Quote of the day—Kristin Brown

We’re allowing it to exist.

Kristin Brown
Co-president of the Brady Campaign and Center to Prevent Gun Violence
January 23, 2018
Regarding SHOT Show.
Gun industry converges near site of Las Vegas mass shooting
[Brown has a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of our government. As I said on Twitter a while back:

I think I see the problem here. You believe the government LETS people do things. It’s the other way around. The U.S. Constitution, written by “We the people”, granted the government certain powers. It didn’t grant them powers to infringe upon our right to keep and bear arms.

And perhaps even more frightening to her is that the government is ignoring the law in allowing her organization to exist. It appears to me they could all be arrested and charged with conspiracy to infringe upon the rights of gun owners. This is a felony.—Joe]


7 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Kristin Brown

  1. the headline smacks of magical thinking. the mass shooting in Las Vegas last october was a great tragedy, yes, but there’s nothing inherently special about the location where it happened; it’s a concert venue, no more, no less. it doesn’t become sacred because a great many innocent people were murdered there. i’ll bet there’s been a good number of perfectly ordinary events held there in the months since, life going on.

    then again, anti-gun people are usually given to magical thinking. otherwise, they wouldn’t single out “gun violence” as though the tool were more important than the act, or the doer.

    • It’s the mindset of the deodand– Punish the gun, punish the location where a gun was used in the commission of a crime, punish those who reject the sacred deodand mindset, etc.

      Mostly though it’s an opportunity to attack gun owners, and so of course it must be used.

      The phrase “we’re allowing it” (when applied to peaceful, non-coercive behavior) comes from only the criminal mind. “Allowing it” means that it is offensive or intolerable, but tactics demand that it be temporarily suffered. “Allowing” anyone or anything which might interfere with criminal behavior, such as the keeping and bearing of arms, is insulting to only one type of person; the criminal.

      Some people are deluded by the stream of lies perpetrated by the criminal class, and are not criminals themselves, but it is that criminal mind which does all the perpetrating. Therein, once again, we come to the matter of the difference between the perpetrators and the duped. Lies are often belived by many, but lies have a source. The perps and the dupes are all on the same team, but for very different reasons. One is an irretrievable sociopath and belongs in a cage or at the end of a rope, while the other may eventually be de-programmed.

      • Wait until they discover that the government has been allowing unapproved speech from the likes of THEM!
        “No! No! I meant throw the OTHER bums out!

  2. Conspiracy might do it; the overt act in furtherance of conspiracy need not be criminal in itself. Many people have been convicted of conspiracy to commit burglary because someone bought a crowbar at Sears. Because of jurisdictional considerations based on a concept called presence, I think they could be charged with conspiracy to infringe on the rights of others in any district court in America. It’s just a matter of finding the right DA and Judge.

  3. Her comment about the SHOT show isn’t even a Second Amendment problem. We have a First Amendment right to peaceably assemble. The fact that someone else committed mass murder in that location several months ago has nothing to do with my right to peaceably assemble.

    • The Second Amendment is the proverbial canary in a coal mine.

      To effectively negate, nullify or ignore it, one necessarily has to negate nullify or ignore pretty much the rest of the Bill of Rights.

      I think the Founding Fathers might have been better off phrasing the Second Amending closer to their actual concern:

      “The disarmament of the people, being a necessary pre-condition to the imposition of various tyrannies, whomsoever alleges a power to deprive any citizen of any form of arm shall be stripped of citizenship themselves and exiled for their natural life, or put to death.”

      That’d focus the argument on stripping violent criminals of their citizenship, WHICH IS EFFECTIVELY WHAT WE DO ANYWAY. Convicted beyond the shadow of doubt of an infamous crime by a jury of citizens, they lose the right to vote, hold office, bear arms and are effectively equivalent to permanent residents. Importantly, permanent resident non-citizens have a path to achieve citizenship, which would be a path to reconciliation for a criminal that cares to make the effort to regain citizen status, and regulated under Congress’s power to define the process of naturalization. Also, I don’t think anyone would deny Congress’s power to regulate the possession of arms by non-citizens, so long as it was consistent with the right to self-defense by those who offer no violence to others.

  4. Think about the arrogance of that statement. “We’re allowing it to exist”… It makes it look like her organization is in control of guns and their marketing and they’re permitting this out of their own good graces.

    They are allowing NOTHING. I’d love to see her try to not have the show happen and make her efforts to “not allow it anymore” public. People would rightfully laugh her off.

    But publishing that arrogant statement convinces people that somehow anti-gun organizations have real power over gun owners. They only do in their fantasies because if they tried to forcibly move the SHOT Show, I suspect they’d find out what the purpose of the products being sold where actually for!

Comments are closed.