Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 5/17/2002 10:12:04 AM EDT
Sarah is at it again. This time it won't cost you 7 cents per minute, unless you want to. She wants you to e-mail John Ashcroft. Thanks, Sarah. AskDOJ@usdoj.gov Office of the Attorney General - 202-353-1555 (message only) http://www.usdoj.gov/ just in case you needed to know. Don't bother clicking on the Brady links below. They are rather sluggish and a waste of time. Rick --------------------------------------------- Brady.com: Tell Ashcroft to Stop Undermining America's Safety ===================================== BRADY E-ACTION RESPONSE NETWORK ALERT ===================================== Issue: 52 - 5/17/2002 Tell Ashcroft to Stop Undermining America's Safety The Bush Administration's 15-month campaign to systematically dismantle our nation's gun laws has reached tragic proportions now that Attorney General Ashcroft has announced that the Justice Department will now treat individual gun ownership as a Constitutionally protected right. This new position -- which was included as a footnote in two U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) briefs that were filed with the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday, May 6 -- reflects Ashcroft's and the NRA's view that the Second Amendment "broadly protects the rights of individuals" to possess firearms. This outrageous decision reverses 60 years of government policy that the Second Amendment's "right to bear arms" covers state militias, not private citizens. And the National Rifle Association has already said that it will be challenging, on the grounds of Ashcroft's announcement, the constitutionality of virtually every sensible gun law we have worked so hard to achieve. In one fell swoop, Ashcroft has managed to weaken the federal government's ability to defend our nation's gun laws, and opened the door to criminals who will try to use the Second Amendment to defend their crimes. Just yesterday, the New York Times reported that the lawyers for John Walker Lindh, the California man accused of fighting with the Taliban, are seeking to dismiss a firearms charge against him based on the Bush Administration's reversal of the Second Amendment. It is now crystal clear that the Second Amendment will now be used as an excuse for terrorists and criminals who attack our police and armed forces and endanger the public. We must take action! You can help by: 1. Clicking here: http://capwiz.com/brady/issues/aler...=152940&type=AN to go to the Brady Campaign website and tell Ashcroft not to threaten your family's safety by weakening our gun laws! 2. And clicking here: http://www.bradycampaign.org/donate/index.asp to support the Brady Campaign now! NRA Vice President Kayne Robinson said in 2000 that if Bush won the election the NRA would be working right out of the White House. Well, there is no doubt the NRA is wielding huge influence on the Bush Administration! And it has got to stop! That's why our work is more urgent than ever! Sensible gun laws and regulations that save lives are being viciously attacked. Please give a generous contribution today to ensure that we can continue to fight against those who would weaken our country's gun laws! Click here to view our press release: http://www.bradycampaign.org/press/....asp?Record=396
Link Posted: 5/17/2002 10:14:53 AM EDT
Are we talking about Sarah (the I thought she was dying) Brady? [puke]
Link Posted: 5/17/2002 10:19:10 AM EDT
Lung cancer takes too long.
Link Posted: 5/17/2002 10:26:35 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Boomer: Lung cancer takes too long.
View Quote
Dear God it's wrong, but I found that hilarious! [BD]
Link Posted: 5/17/2002 10:38:32 AM EDT
Here's my e-mail: ______________________________ Dear Mr. Ashcroft: Please ignore the screaming meamies at Handgun Ban Inc. And thank you for you courageous stand for what it is OBVIOUS the Founding Fathers intended the Second Amendment to mean - a guarantee of the rights of the individual citizen, not as part of the organized militia, but as part of the unorganized militia (as codified in the Militia Act of 1792 and expounded upon in the Federalist Papers) to keep, own, and train with private, unregistered (what ELSE could the phrase"shall NOT be infringed" possibly mean?) firearms of common military usage (that would SPECIFICALLY include machine guns.) Beyond that, it is CLEAR, from the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, the Fed gov't is NOT authorized, and does NOT have the delegated powers, to regulate / restrict the ownership of private firearms for ANY citizen, without regard to militia involvement. My further hope is that you will see the Constitutional DEMAND to allow the 1994 Crime Bill to sunset, and then eventually launch into the dismantling of the unConstitutional Gun Control Acts of 1968 and 1934. Keep up the good work, and may God bless you, garandman ___________________________ Regardless of what ELSE you think about Ashcroft, its time to give him an attaboy. Gun rights trumps ALL else.
