Mission statement:

Armed and Safe is a gun rights advocacy blog, with the mission of debunking the "logic" of the enemies of the Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms.

I can be reached at 45superman@gmail.com.You can follow me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/45superman.

Wednesday, October 11, 2006

The Brady Bunch throws yet another hissy fit

Yesterday, Paul Helmke, head cheerleader for the Brady Campaign, released this abject, whining statement about the gun rights deprivation lobby's exclusion from the White House School Violence Conference.

WASHINGTON, Oct. 10 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, issued the following statement:
I'm disappointed that today's White House conference on school violence did not focus on the too easy access to guns in our society. We need to address the ease with which young people and tormented adults can access firearms to carry out these types of attacks.

Two years ago, President Bush abandoned his campaign pledge to reauthorize the Federal assault weapons ban. Yesterday, a 13- year-old Missouri boy brought an AK-47 clone to school and fired it before being apprehended. The Bush administration's inaction two years ago has led to even deadlier weapons being available in our communities.

In addition to letting the Assault Weapons ban expire, President Bush has supported other gun lobby efforts to weaken federal firearm laws. Federal records on gun purchases are now destroyed within 24 hours and information on guns traced to crime is restricted from even law enforcement. The president is also supporting other legislation that would make it harder for the law enforcement to put corrupt gun dealers out of business.
An examination of this missive reveals yet again (for anyone who needs still more such revelations) that the truth is among the first casualties in the war against private ownership of firearms. For example, President Bush did not "abandon his pledge" to reauthorize the federal ban on so-called "assault weapons." The President did indeed promise to sign a bill reauthorizing that piece of legsislative filth (he worded it a bit differently), if such a bill crossed his desk. No such bill did. If Mr. Helmke has any knowledge of the Constitution of the United States, he would be fully aware of the fact that a President cannot draft legislation; nor can he force legislators to pass bills of his choosing. If Mr. Helmke has a problem with the expiration of the ban, he would be better advised to take that up with the legislators who did not see the continuation of the ban as being in the best interests of the American people. Alternatively, Helmke could rail at these same American people, for electing such legislators. As yet another alternative, he could take it up with the original drafters of the ban, for including a "sunset provision" in the first place.

Helmke's departure from reality becomes even more apparent when he blames the expiration of the ban for the fact that a 13-year-old Missouri boy brought a semi-automatic copy of the AK-47 rifle to school, and shot the ceiling with it. What Helmke didn't bother to mention is that this particular rifle is a MAK-90, manufactured by a Chinese company (Norinco). The significance of that is that no such rifles have legally entered the country since the Clinton administration (Clinton signed an executive order, which hasn't been rescinded, banning the importation of Norinco handguns and military-style rifles). Therefore, reauthorization of the ban on "assault weapons" would have had ZERO effect on this incident.

Besides, as alarming as it is that a disturbed kid would bring a loaded firearm to school, threaten people with it, and fire it--no one was hurt. Let's not get hysterical about a punctured ceiling.

The statement ends with the charge that the President is "supporting other legislation that would make it harder for the law enforcement to put corrupt gun dealers out of business." I reject that characterization of the legislation Helmke is referring to, but the bigger point is that, as mentioned before, the President has no power over what legislation reaches his desk for his signature (or veto, as the case may be)--if he is "supporting" this legislation (I would like to see the evidence of that), his support carries only the weight of a suggestion.

Perhaps Mr. Helmke would be well advised to switch to decaf.