(Amendment II Democrats) An open Mother's Day message to Sarah Brady

First of all, my best wishes to everyone for a happy and peaceful Mother's Day.

Sarah Brady, Chair of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, has used the occasion to release yet another statement in support of her organization's push for more gun control in America. She has taken issue with the number of people who have been killed or injured by guns in America since the Million Mom March held its famous rally in Washington, DC on the National Mall seven years ago.

And yes, there are still too many Americans, some of them young children, who are dying as a result of gun-related crime and accidents. But the political winds of change have been blowing for seven years since that march - and not in the Brady Campaign's favor.

In the aftermath of the 2006 elections, pro-RKBA Democrats now hold the balance of power in the Senate. And many Democratic presidential candidates are rethinking their own position on gun-control laws as they jockey for position before next year's primaries.

So we turn back to Sarah Brady's statement, where she continues to insist that we must ask our neighbors, our elected officials, and the White House, "What are YOU going to do about gun violence?"

Sarah, can I be candid with you? Since 1968, you and your fellow gun-control advocates have gotten almost everything you asked for. And guess what? All of you have complained that it isn't enough.

There was restricted importation of any firearm deemed unsuitable for any "hunting or sporting purpose." Private ownership of any full-automatic weapon manufactured after May 19, 1986 has been outlawed. Riot-control shotguns have been reclassified as NFA Class 3 weapons. The Brady Bill was passed, resulting in waiting periods and instant background checks. Then a sweeping ban on the manufacture, sale, and new possession of semi-automatic firearms by law-abiding American citizens. All of this you have received from Congress and the White House - and then some.

But it didn't stop Columbine from happening. It didn't stop the Beltway sniper attacks of 2002 from happening. And it didn't stop criminals from buying their guns on the black market, either. What it did do, however, was strip control of Congress from the Democrats at exactly the wrong time in our nation's history.

Mrs. Brady, your organization has the luxury of referring to itself as non-partisan. We here at Amendment II Democrats, however, do not. We are Democrats, and as such, we want Democratic legislators to maintain control of Congress. A Democratic President in the Oval Office would be rather nice, too. We have weighed your approach towards gun control, the one that many Democrats still embrace today. And we have found it wanting.

We gave you almost everything you wanted - and still it isn't enough. And the death toll continues to climb. Maybe it's time for Democrats to embrace a fresh perspective on gun legislation.

But here's the silver lining, Mrs. Brady. In this changing political climate, you still have a shot to remain relevant. If you and I were to sit down at a table and discuss gun-related crime and how to deal with it, you and I might actually find a lot of common ground. Take the recent massacre at Virginia Tech, for example. When I found out that the guns used by Cho Seung-hui had their serial numbers filed off, alarm bells went off in my head. And then came the realization that this was a deeply psychologically disturbed young man who, if our laws worked correctly, would never have had access to those pistols in the first place. Getting rid of loopholes like this can and should be done for the good of all Americans.

So what about the issue of guns themselves? You and many of your supporters are moms, and as such you want your children to grow up healthy, happy, and safe. But the Million Moms are going to have a million daughters and sons. Sooner or later, all those children have to grow up. And that means they, as adults, will have to make their own decisions on guns, gun control, and the Constitution. Will one of the Million Moms love her child any less if he or she were to join Amendment II Democrats, Stonewall Shooting Sports, or the NRA?

It might make dinner table conversation a little awkward, but the words of Kahlil Gibran resound from the global well of wisdom:

Your children are not your children.
They are the sons and daughters of Life's longing for itself.
They come through you but not from you,
And though they are with you, yet they belong not to you.
You may give them your love but not your thoughts.
For they have their own thoughts.
You may house their bodies but not their souls,
For their souls dwell in the house of tomorrow, which you cannot visit, not even in your dreams.

So please, Mrs. Brady, have a peaceful and a happy Mother's Day. You, as a wife and a mother, have been through more suffering and hardship than a person should have to endure, and I recognize that and salute your perseverance. And I know that much of that personal hardship was due to a madman with a gun.

So let's work the problem together without bringing sane, sensible, law-abiding Americans into the line of fire. There's still time.

http://blog.myspace.com/a2dems

I didn't hear anyone who objected to saying anyone in Cho's situation should be denied the right to purchase a weapon. Even in Mr. Brady's case, it was a mentally unstable man who shot and wounded him. States should look carefully at their laws and make sure that people who have been judged to be mentally unstable should not be able to purchase guns.

And I've heard some impassioned defenses for the mentally ill that involved doctor-patient confidentiality, HIPAA regulations, and the social stigma of being mentally ill. But this is a public safety issue that is, in my estimation, perfectly in harmony with the Second Amendment. I feel for the mentally ill, but they've got bigger fish to fry right now than deciding what pistol to buy.

We generally don't allow people who get grand mal seizures to drive, for example--its not discriminating against epileptics, its a public safety issue.

and thrown on the ash heap of history.

It would be bad form to simply tell Sarah Brady "Sod off, you're dead to us" especially since she has to deal with her husband's health problems every single day. She's passionate about her cause, too, even though I think she's headed down the wrong road entirely.

The Brady Bunch are mostly a business these days, the public passion is for the cameras and mailing list but the heart is for the $$$

realizing that Helmke et al are on the wrong side of the issue and that their integrity is suspect. Sarah Brady, like Pegi Scully is trotted out when the fund raising isn't going well, but other than that, the *pros* are in control.

than what is said.

he OP mentions Columbine and asserts that Gun Control didn't stop it. The guns were bought at a Gun show which gun
advocates have fought tooth and nail to keep exempt from many of the sales and buyer check rules.

Gun Advocates have insisted on inserting absurd specifications about what is prohibited so the the manufacturers can cirsumvent the intent of the law by tweaking minor details of the gun design and construction.

