Brady: DC gun ownership in DC would endanger Congress

http://www.texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=89&t=18761

The Brady Campaign has posted this mass of hysterical drivel in response to the introduction of H.R. 6691: Second Amendment Enforcement Act by Rep. Travis Childers (D-MS) and currently cosponsored by 49 Democrats and 6 Republicans (if I counted correctly). They also sent a letter opposing the bill to the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Attorney General, and the directors of the FBI and Secret Service.

The bill itself looks pretty good--it brings DC law into line with federal law and preempts much of the authority of the DC government to regulate firearms. As section 3 of the bill says:

Click to expand...

This is old news of course, but it doesn't seem to occur to anyone at Brady that the 2A was put into place for the explicit purpose of endangering congress. Just a theory of mine, but it seems unlikely obamacare would have passed if the thousands of people protesting outside the capital had muskets, let alone "assault rifles and .50 caliber sniper rifles "

Like I said though, just a theory.

PrayingForWar said:

http://www.texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=89&t=18761 This is old news of course, but it doesn't seem to occur to anyone at Brady that the 2A was put into place for the explicit purpose of endangering congress. Just a theory of mine, but it seems unlikely obamacare would have passed if the thousands of people protesting outside the capital had muskets, let alone "assault rifles and .50 caliber sniper rifles "

Like I said though, just a theory.

Click to expand...

I love it and concur!

I disagree somewhat. I think things were set up so that the 2nd was the only defense congress had. With no standing army, the only thing keeping invaders from killing congress and declaring they are in charge was the 2nd amendment in use by the People, who would be grouped into militias.

When the nation was founded, we didn't have a standing army. We had a militia instead. Men 17-45(?) were supposed to respond so many times for training, and were fined pretty heavily if they didn't.

It'd be nice if we went back to that system - our defense budget would be slashed exponentially.

elixin77 said:

When the nation was founded, we didn't have a standing army. We had a militia instead. Men 17-45(?) were supposed to respond so many times for training, and were fined pretty heavily if they didn't.

It'd be nice if we went back to that system - our defense budget would be slashed exponentially.

Click to expand...

And we would promptly be slaughtered by nations who spend enough money to properly train their soldiers in the use of planes and tanks. Beyond a certain point of native talent, the level of proficiency with something--anything--is pretty directly linked to the amount of time spent practicing.

elixin77 said:

When the nation was founded, we didn't have a standing army. We had a militia instead. Men 17-45(?) were supposed to respond so many times for training, and were fined pretty heavily if they didn't.

It'd be nice if we went back to that system - our defense budget would be slashed exponentially.

Click to expand...

I agree with you in principle, as long as the training was rigorous and effective. Times have changed though, soldiers now spend a lot of time in classes learning things not just about their military jobs, but cross training in other areas. The founders were wary that a standing army could be used to subjugate the people. Since we have an army that consists of the people, it's not seen too often. Furthermore, I can't remember all the times I've been bought beers and lunch, or just been thanked by civilians. The people of the US are what makes the country worth serving. The idea of suppressing people seems absurd to me. If they're burning down buildings, setting cop cars on fire, or trashing businesses because they're pissed of about a G-8 meeting or a court verdict that's another thing. Though that would not be suppression since we'd be protecting the lives, interests and property of other civilians.

Flyer22 said:

And we would promptly be slaughtered by nations who spend enough money to properly train their soldiers in the use of planes and tanks. Beyond a certain point of native talent, the level of proficiency with something--anything--is pretty directly linked to the amount of time spent practicing.

Click to expand...

I don't think we'd get slaughtered, if we had proficient riflemen numbering in the tens of millions, all the militaries of the world couldn't invade us and win IMO. I've seen a lot of the world's militaries and they're a joke. I agree though that modern equipment is high maintenance and requires a lot of training and attention. We could not have all the planes, tanks, trucks, missle silos and equipment without a constant force doing upkeep, protection and maintenance, let alone the training.

That said if we had an infantry consisting of all males (eligible) between 18-42, all responsible for maintaining an MBR and issued gear. Who made it through basic training, and showed up for monthly drills. I think we would not have gone this far down the socialist hell hole.

Daylen said:

I disagree somewhat. I think things were set up so that the 2nd was the only defense congress had. With no standing army, the only thing keeping invaders from killing congress and declaring they are in charge was the 2nd amendment in use by the People, who would be grouped into militias.

Click to expand...

I certainly did leave that out didn't I? You're right about that too. Congress had a lot to be afraid of back then. They don't now, and it's clearly causing some bad decisions to be made in DC.

