Wane.com Proves What We Already Know About Anti-Gun Zealots
Are gun control advocates opportunists, willing to turn a tragedy into an opening for their agenda? Most certainly, and Wane.com, a news site from Fort Wayne, Indiana, practically brags about it:
“Could January’s mass shootings in Tucson, Arizona lead to new gun restrictions? Fort Wayne’s former mayor, Paul Helmke , hopes so.”
The problem is that the article is that it praises Helmke’s efforts, yet offers no rebuttal. So the head of the Brady Campaign is able to make his statements without any challenge – talk about an opportunity. The article even quotes Helmke:
“”I am not anti-gun. I am not trying to take your guns away. I’m looking for some common sense.”
The problem here is that we don’t know, or do we believe, what he is saying. What is the common sense? He constantly campaigns for stricter gun control – which for the record was the original point of the Brady Center. So he may say that he is “not anti-gun” but that’s a far cry from being pro-gun, or even being silent on the issue.
And sorry, but we do think he is, in fact, trying to take our guns away.
NRA: Obama To Push Gun Control Soon
To the dismay of the Brady Campaign and other gun ban groups, President Barack Obama didn’t address gun control during his State of the Union address on January 25th.
However, Newsweek reports that “in the next two weeks, the White House will unveil a new gun-control effort,” and that the White House confirms, “Obama will address the gun issue in a separate speech, likely early next month.” According to Newsweek, Obama believes that gun laws have been “too loose for much longer than just the past few weeks” following the murders in Tucson, Arizona.
Precisely what President Obama might have in mind is uncertain. His post-election transition website advocated reimposing the expired federal “assault weapon” ban, but that ban would clearly be irrelevant in the wake of a shooting that involved a firearm not covered by the old ban. Read more
Brady Campaign’s Choice of Words: Make Gun History
In a pre-State of the Union address commentary, Dennis Henigan of the Brady Campaign showed his hand we think. He offered a piece titled, “Obama Could Make Gun History in State of the Union.”While the piece tries to suggest that “the Democrats gave it all to the NRA and received little in return,” which simply isn’t true, we find the title ominous and telling.
Smart Democrats know, as true die-hard liberals have a hard time accepting, that guns do matter to voters, and Henigan is no idiot either. He knows that the issue of “gun control” isn’t going to win hearts and minds, nor is it going to win votes. Hence the Brady Campaign is about “violence” more than “control.” Yet, we feel he shows his true colors because what he really wanted to write was “Obama SHOULD Make Guns History.”
Eleanor Clift on AOL Politics Spells Out Why Times Are Changing for Gun Control
Once again a political writer seems to think they know the real America, and once again shows how wrong they are. In writing for AOL’s Politics Daily, Eleanor Clift offers this thought:
“Few Republicans have any interest in gun control legislation, and Democrats are scared of the NRA.”
Of course, this again paints the NRA as some sinister cabal looking to secretly control America, not noting that the NRA’s power comes from the fact that the majority of Americans have and want guns.
But later in this editorial Clift, notes that the mood of gun control might change, and Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign (she writes “Brady Center to Restrict Gun Violence [sic]”), sees Tucson as an opportunity. She writes:
“In the years since, shootings at Columbine and Virginia Tech spurred calls for more controls on guns, but little was done. Since Obama took office, the firearms laws in many places, including Arizona, have gotten more lax, and the Supreme Court has ruled that gun bans in the District of Columbia and Chicago are unconstitutional. This time is different, says Helmke.”
The reasons that Helmke believes this is different aren’t so important as the fact that he believes this is different. Doesn’t that show Helmke as the opportunist that he, and his organization, is? But more ominous is the conclusion of this piece:
“The proposal now being advanced is so narrow, affecting only the size of ammunition clips, that Helmke says, ‘If we could win on that, it would show that you can pass gun control and the sky doesn’t fall in.’”
We read this to suggest that any ban, any change, any sort of control is exactly what Helmke and his ilk want, because it is an ideal beginning. The sky doesn’t fall in if 30 round magazines are banned, so next it could be the Glock itself, and the sky won’t fall in. This is clearly their intention… to erode the Second Amendment in bits and parts.
Brady Campaign: Obama May Finally Stand up to NRA
Time and time again the mainstream media and anti-gun zealots have noted that President Obama has practically caved to the NRA and gun groups. Whether you believe this is another thing, but this is the message that groups such as the Brady Campaign are promoting.
In a post on Opposing Views, Dennis Henigan of Brady Campaign writes:
“Since 1968, federal law has required dealers to report multiple sales of handguns to ATF because they are such strong indicators of gun trafficking. However rifles – even high-capacity semiautomatic assault rifles like the AR-15 and the AK-47 that are the favored killing machines of the Mexican cartels – are not subject to multiple sale reporting.”
