A study in inconsistency

[Guest TheMikeSC]

I'm not sure anything more needs to be added:WASHINGTON - Gun-control advocate Sarah Brady bought her son a powerful rifle for Christmas in 2000 - and may have skirted Delaware state background-check requirements, the New York Daily News has learned.

 

Brady reveals in a new memoir that she bought James Brady Jr. a Remington .30-06, complete with scope and safety lock, at a Lewes, Del., gun shop.

 

"I can't describe how I felt when I picked up that rifle, loaded it into my little car and drove home," she writes. "It seemed so incredibly strange: Sarah Brady, of all people, packing heat."

 

Brady became a household name as a crusader for stricter gun-control laws after her husband, James, then the White House press secretary, was seriously wounded in a 1981 assassination attempt on then-President Ronald Reagan.

 

Brady writes in "A Good Fight" that the unnamed gun shop ran federal Brady Law and Delaware state background checks with great fanfare.

 

The book suggests that she did not have her son checked, as required by Delaware state law.

 

"(W)hen the owner called in the checks, it seemed to me he spoke unnecessarily loudly, repeating and spelling my name over and over on the phone," Brady writes.

 

Amy Stillwell, a spokeswoman for The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said the federal Brady Law does not require background checks for intrafamily gun gifts.

 

Stillwell said she did not know whether her son was checked under the state law. The Delaware Department of Justice says the state does not have an exemption for family gifts.

 

"Scott is not a convicted felon, and he is not prohibited from owning a gun," Stillwell said. "Scott Brady could walk into a store and buy a - he is not a prohibited purchaser."

 

Delaware Justice Department spokeswoman Lori Sitler said the purchase could be illegal under state law if Brady did not also say who she was buying the gun for and submit his "name, rank and serial number" for a full check.

 

"You can't purchase a gun for someone else," Sitler said yesterday. "That would be a 'straw purchase.' You've got a problem right there."

 

Anti-gun control advocates were surprised to hear of Brady's foray into their world.

 

"We hope that it's innocuous and there's been no laws violated," said James Jay Baker, chief lobbyist for the National Rifle Association. "It's obviously interesting that Sarah would be purchasing firearms of any kind for anybody, given her championing of restrictive guns laws for everyone."

 

 

 

As usual, we get the "do as I say, not as I do" mentality in the world of "doing public good"

                -=Mike

[Guest kkktookmybabyaway]

You forgot one thing:

 

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA!

 

There we go.

[Guest Frank Zappa Mask]

Guns suck, and when you put them in the hands of people who suck, you've got problems......

[Guest TheMikeSC]

Guns suck, and when you put them in the hands of people who suck, you've got problems...... >>

 

 

Guns aren't the problem.

 

They never were.

 

The people who use them illegally are the problem.

 

I just find it funny that one of the leaders of the gun control brigade herself doesn't follow the strictest interpretation of the law.

                       -=Mike

 

...Well, this does show that the answer isn't MORE gun control laws---it's enforcing the ones we have.

[Guest kkktookmybabyaway]

Guns suck? Actually, they shoot bullets last time I checked.

[Guest]

Wow, that's almost as funny as the time that G.W. Bush campaigned as a free-trade advocate and then imposed import restrictions and tariffs on steel to prop up a non-competitive and outdated American industry just because it happens to be centered in swing states.  Or the time that Bush claimed he and his administration weren't all that close to the "folks" at Enron (like "Kenny Boy" Ken Lay) despite the fact that Lay met with Bush many, many times over his lifetime, Enron was the largest single contributor to any of his political campaigns, and Lay himself met with Dick Cheney SIX TIMES to "help formulate" (i.e. write) the Bush administration's energy policy.

[Guest J*ingus]

This is a gun control thread Hash, take those arguments elsewhere.  (And Mike, don't encourage him!)  

 

In general, I don't think that gun control works at all.  Studies show that in around 90% of crimes committed with firearms, the guns were obtained illegally anyway.  More restrictions won't stop more crimes.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

Wow, that's almost as funny as the time that G.W. Bush campaigned as a free-trade advocate and then imposed import restrictions and tariffs on steel to prop up a non-competitive and outdated American industry just because it happens to be centered in swing states.

 

 

It's terrible.

 

 

Or the time that Bush claimed he and his administration weren't all that close to the "folks" at Enron (like "Kenny Boy" Ken Lay) despite the fact that Lay met with Bush many, many times over his lifetime, Enron was the largest single contributor to any of his political campaigns, and Lay himself met with Dick Cheney SIX TIMES to "help formulate" (i.e. write) the Bush administration's energy policy.

 

 

Of course, Enron got---well, what exactly---for their money?

 

I could mention how the lead advocate of campaign finance reform has been involved in two SERIOUSLY questionable financial dealings (the Keating Five AND Global Crossing), yet he's the "pure" one.

                   -=Mike

 

...And it still doesn't excuse Sarah Brady not living by the laws she champions.

