Quote of the day—Gura & Possessky

Hey, @MotherJones @sidhubaba, how is this story http://is.gd/tXiZEU turning out so far? kthxbye

Gura & Possessky
Tweeted on March 31, 2012
[In the story link to above, (former) Brady Center President Paul Helmke says in reference to a brief they filed in a federal court in North Carolina seeking the dismissal of a lawsuit brought by Gura, “Police and emergency responders seeking to quell a riot,” he said, “should not be forced to contend with legally-authorized armed individuals and groups roaming alleys and public streets.”  The author @sidhubaba, said, “You don’t say!”

In the decision released last week striking down the bad law the Brady’s were defending Judge Malcolm J. Howard said, “It cannot be overlooked that the statutes strip peaceable, law abiding citizens of the right to arm themselves in defense of hearth and home, striking at the very core of the Second Amendment.”—Joe]

4 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Gura & Possessky

  1. You have to wonder how the good lefies at Mother Jones magazine would respond if they knew the true history of the law being struck down. It was enacted in 1969 in response to the riots throughout cities in North Carolina and elsewhere after the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. The NC General Assembly (which had 1 black member at the time) wanted to make sure that (primarily) blacks were unarmed and unable to defend themselves in the case of civil unrest.

  2. Their words and the things they choose to defend prove again (as if we still need more proof) that the Brady Center is not merely rooting for the criminal element, they are offering to hold their coats and act as lookout during the murder, rape or robbery of the law abiding citizens.

  3. I’ve often had a suspicion about some of the anti-gun extremists: that, at at least a subconscious level (although not necessarily so), they love helping disarm innocents for criminals’ benefit, because to them it gives them a sense of being part of the action–and thus makes them feel like macho aggressors instead of the inadequate half-men they are.

    If this sounds excessively paranoid, keep in mind that most of the hard-core anti-gun activists are baby boomers who came of age in the late ’60’s and early ’70’s. (Most Generation Xers and Millenials, even leftist ones, are considerably less enamored with anti-gun activism). The left-wing Boomers (who, BTW, did not encompass all Boomers) were the same ones who went in droves to see Bonnie and Clyde; who cheered on the Weathermen and the SLA; and who publicly fantasized about black Americans initiating a revolt that would “stick it to the man” and overthrow the government. You may believe that a tiger can change his stripes. I don’t.

  4. From the article:

    “If the lawsuit were successful, law enforcement would be unable to detect whether roaming armed individuals or gangs were would-be looters, terrorists, or vigilantes…”

    It’s telling that, according to the Brady Campaign, an armed individual could only be one of the following:

    Would-be looter

    It’s not even conceivable in their minds that an armed person in a crisis situation might be trying to defend themselves from such types. Nor is it conceivable that a looter, terrorist or vigilante wouldn’t leave the gun home if the law told them to.

Comments are closed.