"The Supreme Court's opinion in Heller does not conflict with allowing states and localities to enact and enforce sensible gun laws that protect the public," said Paul Helmke, President of the Brady Center. "On the contrary, the Court spelled out that such laws are presumptively legal. The police groups and the Brady Center agree that the Court should maintain that position in McDonald."
When the Brady Bunch announced that they would be filing a Friend of the Court brief in the McDonald case "for neither side" we all knew that was a steaming pile of crap.
But the antis are telegraphing that they've already lost and are trying to salvage the shattering pieces of their existence any way they can.
I'd feel sorry for them if they weren't curb sucking maggots.
At least real maggots serve a usefull purpose in the grand scheme of things.
1 comment:
Honestly, I can't quarrel with this statement in the least: "Sensible gun laws that protect the public."
Clearly, a gun law that protects the public is a sensible one.
However, I think the other part of "sensible" is some evidence that, in fact, the public is being protected, and so far, I've seen little or no evidence that any gun control does any such thing.
Post a Comment