Across the country, at least 62 police officers have been gunned down this year -- a record pace, said Robert Tessaro, the associate director for law enforcement relations for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.
As a result, the Brady organization supports police officers arming themselves with high-powered weapons "to protect themselves and their communities," he said.
"We're having more than one officer shot and killed a week. It's just outrageous that officers are being targeted," he said. "It's something I think all Americans should be outraged about."
He doesn't seem to be too outraged about law-abiding citizens being murdered in much higher numbers by criminals mind you- shouldn't Americans be outraged that they are in many instances being denied their Constitutional right to keep and bear arms and are therefore being made defenceless against criminals?Obviously if it's okay for cops to use carbines for defence against armed criminals, the Bradys can make no objection to law-abiding citizens from taking exactly the same steps to defend their lives and those of their families. I mean, to suggest otherwise is to state that police lives are more important than those of civilians- an untenable position.
Furthermore, by recognising that firearms are essential for police to use to defend themselves against armed criminals they are, whether they like it or not, also stating that the only defence against an armed criminal is to be armed oneself. They decry the number of police officers killed- a paltry 62 compared to a much higher number of innocent civilians killed by criminals (to compare- in 2005 there were a little under 17,000 homicides overall)- and so logically they must see that their campaign to disarm the law-abiding merely removes their only effective means of defence against vicious thugs. If the Brady Campaign feels the need to speak out and support officers arming themselves after only 62 deaths, there there is no way they can logically refuse to speak out for the average citizen to arm themselves when there are nearly 17,000 murders a year.
Or does logic not even enter into their thinking?
If the Bradys are advocating that the police- who respond to the commission of crimes- need to be armed with rifles to protect themselves against criminals, they how on Earth can they not see too that civilians, the victims preyed upon by criminals in the first instance, should also be armed? Are they saying that it's okay for innocent men, women and children to be made defenceless against assault, rape or murder but it's not okay for the police responding to the crimes being committed (with their body armour, partners, radio communications, SWAT back-up, side-arms, shotguns and now carbines) to be left without sufficient means to defend themselves?
Consider too that while 62 police officers have regrettably lost their lives, civilians are also victims of other violent crimes- care to compare the stats for police officers raped to the number of civilian women for example? Do the Bradys really want to see women made defenceless against rapists but the officers called after the crime has taken place to be carrying "high powered weapons"- will those rifles or carbines serve to protect a woman assaulted like that after the fact? The answer, of course, is a resounding "no". And to suggest that only police officers have the right to carry appropriate weapons to defend themselves with, while at the same time trying to deny that facility to civilians, the targets of those criminals in the first place, is utterly and completely preposterous. I'd even go so far as to say that it's evil- because by doing so, the Brady Campaign is deliberately and with full knowledge of the consequences of their actions not only trying to subvert the US Constitution but also to deny human beings the right to protect themselves and their families from predators.
The monsters aren't just those who beat, rape and murder but those who aid them by providing a pool of defenceless victims to prey upon.
3 comments:
Your post is absolute rubbish. The article was specifically about law enforcement, not civilians, so how can you say Brady doesnt care about them. To say they dont care about civilians is idiotic. They want all assault weapons off the street. Gangs and drug dealers are targeting each others and cops with assault weapons. A civilian having an ak47 vs a gang would make no sence. Might as well let them have a sling shot. Let cops have the tools to take away these guns. Assault weapons and high capacity clips are legal, and cops are continuing to ask for them to be banned because of how they are impacting their communities. Yes, bad guys ar getting them from people who buy them legally. Make it harder for them to get.
By the way, the article doesnt mention that last year mor cops were assualted with a firearm then in the past 10 years. More then 2,200.
One more thing, Brady has never been against the 2nd ammendment, they dont advocate banning guns. Get your facts straight before you post.
Let's begin with your last statement- the Bradys do in fact advocate banning guns;
"military-style assault weapons like Uzis and AK-47s, and .50-caliber sniper rifles,"
Semi-automatic rifles of a certain appearance then, and .50 cal rifles are on their list of guns that "should be out of bounds for private ownership".
In other words, they want to ban them. Get what facts straight did you day?
Next up, go to the Bradys website and have a look at their article on the 2nd Amendment- http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/issues/?page=second - they essentially argue that it means nothing and does not guarantee an individual right to keep and bear arms. Which sounds an awful lot to me like they are against the Second Amendment.
In other words, they see no obstacle in their path to banning any kind of gun. Do you think they would shut up shop if a permanent ban were put in place on "assault weapons"? Seriously? Or would they then begin to focus on another type of firearm? Handguns maybe, I'm sure the Bradys will argue that no one needs a 1911 to hunt with.
The Bradys are also opposed to people carrying guns- CCW- in effect making them vulnerable and defenceless in the face of criminals while not in their homes. But they want cops to carry carbines when they might have to respond to a crime? Can you honestly not see the disconnect in logic here- ordinary men and women cannot be allowed to carry guns to defend themselves from predatory criminals, who target not uniformed police but civilians, but cops must have side-arms, shotguns, carbines, SWAT back-up, etc, etc?
"The Brady Campaign believes there should be strict limits on public carrying of concealed handguns. "
http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/issues/?page=ccw
Seems pretty obvious to me that the Bradys do not value the lives of civilians (by denying them the right to defend themselves against criminals) as highly as those of police officers (give them more powerful guns).
Do you not believe that men and women should be allowed to use guns, for example a concealed revolver or pistol, to defend themselves? How else is a young woman or an elderly or infirm man able to defend themselves against one or more young and aggressive men? Do you think that they are better placing themselves at the whim of violent thugs who might do anything to them?
Next, why does a home-owner defending his family from criminals (for example, a gang of armed home invaders) with an AK-47 make no sense? Do you honestly think that the criminals would turn tail and run at the sight of a sling-shot or would they carry on their way, perhaps murdering the family in the process?
Why do you assume that a civilian cannot defend his home and family with a firearm? Would you rather the father was murdered, his daughter raped and his wife beaten just so that the police can turn up after the fact and lament what happened?
This is what it comes down to- people have the right to defend themselves from violent and armed criminals and the best way of doing so, as the Brady Campaign has admitted by backing the police obtaining more powerful weapons, is to have an appropriate firearm. Why shouldn't a woman living alone arm herself with an AR-15- it's a short, handy weapon and carbines are easier for many people to use than are handguns.
"Cops are being trained on semiautomatic weapons, which fire a single shot at a time and are more accurate. Some semiautomatic weapons can fire with pinpoint accuracy from as far as 100 yards away. The magazines used by law enforcement typically carry 20 or 30 rounds, adding to the ability to better respond under fire."
The Bradys are in favour of the above for cops- so why try and deny that same package to a civilian?
"the Brady organization supports police officers arming themselves with high-powered weapons 'to protect themselves and their communities...'"
These are the same zealots who consciously made a political mantra out of the phrase "assault weapons have no social utility; they are specifically designed to kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible." (http://www.gunlawsuits.org/features/articles/sellerconduct.php)
Then they encouraged their allies (like John Rosenthal, Mayor Daley, Josh Sugarman, Luther Harshbarger, William Bratton, Diane Feinstein, John Kerry and others) to repeat this phrase verbatim in any public commentary they made about the "assault weapons" ban. (Just Google "assault weapons" "people as possible".)
But wait -- isn't protecting oneself and one's community a major form of "social utility?"
More proof that the Brady Bunch can be counted on to be lying about guns whenever their mouths are moving.
Post a Comment