Brady’s take shots at Cheney

You knew it was coming.  Here’s the first I’ve seen:

“Now I understand why Dick Cheney keeps asking me to go hunting with him,” Jim Brady said in a statement. “I had a friend once who accidentally shot pellets into his dog — and I thought he was an idiot.”

“I’ve thought Cheney was scary for a long time,” Sarah Brady said. “Now I know I was right to be nervous.”

They do personal attacks so well.  They have lots of practice at it so it’s not surprising.  I can only think of two reasons for this; 1) They don’t like the results when they stick to facts, or 2) They can’t handle high school math.

4 thoughts on “Brady’s take shots at Cheney

  1. Well, it’s not like Bush/Cheney have been active in attempting to restore gun rights for their time in office.

    Then Cheney goes out and shoots someone, (once again showing how dangerous guns are in the hands of non-LEOs, blah, blah, blah).

    But, seriously, this brings the sum total of actual help Bush has given to gun owners to negative 1.

    Maybe this will be a sign to Bush to do something to bring his score back to par.

  2. As an aside, I find it bizarre that we have whole organizations dedicated solely to the purpose of destroying a constitutionally guaranteed right.

    Imagine having “The Brady Center to Prevent Offensive Speech” or “The Brady Campaign for One State Religion”.

    When will we all recongize pure bigotry and anti Americanism when we see it?

  3. “As an aside, I find it bizarre that we have whole organizations dedicated solely to the purpose of destroying a constitutionally guaranteed right.”

    It’s interesting that you are saying this, because I am currently reading a history of brewing in the United States and the Temperence movement used very similar methods to get Prohibition passed in 1919. All of the same methods are there, Demonization, bogus statistics, all of it. There was an organization called the Anti-Saloon League that was very similar to the Brady Bunch, but much more powerful and effective. I seems that the formation of organizations to attack freedoms and Constitutional rights goes back to the earliest days of the Republic.

  4. It’s no coincidence, either, that Prohibition ended in December of 1933 and the NFA took effect in January of ’34.

    A big difference, of course, is that there is no specific mention in the Constitution of the right of The People to keep and bear alcohol. Even so, they understood back then that a Constitutional Amendment was required to ban alcohol.

    The tragic consequenses (mainly the enormous boost it gave to organized crime) of Prohibition are entirely lost on today’s American culture.

Comments are closed.