Brady Center is selective about which rights are invalid

[Exbiker]

http://www.mcall.com/news/local/all-...2637420.column
So I asked this: ''Are you saying it was the intent of the Founding Fathers that only the agents of government ... should have the right to bear arms? Are you familiar with the way virtually all of the Founding Fathers defined 'militia?' (They said a militia consisted of citizens not under the control of government.)''

[/dev/null]

From 1-11-09 Morning Call (Allentown, PA local paper)

http://www.mcall.com/news/local/all-...2637420.column


Brady Center is selective about which rights are invalid

Paul Carpenter
January 11, 2009

Several nights ago, during an insomniac episode of channel-surfing, there appeared a documentary on the exodus of theatrical people to Hollywood when tyranny gripped much of Teutonic Europe in the 1920s and 1930s.

That exodus benefited the American film industry immensely. For example, most of the cast of ''Casablanca,'' including those in bit parts, consisted of major film and stage stars who had fled from Europe.

I was particularly interested in director Fred Zinnemann of Austria, who gave us some of our best movies -- from ''High Noon'' to ''From Here to Eternity'' to ''Julia.'' You cannot escape his insights about the way individual courage stands against society's bullies.

Also, in one of my favorites, ''The Day of the Jackal,'' Zinnemann showed how a devout criminal can overcome the most rigid gun controls imaginable.

Paul Carpenter Paul Carpenter E-mail | Recent columns

''High Noon,'' however, is among everyone's favorites, and Zinnemann was quoted as saying that film ''is about a town where democracy has gone soft.''

Zinnemann knew all too well how such things can happen in other countries, but they should never happen in America, which is (or was) a unique bastion of individual, self-reliant grit.

Eastern Pennsylvania, it seems, has become a focal point for people who prefer a softening of both democracy and self-reliance.

A law-abiding woman is fighting efforts by bullies to suppress her rights.

Lebanon County Sheriff Michael DeLeo decided that only the power structure's people have the right to be armed -- the Bill of Rights be damned. So he revoked a gun permit issued to Meleanie Hain after people at a soccer game said they saw her with a holstered pistol.

In October, The Morning Call carried a brief story about Lebanon County Judge Robert Eby ruling that DeLeo had to obey the law and return the permit. In November, another story said Hain took DeLeo to court over his illegal action.

I thought that was that, until two weeks ago, when the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence sent me an e-mail from Washington, attacking Hain for exercising her rights.

Hain ''posed a danger to the community,'' the Brady Center said, and her court action ''has no legal basis and should be thrown out.''

Daniel Vice, a lawyer for the Brady Center, was quoted as saying this: ''It should be obvious to anyone that a civilian bringing an openly carried, loaded semiautomatic weapon to a child's soccer game poses a grave risk to the community.''

I promptly e-mailed some questions to Vice.

I asked if only the agents of government have the right to bear such weapons (as was the case in Zinnemann's Austria). Should everyone, I asked, ''have blind faith in government people and no one else? In view of what we regularly see government people do, would that not strike you as a demented approach?''

I asked if there is something significant about Hain having a semiautomatic weapon. ''Is it not a fact that police officers routinely carry such weapons?''

The Brady Center has argued that the Bill of Rights gives the right to bear arms only to a militia, which now is represented by the government-controlled National Guard.

So I asked this: ''Are you saying it was the intent of the Founding Fathers that only the agents of government ... should have the right to bear arms? Are you familiar with the way virtually all of the Founding Fathers defined 'militia?' (They said a militia consisted of citizens not under the control of government.)''

I asked Vice if he knew of other nations (say, Nazi Germany or modern Mexico) where rigid gun control has worked well. Is there more crime in Switzerland, with its universal right for citizens to be armed, or in a police state like Mexico?

I asked about law enforcement officials violating other specific constitutional rights. ''Will the Brady Center support law enforcement officials who selectively violate free speech, religion, search and seizure, or other enumerated rights?''

That was two weeks ago, but Vice has not yet replied.

If Fred Zinnemann were still alive, I think I know what he'd say about all this.

paul.carpenter@mcall.com 610-820-6176

Paul Carpenter's commentary appears Sundays, Wednesdays and Fridays.

