search
top

Insights on Brady Concession

Dave Hardy has further insight into the ABC News article from yesterday that stated the Brady Campaign was bracing for a loss on the Second Amendment:

Brady Campaign goes on to cite what they could push for, and could hope to pass constitutional muster: universal (i.e., private sale) background checks, AW bans, “curbing large volume sales,” i.e., one gun a month.

Leaving aside whether those would pass muster … how does the Brady Campaign hope to survive on them? I’d wager that a LOT of its contributors give only because they believe those are stepping stones to things more significant, a “good start” rather than an end. If they faced a reality in which everything would stop with background checks, an AW ban, and one gun a month — that they’d never get beyond that — they might well bail out.

I would say a lot of their constituency is in it in order to ban guns.  You might get people casually saying “Oh yeah, that sounds reasonable,” to a lot of their agenda, but the folks who care enough to send money and get involved either hate guns, or are scared to death of them.  Either way, if the courts take their eventual goal off the table, I don’t see how they stay in it, unless the Brady’s want to start a movement to repeal the second amendment (good luck with that one).

If I were Peter Hamm or Paul Helmke, I’d be thinking there surely has to be other places in the D.C. establishment where they can put their skills and talents to more effective and creative use.

UPDATE: More here and here.

3 Responses to “Insights on Brady Concession”

  1. jones says:

    They will creep along until they can get repeal of the 2A.

  2. BobG says:

    I think they’ll just find ways to go around the back way; things like ammo and “reasonable” licensing and such. I don’t trust them at all, and refuse to turn my back on them; they have no shame, no honor, and no respect for the truth.
    Just my opinion.

  3. B Smith says:

    Keep mentioning, too, that the Second Amendment wasn’t created to protect the sport of hunting, nor the threat from some armed robber invading your home. Those scenarios are merely two side benefits of the right covered by 2A.
    It was created to give citizens the means to resist oppression by our own government or that of foreign invaders. This is borne out in several essays and statements by our founding fathers, and others who witnessed and studied their achievements. The threat of government oppression has not exactly ceased to exist in these modern times.
    “The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.”

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. SayUncle » Fundraising Suicide - [...] Sebastian: If I were Peter Hamm or Paul Helmke, Id be thinking there surely has to be other places…
  2. Controlling the language of the debate « Firearms & Freedom - [...] of other bloggers have touched on the implications of the statement, and Call Me Ahab touches on what might…
top