[Guest]

Never said Mrs. Brady wasn't amiss to begin with (although I take more issue with her giving her kid a gun to begin with).  And I hardly think that the issue Mike was trying to raise was gun control, Jingus.  This is not a substantive development in the gun control debate, it's just an ad hominem cheap shot at a gun control advocate intended to stand in for gun control advocates (and liberals in general).  As for gun control as an issue, I can only point to any set of statistics comparing gun deaths in the U.S. vs. any other developed country to conclude that only stupid people own guns.  

  Oh, Mike, don't even get me started on what Enron got for their money...

[Guest J*ingus]

No, there are just a lot more people who HAVE guns in this country, period.  In the majority of developed countries, it's illegal to own pistols, and in some it's illegal to own firearms at all.  Of course, that just makes sure that criminals have guns while citizens don't.  

 

Do stupid people own guns?  Sure.  I've heard all kinds of "how some idiot shot somebody" stories.  But stupid people also drive cars, and there are easily a thousand automobile deaths for every gunshot death.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

Never said Mrs. Brady wasn't amiss to begin with (although I take more issue with her giving her kid a gun to begin with).  And I hardly think that the issue Mike was trying to raise was gun control, Jingus.  This is not a substantive development in the gun control debate, it's just an ad hominem cheap shot at a gun control advocate intended to stand in for gun control advocates (and liberals in general).>>>

 

 

Absolutely. She wants to forbid people from owning guns (and, let's be honest, that is her goal)---but she will skirt THE LAWS SHE SUPPORTS to buy her son a gun.

 

It is unspeakably hypocritical. Unspeakably so.

 

 

<<<As for gun control as an issue, I can only point to any set of statistics comparing gun deaths in the U.S. vs. any other developed country to conclude that only stupid people own guns.>>>

 

 

Israel owns more guns per capita than us, yet far fewer gun-related murders.

 

And, please note, that any time a totalitarian state wants to consolidate its power, they ban the guns first.  

 

 

<<<Oh, Mike, don't even get me started on what Enron got for their money... >>>

 

 

They got approximately squat.

 

Clinton's administration gave them FAR more.

                    -=Mike

[Guest TheMikeSC]

Never said Mrs. Brady wasn't amiss to begin with (although I take more issue with her giving her kid a gun to begin with).  And I hardly think that the issue Mike was trying to raise was gun control, Jingus.  This is not a substantive development in the gun control debate, it's just an ad hominem cheap shot at a gun control advocate intended to stand in for gun control advocates (and liberals in general).>>>

 

 

Absolutely. She wants to forbid people from owning guns (and, let's be honest, that is her goal)---but she will skirt THE LAWS SHE SUPPORTS to buy her son a gun.

 

It is unspeakably hypocritical. Unspeakably so.

 

 

<<<As for gun control as an issue, I can only point to any set of statistics comparing gun deaths in the U.S. vs. any other developed country to conclude that only stupid people own guns.>>>

 

 

Israel owns more guns per capita than us, yet far fewer gun-related murders.

 

And, please note, that any time a totalitarian state wants to consolidate its power, they ban the guns first.  

 

 

<<<Oh, Mike, don't even get me started on what Enron got for their money... >>>

 

 

They got approximately squat.

 

Clinton's administration gave them FAR more.

                    -=Mike

[Guest]

Are you shitting me?!  Do you honestly believe that six fucking meetings with the Vice President on the subject of US energy policy, the appointment of half of their board of directors to Federal positions that the fact that none of those fuckers on the board of directors will ever go to jail or pay a single cent of the millions they stole from their shareholders through illegal short-selling and insider trading is squat?!  The GAO finally got a fraction of what it requested re: the development of the Bush/Cheney energy policy, and it's all right there in black and white.  If you can't see that you aren't just a party hack, you're fucking retarded.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

Are you shitting me?!  Do you honestly believe that six fucking meetings with the Vice President on the subject of US energy policy>>>

 

 

Hmm, they were formulating an energy policy (something neglected for the past few years). Enron, at the time, was a highly-respected energy firm. Gee, why would THEY be included in any discussions?

 

It'd be like discussing the automotive industry without having GM involved in any way.

 

 

<<<the appointment of half of their board of directors to Federal positions>>>

 

 

If you can name one who is not qualified for their position, you MIGHT have a case---nah, you probably wouldn't have one then, either.

 

 

<<<that the fact that none of those fuckers on the board of directors will ever go to jail or pay a single cent of the millions they stole from their shareholders through illegal short-selling and insider trading is squat?!>>>

 

 

Yup. It was a corrupt company that the WH quickly distanced itself from when the problems came to light.

 

If they bailed out Enron, then you might have a point.

 

 

<<<The GAO finally got a fraction of what it requested re: the development of the Bush/Cheney energy policy, and it's all right there in black and white.>>>

 

 

The GAO had no right to request what they ended up asking for.

 

 

<<If you can't see that you aren't just a party hack, you're fucking retarded.>>>

 

 

Pot, meet kettle.

                   -=Mike

 

...People who resort to profanity aren't intelligent people.