The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence– the names sounds reasonable, don’t they? Logical, sensible groups…it’s not like we are talking about the Civilian Disarmament Coalition or The Enemies of Liberty here, is it? These must be moderate, progressive groups with a focus on logical policies – at least that’s what the names suggest (Not to mention their stance on women’s rights).
The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence was known as “Handgun Control Inc.” until 2001. Yep- the people who have been supporters of Feinstein Gun Bans past and present, the organization that stated its goals in 1976 as:
“We’ll take one step at a time, and the first is necessarily – given the political realities – very modest. We’ll have to start working again to strengthen the law, and then again to strengthen the next law and again and again. Our ultimate goal, total control of handguns, is going to take time. The first problem is to slow down production and sales. Next is to get registration. The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and ammunition (with a few exceptions) totally illegal.”
is the same organization that has rebranded itself as supporters of common sense gun laws. That seems a little less than honest if you ask me. Especially now that they are positioning their goals as anything but disarmament of Americans by trying to advertise their support for The Second Amendment and hunters – despite what you see above is not only their stated goal but also part of what the POTUS is proposing now with Universal Background Checks. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence is a gun control group trying to destroy your Constitutional rights – and lying to you about it.
What about the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (CGSV)? They were known as “The National Coalition to Ban Handguns” until 1989 when it determined that there was a better opportunity to rebrand and expand their focus. Now they could leverage a newly invented term designed to confuse Americans into supporting their cause(referenced in Wikipedia CSGV link above)- because stopping gun violence sure sounds noble. Reasonable people don’t try to prey on the public’s emotions after a national tragedy, do they?
I am a big fan of Facts, Not Feelings when it comes to the debate over civil liberties inalienable rights protected by our Constitution. The same Constitution that states “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Also the same Constitution whose Second Amendment was defined as an Individual Right in the 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller SCOTUS ruling .
Joshua Horwitz from the CGSV sees it a bit differently:
“The concept of a government “monopoly on force” may sound inconsistent with the political traditions of a country steeped in stories of its own revolution, but it is the fundamental organizing principle of any nation-state.”
Hold up Josh- that doesn’t sound like the vision of the Patriots who founded the United States of America. Didn’t they revolt against a government monopoly on force and specifically create a new government that guaranteed against government tyranny? We the People… Does that phrase sound familiar?
In case you were curious the CGSV also brands anyone who doesn’t agree with their views a traitor or insurrectionist (see twitter links here), wants to abolish concealed carry, supports micro stamping
“At the current time it is not recommended that a mandate for implementation of this technology be made. Further testing, analysis and evaluation is required.”( University of California at Davis on Firearms Microstamping).
So what gives? I thought these organizations supplying data and organizing events for the Antis were wholesome, rational groups with an agenda driven by reasonable people for reasonable, moderate policies. The evidence above suggests that these groups are quite the opposite of rational and moderate. How could any sound-minded person agree that these are the people that support “common sense limits and legislation”?