Brady Center for Investigative Journalism

I guess with the press a lot less willing, or perhaps able, to do the heavy lifting for the gun control movement they’ve chosen to do it themselves.   Personally, I’m upset this guy doesn’t have a conviction for annoying use of frames in a web site.  OK, that’s not a crime, but it should be.

Is this the kind of guy I want carrying a loaded pistol around in public?  No.  But the Bradys like to paint guys like this as a rule rather than an exception.  You can find police officers with these kinds of problems too, even in New York City.  I agree with Doug Pennington that human beings are fallible.  But Doug and the Bradys like to think that there is a class of people who are immune from these human failings — a class of people who is worthy to have the means to protect themselves, while the rest of us are simply unable.  I suppose that’s really the philosophical difference between us.  I tend to think most people can deal with serious responsibilities, and those that can ought not be punished because a minority of people can’t.

UPDATE: To actually read the Brady Investigative Journalism bit, you have to click on the little blue arrow with the red circle around it to make it appear.  Who thought this was a good idea?

16 thoughts on “Brady Center for Investigative Journalism”

  1. …people who believe 9/11 was an inside job shouldn’t have guns?

    And “members of the movement to end the Fed”? So now your economic views are relevant too, how?

  2. Did you not read down to the part where he has convictions for assault, DUI, disorderly conduct? Several convictions. Over a period of years.

    Is he legally able to own and carry a gun with these convictions? Yes. Do I advocate changing that law? No. Do I want guys like this to choose to carry a gun? No. I wish they’d recognize they aren’t the kind of people responsible enough to do so.

    But there’s a difference between saying “I wish they’d exercise some responsibility and self-control” and “I am going to advocate the government come in and fix this problem through the law.”

    There are people out there who are legally eligible to possess firearms, but yet who do not use them in a responsible manner, or who have the temperament to use them in a responsible manner. I would argue someone who can’t control their temper when they drink, and who seems to have a problem with alcohol, fits in this category.

    It would be ludicrous to suggest everyone who is legally able to possess firearms is responsible. I think the vast majority are, which is why I don’t support what the Bradys do, but to suggest there aren’t a small minority out there who are problems is to be blind in the face of the obvious.

  3. It’s how the Bradys are trying to fight for restriction or elimination of carrying guns in public. You take a guy like this, talk up his loony tunes views, and then suggest that this is a typical viewpoint for someone who wants to carry firearms. It helps create a public perception problem for us.

    Fortunately, it hasn’t worked very well.

  4. I have long suspected that now, since the Bradys can’t get what they want legislatively or judicially, they will embark on a vicious and relentless crusade to vilify gun owners and make us all into extremists. I believe they will do this.

    And I believe that few will notice, and even fewer will believe them.

  5. There’s nothing loony, but I wouldn’t call it a mainstream view, if only because I don’t think very many people even think about the banking system all that much.

  6. Don’t let those folks for a minute define who gunowners are.
    The consistent approach of the Left is to demonize any that don’t agree with them.
    There’s less in this guy’s record than your average Acorn thug, but I digress…
    Oh, and End the Fed! I agree with that part. Not sure about the whole 9/11 thing though.

  7. I have no problem with the guy owning or carrying a weapon he seems to have learned about getting out of line. A DUI citation does not mean the person is a habitual drunk.

  8. I’m not sure, but haven’t DUI limits in the US been lowered to the point where in many states you can get a DUI despite having a very small amount in alcohol in you that doesn’t ACTUALLY significantly impair your driving.

  9. If it was just one DUI, I wouldn’t think much of it. But you have a history of someone who demonstrates poor judgement, and if you read the blog post being linked to above, seems to demonstrate poor judgement when he drinks. That’s someone who probably needs to make a choice between alcohol and guns.

Comments are closed.