Just watched Sarah Brady on CNN's Judy Woodruff's Inside Politics commenting about the AWB sunset. She sounded like someone who didn't know what they were talking about. She could barely muster a coherent sentence. One line that really gave me a good laugh was "(before the AWB) there were kids in the Bronx sleeping in bathtubs because they were afraid of the spray from these rapid fire weapons." (Paraphrase).
She also said that with the expiration of the ban, fugitives, felons, terrorists, mentally unbalanced persons, etc. could buy these rapid fire weapons and large capacity magazines.
She blamed Bush for the ban not being renewed. If he would only provide the "leadership", the ban would be renewed. Bush is a flip-flopper because he says he supports the ban and will sign it if it reaches his desk. But , he has done nothing to bring the bill to a vote.
She actually did herself a disservice in my eye because of her stammering and eye-rolling. She was just grasping at straws.
Contrast that, if you will, with the statements of Wayne LaPierre. His statements were well spoken and factual. He stressed that the cosmetic bans had no bearing on the so-called firepower of the gun. The AWB has had no effect on crime. And, in a OWN3D moment, when the host brought up Brady's fugitives & felons comment, LaPierre correctly asserted that those individuals were prohibited from owning any firearms, the AWB notwithstanding.
The host tried to harp on standard
capacity magazines, but LaPierre was forceful in stating that they're just pieces of stamped sheet metal. 10 rounds, 15 rounds, it's all good. They have no bearing on the firepower of the weapon.
I think the two segments were a good snapshot of this whole debate. Emotion (Brady) versus the facts (LaPierre). Which is essentially what the whole gun control debate centers on.
Before LaPierre came on, the host stated that CNN had asked the White House for someone to make a statement concerning the AWB, but got no response.