The Brady Campain Wants You Dead...

I was just out looking at the various "news" stories on the net looking for any on the uproar in DC as of late. (That would be the issue of the US supreme court hearing the ban on guns in DC and the 2nd amendment)

I was saddened by the amount of stupidity on the part of the "guns are bad" crowd. I mean I normaly expect some amount of stupidity from them but today was an extra special helping.

I see the president of the Brady Campain (Paul Helmke) saying "The lower-court decision in the DC gun case was an example of judicial activism at its worst."
(I guess judicial activism is only ok when it is in his favor) What I find side spliting is that, everyone in the media has known, but didn't want the American people to know, that courts are overstepping their bounderies and need to be put back in check. Now, what I am not saying is, that the "lower court" has done anything wrong. I don't believe the DC area has the right to tell people when, where, or how they can defend themselves. Period. Then he goes on to say...

"The lower court court ignored longstanding Supreme Court precedent, discounted the express language of the Second Amendment, and substituted its policy preferences for those of the District's elected representatives."

This is what I have a problem with... he is more concerned about precident than the Constitution itself... You know some precidents are bad... lets pick an example... Slavery...that one sucked, So by the same logic, we should still have slaves because it was a precident, Mr. Helmke?

Next is the part of the "express language of the second amendment". I will give him the argument OOPPS they screwed up the language (grammer) of the 2nd amendment. IT WOULD BE THE ONLY GRAMATICAL ERROR IN THE ENTIRE FOUNDING DOCUMENTS. If I remember my english properly, people means.....well people. I may be wrong on this. I mean I am sure not as smart as Mr. Helmke.

Then he says they "substitued its policy preferences for those of the District's elected representatives". Uhhh... Well when the "elected" idiots pass laws that are in direct violation to the constitution... Yep, that is the job for ....DUH da da duh.....Super Court............

Now the Brady campain is not a stranger to lies, and half-truths. I visited their site...(don't bother, it sucked) I saw things like the NRA lies etc...But what caught my eye is the part about "gun facts" and especially the "fact sheet" of "women and guns". You can view it yourself at the link below...

http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/factsheets/pdf/women.pdf

They say things in a sly manner to make you relate the real issue with one they are pointing out to you. When they try to pull the wool over your eyes.

Examples? I'm glad you asked...

They start off with this statement...

"For years, the gun industry and gun lobby have perpetrated the myth that owning guns will protect women from violent crime." Then they say the industries goal is to sell more guns to women. WOW ... You don't say. A business, wanting to sell its own product... You don't say... Say it isn't so....

It continues by stating another "fact".

"Separating out facts from myth makes clear that women are endangered rather protected by the proliferation of handguns."

What they are saying is that illeagal guns sales are bad. Wait, I can't argue that. But what they want you to think is that Guns sold by a licensed dealers are a danger to women. Which is a bold faced lie. Legal guns owned by law abiding citizens, are not the issue; Illegal ones are, and therefore the illegal ones are unable to be controled by "gun control laws" therefore gun control doesn't work. It only hurts the law abiding citizen.

But wait there is more...(I feel like I am in an infomercial)

"Myth: Guns protect women from gun violence." Of course that is a myth. What they want you to think about the myth... they are saying in the start they say violent crime, and now they say gun violence. Wait they are not the same thing.

They say the "truth" is...

"Fact: Rates of female homicide, suicide and unintentional firearm death are disproportionately higher in states where guns are more prevalent." they give a study for a reference... (Matthew Miller et. al., "Firearm Availability and Suicide, Homicide, and Unintentional Firearm Deaths Among Women." Journal of Urban Health 79: 26-38 (2002).)

"Fact: In the US, regions with higher levels of handgun ownership have higher suicide rates. Although women have higher rates of depression than men, it is the handgun-suicide connection, rather than depression, that accounts for higher suicide rates." they give the reference....(David Hemenway and Matthew Miller, "Association of Rates of Household Handgun Ownership, Lifetime Major Depression, and Serious Suicidal Thoughts with Rates of Suicide across US Census Regions." Injury Prevention 8: 313-316 (2002).)

