Anyone who has been following Armed and Safe for any length of time is probably aware that one of my favorite projects is exposing the Brady Campaign's lies. One of the best examples of those lies comes in a video segment they shot of Dennis Henigan, their Vice President for Law and Policy.
This was right after Shelly Parker won her case in the D.C. Court of Appeals (in the case that eventually went on to become the District of Columbia v. Heller case). At that time, the Brady Campaign was still desperately clinging to their now badly discredited "collective rights" interpretation of the Second Amendment. So desperate were they, in fact, that when reciting the Second Amendment in the video clip, Henigan simply omitted the "of the people" part--realizing, apparently, that they can't claim a right of the people is not really . . . of the people.
The Brady Campaign must have thought no one would notice, because they proudly displayed the video on their website, and posted it to YouTube. Eventually, though, gun rights advocates noticed it--and we made some noise (I'd like to think I made a difference with my efforts on that front).
That's when the Brady Campaign realized they'd messed up, and decided to try to sweep this embarrassment under the rug. They pulled that page from their website (Gone!), and they pulled it off YouTube (Vanished!).
When I started posting it, they bullied the video hosting services with threats of copyright infringement action. That happened on YouTube, Photobucket (which also does video hosting), Metacafe, here on Blogspot, etc., despite the fact that this use would pretty clearly fall under "Fair Use" guidelines.
Last month, I tried posting just 15 seconds of audio, and even that was supposedly a violation of their "intellectual property."
Last week, I had another idea, and using Thirdpower's screen capture (I had one of my own, but stupidly saved it at a low resolution) of the Brady Campaign's now-removed webpage with the transcript of Henigan's little video, was still able to point out the breathtaking lack of integrity.
Still, nothing really hits home like the video, and I really wanted to be able to post that. Luckily, Shaun, at ICarry, had gotten hold of the video file, is always spoiling for a fight with groups like the Brady Bunch, likes keeping his lawyer busy, and has the ability to host his own videos.
So . . . voilà! Video hosted by ICarry.org
Just in case even Shaun gets pushed into taking it down, I suggest downloading the video while you can. Let's take this thing viral.
Update: Look who stopped by for a look! See anything interesting, Brady Bunch?
(Click to enlarge)
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
The Brady Campaign to hide the truth is failing
Stumble it!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
24 comments:
Are those guys regular visitors, 45? They visit me now and then, usually when I am calling them out. ;-)
I see 'em every once in awhile. I love how they haven't changed their domain name from Handgun Control). That post of yours was a good one, by the way.
I thought this was old news. I remember reading about this big "omission" on you blog a while ago.
Are you re-hashing these "lies" now because it's slim pickin's, or what? Don't you have any new "lies" to uncover?
I may have suggested this before, but aren't you focusing on something minor, exaggerating it to the exclusion of all else? Isn't that what you often do?
Why don't you consider that instead of this being a great big "lie" and a major purposeful "omission" on Henigan's part it was just an oversight. Then you might be able to discuss the real issue, things like is the Heller decision consistent with precedent, or is there a viable alternative to your individual interpretation, or is all the 2nd Amendment talk as Henigan calls it, the defense of last resort for your kind.
I continue to talk about it, Mikeb, because the Brady Campaign continues to try so desperately to suppress it--apparently they (the Brady Campaign perpetrators) don't agree with you that this is so easily dismissed.
I don't see how I'm "exaggerating" anything--certainly not "to the exclusion of all else" here are a few recent examples of other issues I have raised regarding the Brady Bunch. I would submit, Mikeb, that what I "often do" is get under the skin of the forcible citizen disarmament advocates.
If you truly believe that Henigan accidentally left out the very part of the Second Amendment that most clearly debunks the silly myth of the "collective right" interpretation--just as he defended that fantasy, I have a pair of breeding mules to sell you.
Like it or not, Mikeb, this is a real issue--Henigan's omission of a crucial part of the 2nd Amendment, followed minutes later by his pompous assertion about the illegitimacy of editing the Constitution, and the Brady Campaign's desperate efforts to sweep the entire debacle under the carpet illustrate the moral bankruptcy and utter lack of integrity of the forcible citizen disarmament side--"your kind," in other words.
One more thing--my "defense of last resort" isn't the Constitution or an argument--it's exactly what your side is trying to prevent me from having. Perhaps you'd like to explain what motivates the desire to strip me of my "defense of last resort."
things like is the Heller decision consistent with precedent
I am sure that certain people made noise back in the late 1950s about how Brown v. Board of Education was inconsistent with USSC precedent, too. If you know who I mean and I think you do.
"I met a gin-soaked barroom queen in Memphis..."
Yeah--I've never understood the apparent reverence for court precedence, as if judges never get anything wrong.
Even more bizarrely, now the Heller decision that so offends people like Mikeb is precedent. Shouldn't that, then, render it inviolable?
Awww I love to see them get all butthurt!
Good work Kurt!
I think the recent changes in the way we look at gun rights will someday be viewed as an anomaly rather than an evolution in our understanding. Time will tell. The way you guys cite the Bill of Rights as an unquestionable proof yet say the right is inalienable and the Constitution doesn't grant it but rather protects it, to me sounds like a bunch of double talk. Then when pressed further, you say the right comes from God - that's what inalienable means to some of you.
I predict that one day a better educated and more enlightened society will laugh at all this and categorize it with Creationism as late 20th and early 21st century madness.
And mikeb I suggest that your existence is an anomaly. You are the only truly non-sentient creature I have ever encountered who can operate a keyboard.
Oh, and the lack of respect was intentional mikeb. You cannot and have not ever offered an intelligent premise for your position. Nor do you try to do so.