PrayingForWar said:

I agree with you in principle, as long as the training was rigorous and effective. Times have changed though, soldiers now spend a lot of time in classes learning things not just about their military jobs, but cross training in other areas. The founders were wary that a standing army could be used to subjugate the people. Since we have an army that consists of the people, it's not seen too often. Furthermore, I can't remember all the times I've been bought beers and lunch, or just been thanked by civilians. The people of the US are what makes the country worth serving. The idea of suppressing people seems absurd to me. If they're burning down buildings, setting cop cars on fire, or trashing businesses because they're pissed of about a G-8 meeting or a court verdict that's another thing. Though that would not be suppression since we'd be protecting the lives, interests and property of other civilians.




I don't think we'd get slaughtered, if we had proficient riflemen numbering in the tens of millions, all the militaries of the world couldn't invade us and win IMO. I've seen a lot of the world's militaries and they're a joke. I agree though that modern equipment is high maintenance and requires a lot of training and attention. We could not have all the planes, tanks, trucks, missle silos and equipment without a constant force doing upkeep, protection and maintenance, let alone the training.

That said if we had an infantry consisting of all males (eligible) between 18-42, all responsible for maintaining an MBR and issued gear. Who made it through basic training, and showed up for monthly drills. I think we would not have gone this far down the socialist hell hole.

Click to expand...

Just who are you calling a civilian? In this Federation all able bodied men are considered organized or unorganized militia, therefore not civilian.

Flyer22 said:

And we would promptly be slaughtered by nations who spend enough money to properly train their soldiers in the use of planes and tanks. Beyond a certain point of native talent, the level of proficiency with something--anything--is pretty directly linked to the amount of time spent practicing.

Click to expand...

well individuals can spend money on wonderful arms of many sorts, and individuals can train. Heck we can form militias and spend money on plans and tanks as a group to spread the cost out some. Taxes and a strong federal govt are not required for a strong military.

Isoroku Yamamoto, Fleet Admiral Imperial Japanese Navy

"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."

Even without a large standiing army before WW2, the Empire of Japan did not dare attack us directly on the mainland. Now a days, who knows what would happen. Most of the west coast and parts of the east coast are mostly unarmed. A million man strong army who lands anywhere in California will have little resistance.

Daylen said:

Just who are you calling a civilian? In this Federation all able bodied men are considered organized or unorganized militia, therefore not civilian.

Click to expand...

We are ALL civilians. It's not an epithet.

Daylen said:

I disagree somewhat. I think things were set up so that the 2nd was the only defense congress had. With no standing army, the only thing keeping invaders from killing congress and declaring they are in charge was the 2nd amendment in use by the People, who would be grouped into militias.

Click to expand...

You should read more on the founders. They wanted an armed populous for 3 main purposes.

1. To keep congress aware of the consequences of straying off the path of liberty.

2. For the populous to be able to hold off any invasion until an army could be raised.

3. For the people to be able to protect themselves from the criminal element.

PrayingForWar said:

Now a days, who knows what would happen. Most of the west coast and parts of the east coast are mostly unarmed. A million man strong army who lands anywhere in California will have little resistance.

Click to expand...

I agree that if an armed force were to attack the west coast at dawn, they would probably in Denver before sundown, if they go around Az. The east would see them no further than the coastal states, except above Va.

I wanted to add this little tidbit.

When the Republic was founded, most countries would use the military to enforce the laws of that particular nation. That is the reason that they wanted a civilian militia instead of a standing army. That is the reason that the Constitution has no provision for a federal police force of any kind. It does have a provision for the feds to call up the militia to enforce federal laws. That is why I say the FBI, DEA, BATFE, IRS, and now the Dept. of Education, among others, has become the standing army that our founders warned us about.

Of course they never envisioned federal laws as they are today, and the framers never gave them Constitutional authority to pass a lot (probably most) of the laws that they have.

PrayingForWar said:

I agree with you in principle, as long as the training was rigorous and effective.

Click to expand...

Who says it can't be? While I do not advocate mandatory military service, I think having everyone go through a boot camp-esque experience where they learn to handle a rifle would be good overall.

Times have changed though, soldiers now spend a lot of time in classes learning things not just about their military jobs, but cross training in other areas.

Click to expand...

I also understand this. If left alone, people naturally do what we want to do (in a good way). We teach ourselves how to build airplanes, clean guns, etc etc. If there's a way for people to learn something, and someone able to teach that, than there will still be combat pilots, tank commanders, and field engineers, because people would *want* to learn how to do this.