Link Posted: 5/17/2002 10:45:15 AM EDT
"that the Second Amendment's "right to bear arms" covers state militias, not private citizens" Any idiot can read the second amendment and easily comprehend that it is a RIGHT. Hmm...is SHE NUTZ? Hell yeah she is. I'll bet she does not even know the meaning of the word militia. She probably thinks the militia is the professional Army or National Guard. Well, here is the definition from www.dictionary.com. mi·li·tia Pronunciation Key (m-lsh) n. An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers. A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency. The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.
Link Posted: 5/17/2002 10:52:33 AM EDT
Sarah Brady [rolleyes]
Link Posted: 5/17/2002 10:53:14 AM EDT
Would this happen to be the very same Sarah Brady that committed a felony by circumventing the [u]Brady Law[/u] to give her son a "non-traceable" high powered "sniper rifle"..? Hey, it's her law, she can use it how she sees fit! [}:D]
Link Posted: 5/17/2002 12:56:00 PM EDT
"In one fell swoop, Ashcroft has managed to weaken the federal government's ability to defend our nation's gun laws, and opened the door to criminals who will try to use the Second Amendment to defend their crimes." This comment not only doesn't make sense it only serves to mislead. It makes about as much sense as John Walker claiming that the second amendment protects his right to bear arms in a foreign country. Other than ownership of banned weapons what crimes would now be legal in light of this recent change of position? Armed Robbery? Murder? Poaching? Assault?
Link Posted: 5/17/2002 1:19:58 PM EDT
Gun control advocate may have violated gun laws By TIMOTHY J. BURGER New York Daily News WASHINGTON - Gun-control advocate Sarah Brady bought her son a powerful rifle for Christmas in 2000 - and may have skirted Delaware state background-check requirements, the New York Daily News has learned. Brady reveals in a new memoir that she bought James Brady Jr. a Remington .30-06, complete with scope and safety lock, at a Lewes, Del., gun shop. "I can't describe how I felt when I picked up that rifle, loaded it into my little car and drove home," she writes. "It seemed so incredibly strange: Sarah Brady, of all people, packing heat." Brady became a household name as a crusader for stricter gun-control laws after her husband, James, then the White House press secretary, was seriously wounded in a 1981 assassination attempt on then-President Ronald Reagan. Brady writes in "A Good Fight" that the unnamed gun shop ran federal Brady Law and Delaware state background checks with great fanfare. The book suggests that she did not have her son checked, as required by Delaware state law. "(W)hen the owner called in the checks, it seemed to me he spoke unnecessarily loudly, repeating and spelling my name over and over on the phone," Brady writes. Amy Stillwell, a spokeswoman for The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said the federal Brady Law does not require background checks for intrafamily gun gifts. Stillwell said she did not know whether her son was checked under the state law. The Delaware Department of Justice says the state does not have an exemption for family gifts. "Scott is not a convicted felon, and he is not prohibited from owning a gun," Stillwell said. "Scott Brady could walk into a store and buy a - he is not a prohibited purchaser." Delaware Justice Department spokeswoman Lori Sitler said the purchase could be illegal under state law if Brady did not also say who she was buying the gun for and submit his "name, rank and serial number" for a full check. "You can't purchase a gun for someone else," Sitler said yesterday. "That would be a 'straw purchase.' You've got a problem right there." Anti-gun control advocates were surprised to hear of Brady's foray into their world. "We hope that it's innocuous and there's been no laws violated," said James Jay Baker, chief lobbyist for the National Rifle Association. "It's obviously interesting that Sarah would be purchasing firearms of any kind for anybody, given her championing of restrictive guns laws for everyone."
Link Posted: 5/17/2002 1:36:47 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Boomer: Lung cancer takes too long.
View Quote
OUCH!!! You said it, not me.
