Then and Now


Our ultimate goal-total control of handguns in the United States-is going to take time. My estimate is seven to ten years. The first problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered. And the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition-except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors-totally illegal.

Pete Shields, July 1976, President of National Coalition to Control Handguns, which was later renamed Handgun Control Inc, and finally Brady Campaign.


It is settled law. If I were taking a law school exam today, I would say, yes, you have got an individual right to have a gun in your home for self-defense.

Paul Helmke, President of the Brady Campaign, June 28, 2010, 34 years later.

How the mighty have fallen.

6 thoughts on “Then and Now”

  1. Of course, back in 1976, the hysterical gun-hater crowd did not have the “assault weapons” issue to whine about yet.

    The hysterical gun-hater crowd said back in those days that all they really cared about was stricter controls on handguns. There were those of us also back in those days who said that these hysterical gun-hater types would not be satisfied with just tightly regulating handguns, that they would then want to proceed to putting the same sort of tight controls on all guns period. The hysterical gun-haters back then all vehemently denied this. Some of them even called us paranoid and unreasonable.

    Looking back, I would now say that we were right all along, the hysterical gun-hater types were wrong all along, and quite a few among their ranks were actually even lying to boot.

    That’s just libtards for you – their entire worldview is built on lies and deceit.

  2. It is always hearting to see a group change its position on a matter, and accept that “yes, we think differently, but everyone else disagreed and so that’s the way it is.”.

    It is unfortunate that this is a relativally infrequent occurrence. All too often I think respective sides in an argument become more concerned with winning the debate than the actual substance of what they’re trying to achieve.

    Perhaps the Brady Campaign has indeed come to terms with the fact that firearm homicide was always a people problem, not a gun problem. If this is the case, then it’s a win for both sides.

  3. I took notes on a Paul Helmke radio interview. I believe, like you, that they are in full retreat, but I think they have changed nothing but their verbiage. Now, they are “not against guns” but they are merely for “reasonable” restrictions.

    Bottom line: Their true agenda is a loser right now. Hole up, conduct some guerrilla warfare instead of outright frontal assaults, and continue to chip away. That’s what I think is going on with them.

Comments are closed.