Says Mikeb:
Then when pressed further, you say the right comes from God - that's what inalienable means to some of you.
Find one instance of my saying that "the right comes from God," Mikeb--I would dearly like to see you try.
I have consistently--some might say invariably--maintained that the Bill of Rights exists as the guarantor of preexisting, natural, fundamental rights. That means that for the government to violate any of its provisions is to destroy that government's legitimacy. What it does not mean is that the Bill of Rights is the source of those rights, any more than a photograph of Yellowstone is the source of the natural beauty there.
SA, I think you still give him too much respect ;-).
I'm starting to feel bad for MikeB, I mean he makes an ass of him self EVERY DAMN DAY!
I wish somebody could find a treatment for his mental illness, for that's the only way I can imagine this behavior.
The way you guys cite the Bill of Rights as an unquestionable proof yet say the right is inalienable and the Constitution doesn't grant it but rather protects it, to me sounds like a bunch of double talk.
"You keep using that phrase. I do not think it means what you think it means."
So Plessy v. Ferguson should have been upheld too, MikeB? After all, it was precedent too.
Weer'd, no need to feel bad for someone who revels in his mental illness.
Straightarrow is a pretty funny guy. I enjoyed that.
The rest of you keep doing the blah blah blah. Natural rights but not from God, is that it? Precedent in legal matters doesn't matter, is that it? And of course, I'm mentally ill, right?
Says Mikeb:
The rest of you keep doing the blah blah blah.
Well excuse the hell out of us for not being sufficiently entertaining to you, Mikeb, but you're the one who keeps coming back here.
Natural rights but not from God, is that it?
Some refer to God-given rights--I don't, because I'm not religious, but I don't disparage those who are.
Precedent in legal matters doesn't matter, is that it?
It's certainly not the final word--you do acknowledge that the Supreme Court isn't infallible, don't you, and that they make some bad decisions (isn't that what you're saying about Heller?)--should those bad decisions, now that they've set the "precedent," be inviolable? Is that what you want with Heller?
And of course, I'm mentally ill, right?
Just trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, Mikeb, and assume that it's mental illness, rather than sheer evil, that motivates you to advocate the lethal, tyrannical agenda of forcible citizen disarmament.
This thread was fun to read.
I've been doing some therapy work with Mikeb for some time now but only made a few minor dents.
As long as I have vodka and an internet connection, I'll keep banging my head on that wall even if for no other erason than sheer entertainment.
Keep up the good work 45Superman.
As opposed to Laci the crusty bitch, I actually know the difference between...
1. 45 superman
2. 45super man
45superman, Phrases like "sheer evil" and "forcible citizen disarmament" sound cool, but they don't really apply. They're both the kinds of exaggerations you like to use to escalate the discussion to a plane of such import that you can pull out all your other ridiculous expressions like "cold dead hands" and what's that Greek one, "molon labe?" The more you and guys like Linoge and the pistolero try to be deadly serious, the greater the entertainment value.
Kaveman, thanks for the therapy and the entertainment.
Says Mikeb:
45superman, Phrases like "sheer evil" and "forcible citizen disarmament" sound cool, but they don't really apply.
Hadn't for a second imagined I sounded "cool," nor was that my intention.
They're both the kinds of exaggerations you like to use to escalate the discussion to a plane of such import . . .
Not "exaggerating" a thing--the denial to the people of arms is sheer evil--or is it the "forcible" part with which you disagree? Is it your thinking that rather than laws that will be upheld with force (by government minions with, ironically, guns), with resistance to those laws bringing those armed minions out with the mission to imprison, or if necessary, kill, us--that your side (the all-powerful government you worship) merely means to make suggestions and requests?
. . . that you can pull out all your other ridiculous expressions like "cold dead hands" and what's that Greek one, "molon labe?"
Disparage it all you want, but some of us, when we say that we will die, and along the way, kill, to keep our guns, we mean every word of it. If you don't believe it, I certainly hope the government is wiser than you are (which is, after all, setting the bar rather low, even for the government). Otherwise, the butcher's bill is going to be steep.
MikeB302000,
Even folks who are exemplars of non-violence recognize the evil of disarming people.
Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest. -Mahatma Mohandas K. Gandhi
And this is was hilarious in showing that you can not recognize hypocrisy at all.
The rest of you keep doing the blah blah blah.
You have about 3 maybe 4 screeds that you repeat on your blog all the time.
10%, 10%, 10% !!!!! OMG 10% shouldn't own guns according to some numbers you pulled out of the ether or some body orifice.
"Flow of Guns", "flow of Guns" --- this one you talk about alot - except for your own part in that flow of guns. Hypocrisy within hypocrisy.
And on and on and on.
And Precedent? PLease !
We've shown repeatedly that the courts up to and including the Supreme Court has stated -- BEFORE HELLER-- that the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right. You certainly have no respect for those precedents.
Bob, You're still arguing this one? Everybody else finished weeks ago. Of course you didn't offer anything new, just the same old personal attack against me. And in typical fashion, you accuse me of what you do.
And you're still here looking for attention MikeB.
MikeB302000,
Of course you can either not read or not comprehend.
Did you notice the quote from Ghandi?
Did you notice me responding to your same tired ass troll remarks?
Of course you didn't offer anything new,
Hey Sparky, why don't you get a clue and comment on the new stuff on my blog. I just found this comment thread from you but I know you've been by my blog several times.
Why don't you comment there? You want to discuss new things, I'll give you the chance ---again--- to suggest a topic for me to write on.
Want to take a shot Sparky?
You don't have to write on it -- since you "don't have time to debate".
By the way, what amazing power do you have that allows you to comment on so many blogs yet won't let you find time for a one on one debate?
Post a Comment