Wednesday, March 21, 2007

I profit from my spouse's misfortune!

Gotta know the opposition you know.

-------------------------------------------
Dear -------- ,

Last week, a Federal Appeals Court overturned Washington D.C.’s long-standing restrictions on handguns — a decision that endangers all of America’s gun laws.

This case is most likely headed to the U.S. Supreme Court and we have a tidal wave of work to do before it gets there.

This battle — to its very core — is the most important battle we have ever waged. We need your help today to build a strong Brady Gun Law Defense Fund to save America’s gun laws.

This fight is so critical to the safety and sanity of our nation that an anonymous donor has extended his challenge and will match dollar for dollar all gifts to this Brady Gun Law Defense Fund. Your gift will be fully tax deductible.

The threat to all our gun laws is truly unprecedented. The hypocrisy of the ruling is astounding.

What is at stake for you and your community? An emboldened gun lobby will use the ruling to challenge strong local, state and federal gun laws.

We must prepare for an onslaught of lawsuits in which gun laws will be challenged under this new reading of the Second Amendment — a strategy the gun lobby rarely used because of past legal decisions … until now. And, if the U.S. Supreme Court reverses itself and adopts the “individual right to bear arms” view approved by the Federal Appeals Court, all good gun laws everywhere could be at risk …

... from the long-standing machine gun ban … to the 1968 Gun Control Act … to the Brady Background Check Law.

… to your local and state laws … like the ones in California and New Jersey banning Assault Weapons … and many more.

These and many other life-saving laws promoting public safety are at risk. And we need to be ready for an immediate onslaught of challenges and fight them tooth and nail. We need your help today with a tax-deductible gift!

Why is this ruling so radical? Because the decision defies almost 70 years of legal precedent. All courts before this — save one — have ruled that the Second Amendment is not an individual right to bear arms, and this is the first Federal Appeals Court ever to declare a gun law unconstitutional based on the Second Amendment.

In her dissent, Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson wrote that Second Amendment rights relate to “Those militia whose continued vitality is required to safeguard the individual state.” Unlike Judge Henderson, the two judge majority ruled against decades of legal precedent…

… And completely disregarded the democratically-expressed will of the people of the District of Columbia, depriving D.C. citizens of a strict handgun law enacted thirty years ago.

Talk about judicial activism! We can’t help but note the unbelievable hypocrisy here too. Conservatives cry and gnash their teeth about activism from the bench. This decision is judicial activism at its worst.

Judge Silberman, who wrote the majority opinion, is well-known for his close ties to the right-wing. Now — with quintessential judicial activism from the bench — the gun lobby threatens to achieve through the courts what it has been unable to do in Congress.

This is going to be a long, hard fight, but with your help we will save our nation’s gun laws. We will keep you up-to-date as we confront this extraordinary threat to our efforts to reduce gun violence. But right now, we need your support to build our Brady Gun Law Defense Fund. Remember that right now your gift to this fund will be doubled! Please act now.

Sincerely,

Sarah Brady, Chair

P.S. Your gift will be worth double when you give to our Brady Gun Law Defense Fund. Please give a tax-deductible gift today.



You can also mail a check to:
Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence
1xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxyz
Washington, DC 20005
-------------------------------------------------------

I'm no rocket scientist nor played one on TV but most intelligent people
don't blame inanimate objects for things people do.
-
-
-
-


12 comments:

Anonymous said...

You're right. I'm a responsible person, too. I see no reason why I can't fill my garage with cluster bombs and hand grenades.

Anonymous said...

If you can't tell the difference between a firearm and a cluster bomb you shouldn't be allowed to vote.

If you can't tell the difference between a hand grenade and a firearm you shouldn't be allowed to vote.

If that's the best counter to my post you can come up with, they should take your computer away.

Anonymous said...

I'm not countering your post, I'm agreeing with you. These are all inanimate objects, ones that do absolutely no harm in of of themselves. It's the humans that are the issue.

Besides, a lot of people do wish to use grenades. I wish I had a M203 40mm grenade launcher. You know, for target practice.

Anonymous said...

Yes, grenades, and grenade launchers should be totally legal. When a car booming bass parks outside my apartment window at 2 in the morning, I should be allowed to give them a warning and if they don't turn it down, I get to blow up the car. And any occupants that didn't get out when they were warned!!!

Anonymous said...

Anon #1, sorry. That's usually what 2nd Amendment advocates are hit with. "Even atomic bombs should be legal?" type of sarcasm.

Anon #2. I have days I feel that way too.

Anonymous said...

I'm not being sarcastic. I really want a grenade launcher.

Anonymous said...

So what are you waiting for:
http://40mm.com/

and this one is a great site:
http://mr40mm.com/

(shooting foam bullets in the 40mm is a blast)

Anonymous said...

Money is the issue. Oh, I don't mind not having a lot of it. I'm glad to see my dollars doing God's work, like keeping the lights on in Basra. I've cared about those people for a long time. Since 2003, I think.

Foam bullets? That sounds like East Coast liberal-speak!

Anonymous said...

Nope, you have to practice with something and most local ranges aren't impressed with the results of shooting explosive rounds.

The foam and wood projectiles supposedly make for excellent crowd control.

Anonymous said...

I don't understand what's wrong with practicing with live, explosive rounds.

Eric J. Burton said...

I am not sure that you can explain to some the reasoning behind the second ammendment. I worked with this liberal that stated you should be able to hunt ducks with an AK-47, there just isn't any way to explain to them that you can't hunt ducks with a projectile weapon. Of course they always shoot back with that is wrong.

Anonymous said...

Washington DC has high crime. Criminals already have guns, because they are criminals and don't care about laws against owning guns. Honest citizens are defenseless because of the laws!
Gun control groups are always fighting against the law biting gun owners who should have a right to defend themselves and their family. Gun control groups should be pushing for laws which dramatically increases minimum jail sentences for crimes committed while possessing a firearm. For example if a person is convicted of burglary and they have a gun on them, they should be sentenced as it was attempted murder. Or simply tag an other 10 to 20 years for that gun. Don't come after our right to defend ourself, Try to do something positive instead.