are weapons of war.)

Read the whole thing. It's interesting that even the gun controllers are backfilling now because they realize it's a losing issue. They're lying about their intentions, of course, as you can tell by the rest of the article. But at least they have to lie now.
Link Posted: 4/1/2006 10:33:30 AM EDT

and state or national bans on firearms which they claim are weapons of war.

What fucking dumbshits.

"Weapons of war"? Despite all the bullshit lies that the anti's spew, U.S. v Millier ruled that the Second protects what Brady thinks of as "weapons of war". Miller (wrongly) ruled that a sawed off shotgun was not a valid militia small arm, despite its use in the military during WWI.

Every deer rifle with a scope is nothing more than a "weapon of war" (ie: "sniper rifle") in disguise. I wish to God that more gun owners could see where these people are going with this incrmentalism.

I despise people like Brady that blatantly and openly lie to forward their agenda.
Top Top