Brady Campaign observes Independence Day by lobbying against liberty

July 3, 9:48 AMSt. Louis Gun Rights ExaminerKurt Hofmann

Previous Next

6 comments Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

     Oleg Volk photo

As we approach the day on which we celebrate the birth of our nation--indeed, the birth, in a very real sense, of ordered liberty itself, the Brady Campaign suggests that because of the bigoted evil of a few sick individuals, we must all be made subject to laws constraining that right which shall not be infringed.

There would be no better way to honor the victims of these hate killings than for our elected officials to act now to prevent other families from having to suffer such senseless loss.

We'll get, in a moment, to the Brady Bunch's idea of what kind of "action" we should demand of elected officials, but one might figure it out, without needing to make a very inspired guess.

First, though, let's take a look at all the recent talk about "hate groups."

Bigotry, be it based on race, religion, gender--or anything else--is a disgusting, contemptible behavior.  Hating people for the color of their skin, the way they worship, or their nation of origin is vile and reprehensible.  What it is not, though, is a crime.  Laws against hating people would make Orwell's "thoughtcrime" a reality.  Laws against "hate speech" are little better.  Yes--there are exceptions to the protection of free speech guaranteed by the First Amendment.  Libel, threats of violence, theft of intellectual property, etc. are not protected speech, and I am not arguing that they should be.

The right to say, on the other hand, that some target group is vile, and has not one redeeming feature, and that we should dance with joy whenever a member of that group dies, is protected speech, and should remain so forever.  Anyone who spews such venom should be shouted down and vilified, but that person's right to earn that vilification is sacred.

National Gun Rights Examiner David Codrea points out the alarming fact that even people who carry a good deal of respect in journalistic circles can advocate "rounding up" promoters of "hate speech," before they can "cause" violence, and there has been precious little backlash against it.

As Mr. Codrea says:

I don't know, Bonnie, is it? Who is going to determine who the haters are? And without a Department of PreCrime, who can determine when one of them will kill? Who is going to be doing the round up? Are we going to maybe house them at Gitmo now that we're clearing that place out? Any trials planned in your little fantasy?

Now, the existence of "hate groups" (which are, of course, hardly a new phenomenon), is being used to justify more gun laws.  As Mr. Codrea points out, Jesse Jackson--always a reliable adversary to private gun ownership--was quick to make that case.

Add to this hatred our obsession with guns -- which has reached ridiculous extremes. Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin was disgusted when he said that the banks still "own this place." But the banks have nothing on the gun lobby -- which has cowed Democrats and Republicans from what once was bipartisan common sense.

And now it's the Brady Campaign's turn (pdf file).

These shootings created media shockwaves worldwide, but they should not have been surprising to those familiar with the prevalence of hate groups in America and our loophole-ridden gun laws that make it far too easy for dangerous people to obtain guns. Guns and hate have been a toxic mix in this country for decades, and all signs suggest the combination is getting more dangerous. Over 900 hate groups currently operate in the country, up from 602 in 2000. A recent report (since withdrawn) by the Department of Homeland Security found that “the consequences of a prolonged economic downturn,” as well as “the election of the first African American president,” could “create a fertile recruiting environment for rightwing extremism and even result in confrontations between such groups and government authorities.”

They single out the NRA as bearing some of the responsibility:

Adding fuel to this toxic mix is the incendiary rhetoric of the gun lobby. The National Rifle Association continues to gin up fears of gun owners with false claims that President Obama is intent on taking away their guns.

Oddly, though, the Brady Campaign itself not so long ago trumpeted that Obama's election heralded an era of much more restrictive gun laws (see "We Win, They lose.  Now, Let's Get To Work," or "Barack Obama: I Am Not In Favor Of Concealed Weapons").  Weren't they "adding fuel to this toxic mix," with their "incendiary rhetoric"?

So, as we prepare to celebrate the birth of our free nation, the Brady Campaign continues its relentless lobbying for banning private sales of firearms, rationing the right to buy them, banning useful and hugely popular semi-automatic rifles, and giving the BATFE more money and power with which to abuse gun owners.

I don't think so, Brady Campaign.  Not even if it takes another war against tyranny to stop it.