Gun Advocates hobble the buyer check rules with all kinds of jurisdictional restrictions which limit their effectiveness.

All the loopholes that are protested against are inserted purposefully by the Gun Advocates so that they can exploit them. To complain about them is a an argument of monumental hypocrisy.

And second, all of the guns used at Columbine were obtained either on the black market or through an illegal straw purchase at the aforementioned gun show.

In addition, I'm not responsible for the loopholes you brought up. Instead, you blame them on an amorphous mass you call "Gun Advocates" with what appears to be a slight hint that I may be part of this mass of which you speak. Comments?

or do you just accept them ?

If the latter, you're part of the problem not the solution.

I don;t find the strict-constructionistic arguments of the 2nd Amendment 'defenders' intellectually credible.

They selectively ignore the literal contents of the amendment while insisting on a literal 'interpretation'.

The amendment specifically frames the right in the context of the militia and 'the people', not individual persons.

The amendment protects the right to bear 'arms', not specifically hand guns, rifles, pistols, etc. A literal interpretation would allow individual citizens to bear machine guns, mortars, howizters, nuclear weapons, and all manner of other weapons. Is that what you support ? If not than you accept the authority of the government to pass and enforce laws that restrict on a broad scale the kinds of weapons that are appropriate for individuals and groups to possess.

The Second Amendment mentions a "well-regulated militia," no debate there. And you're part of it, just like me. US v. Emerson and the recent DC handgun case spell out that argument in far greater detail than I can in the space of a message like this.

As for you focusing on loopholes, whether they're legal or not, be my guest. I assert that the overall framework for gun legislation from 1968 onward is fundamentally flawed and should probably be rexamined and heavily modified, first of all by removing any qualifier that firearms for "We, the People" may only fit some arbitrary paradigm of "hunting and sporting purposes."

Our gun laws don't just need spackle and paint. They need an "Extreme Makeover."

The right itself is ascribed solely to the "people," not the "militia" (it isn't "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms...").

That is the same construction as found in the First and Fourth amendments. The right of the PEOPLE to peaceably assemble...the right of the PEOPLE to be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures...the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms...

Same "people," there. Unless you believe the 1stA confers a right of the government to peaceably assemble, and the right of the government to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, then you can hardly take "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" and say it protects the right of the government to possess weapons.


The amendment protects only "arms" that can be "kept and borne," not heavy ordnance or crew-served weapons. That rules out artillery and nukes.

The compromise over what the 2ndA does and does not protect was arrived at 73 years ago, and is embodied in the National Firearms Act of 1934. Civilian guns are non-automatic, non-sound-suppressed firearms under .51 caliber that meet the other requirements of the NFA.

NOBODY is talking about nukes or machineguns. The gun issue in 2007 is about non-automatic civilian firearms under .51 caliber, and dragging anything else into it is a red herring.

FWIW, the First Amendment is not construed as protecting child porn, either, but that doesn't mean that the government has carte blanche to infringe the right of the people to speak out as individuals.

How about going back to spewing your normal litany of NRA talking points? They're ridiculous, but they're not nearly as stomach-turning as your transparently pathetic attempt at sincerety towards your new bestest buddy, "Sarah."

but she is either being taken advantage of the *pros* in the organization, or is in on their scams. Either way, the Brady Bunch is on the losing side or any number of good reasons.

...just radiating off all the comments about Sarah Brady from you and your gun radical associates here at D.U. (Heavy sarcasm alert.)

And by the way---your "...taken advantage of the 'pros' in the organization..." comment reeks of misogyny. What's the matter: do you have a hard time imagining a woman as an active, intelligent part of a public advocacy group? Try knuckle-dragging your ass into the 21st century, you'll deal with things better and avoid embarrassing yourself, trust me......

Read up on how Brady has lost effective control of the organization that bears her name and how the *pros* in the organization that are exploiting the situation to their own personal advantage.

I have known the Scully family for 45+ years, I have saw with my own eyes what happened after the SF incident and how they treat her now. Your attempt at a misogeny smear doesn't work any more than your specious anti gun rhetoric.

What is that all about?

http://www.calbar.ca.gov/state/calbar/calbar_cbj.jsp?sCategoryPath=/Home/Attorney%20Resources/California%20Bar%20Journal/June2003&sCatHtmlPath=cbj/06_TH_01_10-Years-later-04.html&sCatHtmlTitle=Top%20Headlines

John Scully died, and his mother Pegi became a very vocal anti gun speaker in Hawaii and elsewhere. John was her only son, though they she had several daughters. One of his sisters was in Barack Obama's class at Punahou, John graduated later. His widow remarried and lives in Hawaii last I saw.

Our families have been friends for years. When I see them, I avoid gun control issues out of respect for their grief. She is one of many examples of the the genuine grief of a bereaved person being co-opted for the gain of others.

I remember that incident now.

For FREEDOM! Nay, I would say I'm a SCOUNDREL for FREEDOM. Freedom, a concept you have hard time dealing with.

I believe in the 1st Amendment, as in NO restrictions on Free Speech. That means FUCK all those Community Standards, Hate Speech legislation, Protest Zones and March Permits.

I believe in the 2nd Amendment. The Right of the INDIVIDUAL to Keep and Bear Arms.

I believe in the 3rd Amendment.

I believe in the 4th Amendment, even though the poor thing is in worse shape than the 2nd. That means NO no knock warrants, sobriety checkpoints, drug seizures / forfeiture . No fucking eminent domain for projects to benefit some developer.

I believe in the 5th Amendment. That means no double jeopardy bullshit under the guise of "violating civil rights".

I believe in the 6th though 9th Amendments.

And finally I believe in the 10th Amendment. We still live in the United States of America. Not the North American People's Republic.

is for you...my hero! love, medea