Why perpetrate this myth that “multiple sales of handguns” are “strong indicators of gun trafficking?” Is this accurate or fair? No study has ever confirmed that multiple sales are indicators of anything other than the dealer making multiple sales. Many retailers offer discounts for multiple purchases, and gun collectors would no doubt want to take advantage of such discounts!
On to another point, namely that Obama hasn’t been anti-gun. Well, what about those M1 rifles from South Korea? The State Department as well as Obama have blocked the importation, an act they didn’t even have to do. And Obama said nothing when the EPA tried to ban lead ammunition. It looks to us like Obama has been standing up the whole time. The media just has looked the other way.
TPMMuckraker Offers Biased Take on Gun and Politics Issue
TPMMucker offered another clear-cut example of how the media likes to distort President Obama’s handling of gun controls, and the political landscape regarding guns. The article is yet the latest one to point out the supposed power that the NRA has a lobby group, and goes so far as to quote anti-gun types as saying the NRA could “weaken the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).”
First, is this really the motive behind the NRA? The media continually reports this statement because that’s what anti-gun groups such as the Brady Campaign continue to state. The media merely parrots what the anti-gun zealots say, and tend to offer little counterpoint, even from the NRA. Read more
Firing Back: Brady Campaign is Off Base When Saying NRA and Militias are “Soulmates”
Responding to a Time magazine cover story titled “The Secret World of Extreme Militias,” Dennis Henigan of the Brady Campaign says in an editorial for Opposing Views, it “sounds an alarm that cannot be ignored.” He sees that the militias views are “indistinguishable from the long-held constitutional ideology of the National Rifle Association.”
As we noted in our book, America’s Road to Fascism: From the Progressives to Era of Hope and Change, the timing of this coverage is fascinating. When the first reports about the resurgence of “militias” came out, it was timed with the push for health care reform – almost to make a “guild by association.” Any politician who declares him or herself to be “right-wing” suddenly could be cast with the so-called “right-wing extremists.” Read more
Paul Helmke Huffs and Puffs and Cites WaPo
Need any further proof that you can’t trust the “news” coming from The Washington Post? Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, referenced the same WaPo editorial that we called out this week in his column for the Huffington Post. Read more
Utah Concealed Weapons Permits Debated
While the Supreme Court ruling is in the news again this week, another story making headlines is Utah’s permit process, which allows out of state residents to get concealed weapons permits. Of course, and as expected, not everyone is happy about this. So here is a recap of some coverage.
In writing for the Huffington Post Paul Helmke of the Brady Campaign offers a slanted take on what this means. He offers a commentary that no doubt is meant to strike fear into other liberals who don’t understand all the facts. Among the most infamous statements:
“Utah is issuing concealed weapon licenses — by the thousands — to people willing to pay the mere $65.25 fee. You don’t have to live, or ever set foot, in Utah to get the license. These licenses are recognized as valid in more than 30 states, most of which, wisely, make it harder for dangerous people to legally carry a hidden gun.”
The logic on the surface makes sense, but then when we think about it… why does a dangerous person need a permit? This suggests that dangerous people actually think of such things. It is the same logic that suggests criminals will follow gun laws. Pure nonsense!
Of course we wouldn’t expect Helmke to actually talk to anyone about it. But fortunately National Public Radio did interview someone who probably knows a thing or two about the Utah law, Clark Aposhian, a former chairman of Utah’s Concealed Weapons Review Board. And regarding the law, it is interesting to note that Aposhian clearly describes the purpose of the aforementioned permit:
“We’re not giving them a permit to use the firearm, we’re giving them a permit to conceal a firearm and that is it.”
Again, for reasons that escape us, the anti-gun crowd seems to think a permit is some sort of James Bond “License to Kill,” and this isn’t the case. A permit doesn’t make an individual dangerous, anymore than keeping the permit from someone makes a dangerous person less so. Criminals will commit crimes and most of the time permits and such don’t matter to them. Plain and simple!
Brady Bunch Goes After South Dakota
We reported recently that the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence noted that Nebraska had “weak” gun laws, and now the Bunch has targeted other states as well reports KTIV News Channel 4:
“The Washington, D.C.-based, nonpartisan Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence says only seven states have less stringent gun laws than South Dakota.
“The report rates California and New Jersey laws best. The seven states listed as worse than South Dakota are Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Oklahoma and Utah.”
This was Associated Press copy above, and it shows in the bias. How can anyone claim that the group is “nonpartisan?” But as we previously noted, how can California and New Jersey have the “best” laws and such high crime, while the other states listed have lower gun violence, yet have what the Brady Bunch notes as “weak” gun laws?