[GunLawyer001]

......

Hain ''posed a danger to the community,'' the Brady Center said, and her court action ''has no legal basis and should be thrown out.''

Daniel Vice, a lawyer for the Brady Center, was quoted as saying this: ''It should be obvious to anyone that a civilian bringing an openly carried, loaded semiautomatic weapon to a child's soccer game poses a grave risk to the community.''
........

Interesting assumptions and qualification there. A "civilian" carrying a gun openly obviously "poses a grave risk to the community". His wording is clearly intended to exclude a cop (actually a civilian as well, but dimwits don't think so) as posing a danger when he carries his loaded semiautomatic weapon openly to a soccer game.

How would one back that up?

Argue that cops who qualify with their weapons once a year are better trained than private citizens who shoot every month? That people who like guns are less competent with them than people who only carry guns because it's a job requirement?

That cops all have perfect personalities and they never run amok or have accidents? Ask Sergeant Drew Peterson's 4th wife about that. Or his third wife. Oops.

That nobody can steal a gun from a woman cop, but it's easy to steal a gun from a woman non-cop? (Check the stats on how many cop shootings involve the cop's own gun.)

Some of the verbal red flags used by Lefties when they have no facts or logic to back up their allegations are "well, it's obvious" and "if you don't get it, then I can't explain it to you." Each of these translates exactly into "I can't back it up at all."

Oddly, I can explain all of my arguments and beliefs, even to people who "just don't get it". The only time I have no argument to make is when I'm wrong. Then I bluff. The anti-gunners bluff a lot.

[/dev/null]

Interesting assumptions and qualification there. A "civilian" carrying a gun openly obviously "poses a grave risk to the community". His wording is clearly intended to exclude a cop (actually a civilian as well, but dimwits don't think so) as posing a danger when he carries his loaded semiautomatic weapon openly to a soccer game.

How would one back that up?

Argue that cops who qualify with their weapons once a year are better trained than private citizens who shoot every month? That people who like guns are less competent with them than people who only carry guns because it's a job requirement?

That cops all have perfect personalities and they never run amok or have accidents? Ask Sergeant Drew Peterson's 4th wife about that. Or his third wife. Oops.

That nobody can steal a gun from a woman cop, but it's easy to steal a gun from a woman non-cop? (Check the stats on how many cop shootings involve the cop's own gun.)

Some of the verbal red flags used by Lefties when they have no facts or logic to back up their allegations are "well, it's obvious" and "if you don't get it, then I can't explain it to you." Each of these translates exactly into "I can't back it up at all."

Oddly, I can explain all of my arguments and beliefs, even to people who "just don't get it". The only time I have no argument to make is when I'm wrong. Then I bluff. The anti-gunners bluff a lot.

Im right there with you Phil... guess I should have prefaced "what a load of liberalist crap" the arguments are (that the Brady Center makes). I did however like the fact that Carpenter made a few decent points though - Ill also bet you a box of ammo that that missed the target on the bulk of the population. (on a side note, this paper is so left, adn tough to find stuff in - took me over 5 minutes to find the article buried on page B1)

[LastManOut]

WoW! An honest opinion from a Morning Call reporter. Who'd a thunk it?

[338winmag]

i don't think he will ever get a answer they only like to argue with people who don't know what their rites are.

[God's Country]

Already posted here.

http://forum.pafoa.org/national-11/4...s-invalid.html

[Exbiker]

Already posted here.

http://forum.pafoa.org/national-11/4...s-invalid.html

This thread is 5 hours old the one you refernced is 1 hour old. Mods should combine them.

[bogey1]

Already posted here.

http://forum.pafoa.org/national-11/4...s-invalid.html

yeah but biker was first...

[schr8er2000]

Sent a reply to his edititorial...... this is what I sent him


I applaud your insight on your editorial of Jan 11, 2009 concerning the 2nd Amendment. It is NOT for only government entites but the common people for which this amendment was originally written. It was to protect us from cynnical forces in government that the War of Independence was fought, and to further protect the rights of the citizens, the Bill of Rights was created.

Those that say only law enforcement or military should be armed should look at history to see what happens when the rights are taken away from its citizenary....

Thank you for a TRUTHFUL and unbiased editorial...