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.

Thursday, June 12, 2008

Does the truth hurt, Paul?

"We've lost the battle on what the Second Amendment means," campaign president Paul Helmke told ABC News. "Seventy-five percent of the public thinks it's an individual right. Why are we arguing a theory anymore?
With the Heller ruling not even announced, the Brady Bunch appears to be unhappy with where they expect it to go. Oh, and Paul? That the Second Amendment is a Constitutional guarantee of the fundamental, absolute human right of the individual to keep and bear arms isn't a "theory"--that's the fact of the plain text in the Bill of Rights. Get used to it.

Even with a favorable (for us) Heller ruling (which I refuse to see as anything close to a foregone conclusion, as much as I'd like to), the advocates of forcible citizen disarmament have no intention of giving up and moving to the UK, however.
While the Brady Campaign is waving the white flag in the long-running debate on whether the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to bear arms or merely a state's right to assemble a militia, it is hoping that losing the "legal battle" will eventually lead to gun control advocates winning the "political war."

"We're expecting D.C. to lose the case," Helmke said. "But this could be good from the standpoint of the political-legislative side."
You bet, Paul--I figure Lee probably wanted to lose at Gettysburg, too. By the way, if you think losing Heller is your strategic master stroke, what was the thinking behind the amicus brief? What's with your statement expressing the hope that the "ruling will uphold the right of people in communities like the District to enact common sense gun measures they feel are needed to protect themselves and their families"? Why did you publish novellas calling the DC Appellate Court ruling "judicial activism at its worst"?

That was the old strategy, apparently. The new strategy, evidently, is to try to take the slippery slope argument away with assurances that "see--we can't ban guns (not all of them, anyway), even if we wanted to."
If the Supreme Court strikes down the D.C. gun ban, the Brady Campaign is hoping that it will reorient gun control groups around more limited measures that will be harder to cast as infringements of the Second Amendment.

"The NRA [National Rifle Association] won't have this fear factor," Helmke said.

Brady Campaign Attorney Dennis Henigan said there are multiple gun control measures that would not run afoul of a Supreme Court decision striking down the D.C. gun ban.

"Universal background checks don't affect the right of self-defense in the home. Banning a super dangerous class of weapons, like assault weapons, also would not adversely affect the right of self-defense in the home," said Henigan. "Curbing large volume sales doesn't affect self-defense in the home."
Guess you didn't notice, Dennis, that "self-defense in the home" is not the only purpose, or even the main purpose, of the Second Amendment, which exists as "the palladium of liberty"--the last bulwark against tyranny. Then again, what can we expect from the man who (in speaking about the Second Amendment and the Heller case) "forgot" about the people in the Second Amendment?

Besides, if the Supreme Court nullifies a ban on handguns, how would one justify a ban on so-called "assault weapons," which are used in a tiny minority of murders and assaults?

Helmke acknowledges that the Brady Campaign has "lost the battle on what the Second Amendment means." That's a pretty damned big battle, and any battle that the Brady Campaign loses is a battle that America wins.

See also: Days of Our Trailers, Snowflakes in Hell, and undoubtedly others that I haven't noticed yet--I have a feeling that this is going to be a popular subject among the Unorganized Militia Propaganda Corps blogs.


Dave Hardy said...

OF course Lee wanted to lose at Gettysburg! By removing the threat of invasion he damaged the Union public relations and recruiting efforts, and freed his armies to concentrate on the critical upcoming Appomatox Courthouse campaign!

Wonder how Brady is going to fundraise now. I doubt anyone gave to them in hopes of getting, oh, one gun a month or private sale background checks, and then going home. The draw for contributors was that after those things they'd move on to more, and more, and more.

Kurt '45superman' Hofmann said...

OF course Lee wanted to lose at Gettysburg! By removing the threat of invasion he damaged the Union public relations and recruiting efforts, and freed his armies to concentrate on the critical upcoming Appomatox Courthouse campaign!

Of course! How did I miss that? Your point about the fundraising is also a good one, and one that I hadn't considered.

Thanks for stopping by, Mr. Hardy--I'm a big fan of your work.

Zaakir Abdullah said...

Great site!

Anonymous said...

"Superduper, doubley dangerous assualt weapons"? Perhaps in their dreams. For a good essay on those evil black rifles here's a good url. Worth sharing with your friends who are pretty clueless about the whole idea.


Anonymous said...

"But given that McCain stood by his support for closing 'the gun-show loophole' during a recent speech to the N.R.A., the Brady Campaign president hopes that new gun restrictions can make headway regardless of who wins in November. 'For John McCain to be the political candidate of the NRA shows how things have changed,' Helmke said."

Don't get excited yet, boys, this "white flag" business is way overdrawn. These guys are Gramsci gradualists. Like collectivist termites, They NEVER give up eating at the constitutional foundations of our liberty.

Helke's point about the NRA and "Loophole" McCain is very significant. Why, one might ask, didn't the NRA pukes at least BOO him when he said it? Talk about licking the hand that puts the chains around your neck . . .

-- Mike Vanderboegh

Kurt '45superman' Hofmann said...

Agreed on all counts, Mr. Vanderboegh. In fact, about the only point on which I can agree with Helmke is the one he made about McCain--if the self-appointed "leaders" of the gun rights advocacy movement are reduced to supporting McCain, all is certainly not well for gun rights.

Still, don't begrudge me a bit of gloating over Helmke's admission that they have "lost the battle on what the Second Amendment means." If they had won that battle, I don't think there would have been any way to keep our guns without using them to refresh the tree of liberty. If they really have lost that battle, we might yet avoid that necessity.