The founders were wary that a standing army could be used to subjugate the people. Since we have an army that consists of the people, it's not seen too often. Furthermore, I can't remember all the times I've been bought beers and lunch, or just been thanked by civilians. The people of the US are what makes the country worth serving. The idea of suppressing people seems absurd to me. If they're burning down buildings, setting cop cars on fire, or trashing businesses because they're pissed of about a G-8 meeting or a court verdict that's another thing. Though that would not be suppression since we'd be protecting the lives, interests and property of other civilians.

Click to expand...

And I do not fault you one iota. One of my best friends is going through TBS with the marines. Whenever I talk with him, I tell him how grateful I am because of what he's chosen to do, and he's even inspired me to join as well.

And besides, as DCKilla said, if mostly everyone had a MBR ready to go, and were trained in its use, than no one would even dare to step foot on American soil. Besides, defenders usually have a 3:1 advantage over attackers, so they would have to bring ~450 million troops (assuming 1/2 population is male at 300 million). China only has 2.3 million (at least from what they've told the world)

rodbender said:

You should read more on the founders. They wanted an armed populous for 3 main purposes.

1. To keep congress aware of the consequences of straying off the path of liberty.

2. For the populous to be able to hold off any invasion until an army could be raised.

3. For the people to be able to protect themselves from the criminal element.


I agree that if an armed force were to attack the west coast at dawn, they would probably in Denver before sundown, if they go around Az. The east would see them no further than the coastal states, except above Va.

Click to expand...

Can you cite any historical documents that reflect those three purposes stated? I'm not trying to offend you, I just want to read the actual document where those were discussed.

rodbender said:

The east would see them no further than the coastal states, except above Va.

Click to expand...

You really think they'll get very far in Maine/New Hampshire/Vermont?

Not all of New England is bereft of a well-armed populace.

rodbender said:

You should read more on the founders. They wanted an armed populous for 3 main purposes.

1. To keep congress aware of the consequences of straying off the path of liberty.

2. For the populous to be able to hold off any invasion until an army could be raised.

3. For the people to be able to protect themselves from the criminal element.

Click to expand...

sonoran_Tj said:

Can you cite any historical documents that reflect those three purposes stated? I'm not trying to offend you, I just want to read the actual document where those were discussed.

Click to expand...

Try reading the notes that were taken during the framing of the Constitution (there was no official record kept), the ratification debates of the states, the debates on the writing of the Bill of Rights, and ratification debates of the same. The federalists and anti-federalists papers won't hurt either, although a lot of this was opinion.

That's a good start. I don't have any internet cites for you. Mine are all in very expensive books that get into a lot of detail. These books include no or little opinion by the authors. If the author did give an opinion, I ignored (actually redacted) it because I wanted a pure look at what the framers had to say. Also find founding fathers and framers quotes on the constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Something else you may want to look into is the meaning of words at the time of the framing. The two most important words in the Constitution that have changed meanings is "regulate" and "state".

Regulate meant "to make regular" or "to make even", not "control" as it is commonly used today.

State meant, in a plain and simple word, "country or nation", and nothing else. It did not refer to "a subdivision of a country", at all, as it does now.

This is from a dictionary dating back to 1790.

Yes, we are a federation of 50 different countries.

The federal government is a child of the "states" and it has become unruly. It is time for the 50 "countries" that are suppose to be running this federation to take this unruly child behind the woodshed.

My book will be finished soon and it will have a lot of footnotes in it for everyone to check out. Just hope I can find a publisher.

hightecrebel said:

You really think they'll get very far in Maine/New Hampshire/Vermont?

Not all of New England is bereft of a well-armed populace.

Click to expand...

Yes, only because they will probably cut that part of the federation off (through Maryland, New York, New Jersey and Massachusetts) then concentrate their efforts on these states to keep from having to deal with 2 fronts. They will have D.C. in no time. There will not be much resistance from the populous through these states.

The fact that CHP holders are allowed into the General Assembly (the oldest legislative body in North America) in VA, as well as several other states' legislative bodies, makes it a hollow argument.

paramedic70002 said:

The fact that CHP holders are allowed into the General Assembly (the oldest legislative body in North America) in VA, as well as several other states' legislative bodies, makes it a hollow argument.

Click to expand...

Could be why Virginia has some of the most friendly gun laws:

"Mr. Speaker, I'd like to introduce legislation to restrict guns in the fol....."

*click* *click* *click* *click* *click* *click*

"Mr. Speaker, I'd like to withdraw my bill."