Link Posted: 5/17/2002 1:57:24 PM EDT
Originally Posted By TxDoc: Gun control advocate may have violated gun laws By TIMOTHY J. BURGER New York Daily News WASHINGTON - Gun-control advocate Sarah Brady bought her son a powerful rifle for Christmas in 2000 - and may have skirted Delaware state background-check requirements, the New York Daily News has learned.
View Quote
We've already been through this. She broke no law. Just embraced hypocrisy.
Link Posted: 5/17/2002 1:58:25 PM EDT
Ho-hum. Sorry, but I am seeing the usual hyperbole from her shrillness-on-high: "America's safety", "outrageous", "sensible gun laws", "opened the door to criminals",...[puke] The gratuitous use of exclamatory statements is also worthy of note...
"That's why our work is more urgent than ever!"
View Quote
Translation: "Send money now (you stupid moron)!"
"And it has got to stop!"
View Quote
[i]Got[/i] to, that is.[whacko]
"We must take action!"
View Quote
I concur. A [i]call to [b]arms[/b][/i] [u]is[/u] definitely in order.[heavy]
[i]"Sensible gun laws[/i] and regulations that save lives are being viciously attacked."
View Quote
Finally - progress![beer] .... And, let us not forget the beautiful, seamless logic of the arguments being presented...
Just yesterday, the New York Times reported that the lawyers for John Walker Lindh, the California man accused of fighting with the Taliban, are seeking to dismiss a firearms charge against him based on the Bush Administration's reversal of the Second Amendment.
View Quote
Here's a thought: Walker's attorney's [i]might[/i] be sparing no argument (legally feasible or not) in an effort to mitigate the damage that their client has caused for himself (in the least). Should otherwise be expected of them? Just a thought.
It is now crystal clear that the Second Amendment will now be used as an excuse for terrorists and criminals who attack our police and armed forces and endanger the public...
View Quote
A fine example of logical exegesis. If only I possessed such insight. Where would I be w/o such leadersh!t.
We must take action!
View Quote
Another [i]call to arms[/i]? [heavy][;)]Cool.
You can help by:
View Quote
First, the [i]wind-up[/i].
1. Clicking here...to go to the Brady Campaign website and tell Ashcroft not to threaten your family's safety by weakening our gun laws!
View Quote
Then comes the [i]pitch[/i].
2. And clicking here...to [u]support[/u] the Brady Campaign now!
View Quote
[i]Now[/i], that is.
NRA Vice President Kayne Robinson said in 2000 that if Bush won the election the NRA would be working right out of the White House. Well, there is no doubt the NRA is wielding huge influence on the Bush Administration!
View Quote
[beer][size=4]It's about damn time![/size=4][beer]
[i]Sensible gun laws and regulations[/i] that save lives are being viciously attacked. Please [u]give a generous contribution[/u] [i]today[/i] to ensure that we can continue to fight against those who would weaken our country's gun laws!
View Quote
Translation: "Lions, 'n tigers 'n bears - oh my!. Oh, yeah - don't forget to send $$$ (you stupid moron)." .... Someone pass me a [puke] bag. Me-thinks this stinks.[img]http://webpages.charter.net/jeff.hoeft/pics/BS1.gif[/img]
View Quote
Link Posted: 5/17/2002 2:31:19 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/17/2002 4:09:22 PM EDT by Diss_ipator]
straight off [url]http://www.bradycampaign.org[/url] Dear Attorney General Ashcroft: I am writing to express my outrage at your official reversal of the United State's long-standing position on the Second Amendment. The unilateral action you have taken will place strong gun laws at risk by making them more difficult to defend. With more than 28,000 Americans dying each year from gun violence, I am struggling to understand the reasoning behind your decision. I can only conclude that you have allowed your own ideology to cloud sound judgment, not to mention U.S. Supreme Court precedent. In your confirmation hearings, you vowed to put your personal views aside and uphold our gun laws. I am disappointed that you have reneged on this promise, seizing every available opportunity to pander to the extremist gun lobby and to undermine sensible gun laws that are proven to save lives. Poll after poll shows that the vast majority of Americans, including gun owners, support common-sense gun laws, and do not want to see our existing laws weakened. Your actions suggest to me that you and the Bush Administration are not working to protect the safety of our nation's families and children – most importantly, my family and my children - by actively trying to prevent gun violence. There is simply no reason for to place America's gun laws in jeopardy. I urge you to reverse your present course and take concrete steps to increase the safety of our communities. Sincerely, ________________________________________________ [red]But I thought it might need to be altered as follows. Please feel free to copy and send to AskDOJ@usdoj.gov[/red] ________________________________________________ Dear Attorney General Ashcroft: I am writing to express my [b]sincere gratitude for[/b] your official reversal of the United State's long-standing position on the Second Amendment. The unilateral action you have taken will [b]go a long way in restoring what this countries founding fathers had intended by shall not be infringed.