Two problems...
1. They forget that guns are a tool, and that people who have mental health issues kill themselves...
2. They don't mention the studies in Canada (their praised bastion of gun control) that show when guns are removed from the equasion... they kill themselves in other manners. Huh... go figure ... I am sure that it is the guns right?

The next part...

"Myth: Handgun ownership increases women’s ability to defend themselves.

Fact: In 1998, women were 101 times more likely to be murdered with a handgun than to use a handgun to kill in self-defense. Women were 302 times more likely to be murdered with a handgun than to use a handgun to kill a stranger in self-defense. Women were 83 times more likely to be murdered by an intimate acquaintance with a handgun than to kill an intimate acquaintance in self-defense.[5](Violence Policy Center, “A Deadly Myth: Women, Handguns, and Self-Defense,” 2001http://www.vpc.org/studies/myth.htm)

Fact: In the rare cases in which women do use guns in self-defense, it is most commonly against an attacker known to them.[6](Ibid.)"

Now let me address something here ... this "fact" says nothing about the gun and everything about the woman. You NEVER pull a firearm unless you REALLY mean to use it. You have to train to shoot. And the plain truth... even Police officers HESITATE. Training the mind is harder than training the body. Combat is 80% mental and 20% physical. Again don't go after a tool.

They then say...

"Myth: Guns protect women from rape.

Fact: Guns are rarely used by rapists - less than 2 percent of rapes are committed with guns,while almost 70 percent are committed with personal weapons (physical violence). Women would be safer knowing self-defense to fight off an attacker than using a gun which can easily be turned against them.[7]"

The reference...(FBI Uniform Crime Reports, The Structure of Family Violence: An Analysis of Selected Incidents. Washington, D.C., 1998.) and should be after the parenthetical... the last sentence is an oppinion and is not supported by the reference. But again they want you to just belive it... not to look up the info.

The last one is ...

"Myth: Women need guns to protect against stranger rape.

Fact: Stranger rape is not the greatest danger for women as most women (75 percent) are raped by offenders known to the victim. 60 percent of rapes are committed against victims under the age of 18 who are forbidden by law to own a gun.[8] reference... (Glick, “Female Persuasion: How the Firearms Industry Markets to Women and the Reality of Women and Guns.”) and from what I can gather are venomous "anti-gun" folks.

So what do we have... some numbers and "facts" cherry picked to be twisted to form a narrow, closed minded view of the world. Not real facts.

These people are snakes in the grass. They Are not honest. They have an agenda to push... and will do anything to do so.

Now on the other side (Robert A. Levy, Cato Institute) Says the following...

"On March 18, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Heller v. District of Columbia, a Second Amendment challenge to D.C.'s ban on all functional firearms in the home. The issue is straightforward: Does the Second Amendment mean anything at all? The city and its allies contend that the Framers ratified a provision in the Bill of Rights that should be interpreted to have no content whatsoever. In effect, the city argues that the right to keep and bear arms can be exercised only in the context of militia service -- that is, exercised by persons chosen by government, at a time and place chosen by government, and in a manner chosen by government. At the same time, the city concedes that one of the original purposes of the Second Amendment was to deter government tyranny. Astonishingly, the city pretends that its inherently contradictory positions can somehow be reconciled.

Here is the relevant question in a nutshell: In a city with a deplorable record of violent crime -- after 32 years of a supposed ban on functional firearms -- can citizens be prevented from defending themselves in their homes with suitable, commonly-used weapons. Even if Mr. Heller should vindicate his constitutional right to self-defense, Washington, DC will be able to enact sensible gun regulations. No one is suggesting that the city cannot keep guns away from children, mentally incompetent persons, and violent felons. Nor does the city have to allow massively destructive weapons to be possessed and used. Reasonable registration requirements, proficiency testing, and a variety of other regulations will no doubt survive judicial review. But the nation's capital may not treat the Bill of Rights like so much tissue paper. It may not deprive residents of an opportunity to protect themselves and their families in an environment where the city itself has been singularly ineffective. We have a written Constitution and its Bill of Rights cannot be eradicated by declaration of the D.C. city counsel."

You make up your own mind. I know that facts are on my side. If they were not... I would choose another side.