Opponents of gun control spend an inordinate amount of time and energy in pursuit of the “smoking gun” evidence that advocates of gun restrictions really want to ban all guns, or at least all handguns. With respect to handguns, some gun control organizations are quite open about their goal of ending the sale of handguns to the civilian market entirely.
For the gun control advocate seeking to overcome the slippery slope argument, these groups present a problem. They can be effectively cited as evidence that the ultimate goal of gun restrictions is to ban all guns. But the size and influence of these groups pales in comparison to the largest organization advocating stricter guns laws–the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, and, before that, as the National Council to Control Handguns. The Brady Campaign does not support banning all guns, or even all handguns, and says so publicly every time it is asked and often when not asked. I know because I have worked in the Brady organization for most of my professional career. Our position on gun banning was explained to me on my first day on the job, and it has remained the same ever since.
Dennis A. Henigan
Lethal Logic, pages 79 and 80.
[We spend too much time search for the “smoking gun”? And they do not support banning handguns? And their position on gun banning has not changed since his first day on the job (in 1989)?
Okay. We can put an end to that right now. Either Henigan forgot about the brief he signed in support of the D.C. ban in D.C. v. Heller or he doesn’t think the brief is public. And he forgot about this document still on the Brady website where it says on page 57:
The Brady Center is supporting the District of Columbia in defending its longstanding handgun ban…
Or as a final alternative, I suppose it’s possible, Henigan is lying.–Joe]
Not only is it a waste of time to talk to these vipers, it legitimizes their standing to have any sway over someone else’s life. There is nothing more to discuss.
Well, I’m an Anti because I oppose “shall issue” CCW. I’ve read all sorts of bogus BS from both sides and I’m still opposed to shall issue CCW. I don’t hate guns and I realize they are useful tools. I don’t want them on the street.
ubu52,
So what is the factual and/or logical basis for your opposition?
What facts would it take for you to change your mind?
The reviews on Amazon are kinda fun to read. Let’s just say that they don’t hold anything back… 🙂
ubu52, they are “on the street” whether you want them there or not. Even in Britain.
It’s only fair to give the law abiding a chance to defend themselves from those who carry regardless of what the law says.
I’m gonna have to go with door number three here, JOe, “LYING!”. It’s what the victim-disarmers and libs(but I repeat myself) do.
Henigan didnt forget anything, he’s just hopeing that everyone else did. As for lying… That seems to be a Brady Bunch membership requirement.
“Our position on gun banning was explained to me on my first day on the job,…”
No doubt it was explained (that they should endeavor to conceal their goals).
They’re against concealed guns, but favor concealed intentions.
Nobody is arguing about guns literally lying around in the street. Therefore, “on the street” can only be a euphemism for “possessed by people”. That’s at odds with the observation that guns are useful tools, since a tool is of no use when it is not in one’s possession.
It’s my hope that, someday, pro-liberty advocates and disarmers will be able to have a discussion where one side doesn’t have to translate a jumble of code words that read like the dialogue from a spoof spy movie from the Sixties.