Tuesday, August 30, 2011

Brady Campaign History Fail

From the Brady Campaign FB Page:

Um No. There's this little case called McDonald et al. v Chicago. Maybe they remembered that a few minutes later on their Twitter feed.

All those little cases don't mean much. It's the ones like Heller and McDonald that matter. Plus there have been a number of cases, real ones, not just Joe Schmuckatellie filing a suit that exlaims "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!!!!".

And this little line from the article they link to shows just how desperate they are to find any sort of positive spin in their collapsing world:
"Despite setbacks in court, gun owners are winning on the political front."
There are no 'setbacks in court'. The important cases like Shepard and Ezell to name a few are moving forward exactly the way they were planned. The Brady Bunch knows this and are prepping their resumes.

Unorganized Militia GearUnorganized Militia Gear
Follow TrailerDays on Twitter
Unorganized Militia Gear


Braden Lynch said...

Really? I've only heard of only a few cases where campus, open, or concealed carry was defeated. The vast majority of cases have been crushing the BC goons and their anti-freedom fellow travellers.

Thirdpower said...

Most of the cases the BC is touting as 'victories' are the usual 'felon in possession' types. Any twinkie defense in a storm.

And yes, outside of CA or NJ, legislatively they're getting pounded.

Chas said...

Their question is ridiculously ignorant and obtuse.
Anybody? Uh, not felons, but then they knew that, they just ignored the fact that they knew that.
Any gun? Not full-auto, or if the barrel is too short, or the caliber is too big or any number of other restrictions. Again, they knew that, but they pretended that they didn't.
Anywhere? There are a host of restrictions on where guns can be carried, but they knew that, but they pretended that they didn't.
Who is going to listen to such would-be fear mongers who ask such juvenile and ignorant, empty-headed questions as they roll their eyes in feigned fear, while hoping to inspire similar feelings in others? Their efforts at being manipulative are transparent and silly. They're only getting traction amongst themselves, which is why they aren't going anywhere.

Linoge said...

Fortunately for us, "reality" has never been a strong point amongst the anti-rights cultists.

Their question constitutes the very plainest of "poisoning the well" logical fallacies, especially with their pointless use of "endanger" - by and large, those who lawfully bear arms are more-law-abiding than their non-firearm-carrying compatriots, there is a negative correlation between firearm ownership rates and firearm fatality rates, and the number of firearm accidents per year are vanishingly small in comparison to the number of firearm owners.

If that one word is wrong in that many ways, just imagine how many pixels I could slaughter addressing the falsehoods in the rest of that small image?

elmo iscariot said...

...by carrying any type of gun anywhere...

They're playing games with the language of the Heller decision:

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose...The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on...laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings... Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

The antis have been pushing sound bites that divorce "not unlimited" and "not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose" from their context. Those quotes pretty clearly mean that the Second Amendment protects a right to carry "common" handguns in public under normal circumstances, but that bans on the open carry of machine guns in courthouses will probably stand.

The Bradies would rather people believe that the Court's signaled acceptance of some narrow time-place-and-manner restrictions means _all_ restrictions--including complete prohibition--are Constitutional.

Anonymous said...

No, the 2nd Amendment means a free citizen has the individual right to carry a firearm for self-defense purposes because those prone to endangering the lives of others will carry despite a legal prohibition.

Lumpy said...

I guess they can write up Wisconsin's passed CCW bill as a giant Brady victory also?