[/b] With more than 28,000 Americans dying each year from gun violence, [b]we need this basic right to defend ourselves.[/b] I am struggling to understand the reasoning behind [b]Sarah Brady's[/b] decision [b]to continue down this road of unconstitutional gun grabbing.[/b] I can only conclude that [b]Mrs. Brady has[/b] allowed [b]her[/b] own ideology to cloud sound judgment. In your confirmation hearings, you vowed to put your personal views aside and uphold our gun laws. I am [b]elated[/b] that you have [b]not[/b] pander[b]ed[/b] to the extremist gun [b]control[/b] lobby and to [b]not continue with these unreasonable[/b] gun laws that are [b]not[/b] proven to save lives. Poll after poll shows that the vast majority of Americans, including gun owners, support common-sense gun laws, and do not want to see [b]our constitutional rights infringed or[/b] weakened. Your actions suggest to me that you and the Bush Administration are working to protect the safety of our nation's families and children – most importantly, my family and my children - by actively trying to prevent gun violence [b]by allowing us to protect ourselves.[/b] There is simply no reason for [b]The Brady Campaign[/b] to place America in jeopardy. I urge you to [b]continue[/b] your present course and take concrete steps to increase the safety of our communities. Sincerely, [b]P.S. Keep up the good work, all true American's appreciate you.[/b]
Link Posted: 5/17/2002 2:43:23 PM EDT
Give Sarah to Clinton. (Or Hillary)
Link Posted: 5/17/2002 2:49:21 PM EDT
...Reverses 60 years of government policy... But Sarah, it doesn't reverse the other 166 years of government policy concerning the second amendment.
Link Posted: 5/17/2002 2:56:20 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/17/2002 2:57:26 PM EDT by ArmdLbrl]
Sarah is delusional, Wonder if its the morphine? Or have the tumors reduced the flow of oxygen to her brain? She has had to lay off staff, her donations have dried up, and the new campaign finance laws leave them with very little access to politicians. She is no longer a threat..
Link Posted: 5/17/2002 3:22:27 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/17/2002 3:35:45 PM EDT by Greenhorn]
"This new position -- which was included as a footnote in two U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) briefs that were filed with the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday, May 6 -- [b]reflects Ashcroft's and the NRA's view[/b] that the Second Amendment "broadly protects the rights of individuals" to possess firearms." She forgot to mention the writers of the constitution . . . "This outrageous decision reverses 60 years of government policy that the Second Amendment's "right to bear arms" covers state militias, not private citizens." What part of "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" does she not understand?!?? "Just yesterday, the New York Times reported that the lawyers for John Walker Lindh, the California man accused of fighting with the Taliban, are seeking to dismiss a firearms charge against him based on the Bush Administration's reversal of the Second Amendment. [b]It is now crystal clear that the Second Amendment will now be used as an excuse for terrorists and criminals who attack our police and armed forces and endanger the public[/b]. We must take action!" [whacko] I have no comment . . . "NRA Vice President Kayne Robinson said in 2000 that if Bush won the election the NRA would be working right out of the White House. Well, there is no doubt the NRA is wielding huge influence on the Bush Administration! And it has got to stop!" Whaaaa! Stop it, you bad peoples! Sto-ah-ooop! Whaaaa! "[b]Sensible gun laws and regulations that save lives[/b] are being viciously attacked." Yeah! If we had lots of lovely gun laws, criminals, who by definition break laws, would not be able to get any guns! It all makes sense! I'd like to see the statistics that she used to base that claim on.
Top Top