Please, Stop Lying to Me!

It is apparent to me that since all gun control is proposed as a means to lower the crime rate and yet areas where guns are most severely prohibited have the highest rates of crime, the argument is a failed argument. So, what is the real goal of firearms prohibitionists?

The Brady Campaign voices its main concern as "gun violence" yet seems completely unconcerned about violence committed by other means. Why just gun violence? The same can be said about the Violence Policy Center and a host of other organisations bent on prohibiting the ancient right of free men.

Since the Supreme Court decision DC-v- Heller, Mr. Heller was "allowed" to register his weapon and be issued a license so he may have a firearm in his home to protect himself and his family from gun violence, and violence by other means, at the hands of an uncaring home invader. However it was not that simple. He was not allowed to register the weapon of his choice since it was by a cleverly structured definition a machine gun, but only considered as such by Washington DC authorities, he could not lawfully even possess it and had to settle on a revolver instead of the more utilitarian semi-automatic handgun he had in mind.

Now, Mr. Heller is a "Special Police Officer" in the District of Columbia and while on the job is required/permitted? to carry a firearm in order to fully execute his duties. Now, I ask, what is the real purpose of the gun prohibitionists when the law is used to prohibit handgun ownership of not only a law abiding citizen, but a law enforcing citizen? I can only conclude that the ultimate goal of all gun control schemes is to strip us all of our civil liberties and then, and only then, may one speak of "all we, like sheep."

Oh no! Not this crap again.

Paul Helmke, a contributing writer to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence Blog, and officer of same, wrote a piece of propaganda that would even impress Joseph Goebbels. In fact, without even reading any of his other work I could probably say that as propaganda, they are all just as good. As an aside, I just noticed that Goebbels and Goering have only one word between them in my dictionary. If that has no significance for you read Inside the 3rd Reich.

Back to Paul Helmke. Paul's latest treatise seems to be about how well the Brady Instant Background Check system protects us by having denied 135,ooo dangerous people the ability to purchase a firearm in the last year and from one dangerous person in particular. You should go and read the entire article and then come back here.

http://www.bradycampaign.org/blog/?p=684

Did you read it? Good. Now, I concede that in the one case of Mr. Drew Douglas Grant, whose real name is Andrew Golden, that everything worked like it was suppose to. I think you would agree as well. However, where Mr. Helmke wanders into the deep end of deceit and lies, which is where the entire venture called The Brady Campaign originates, is his insistence that all 135,000 persons denied to purchase a firearm are really the dangerous persons he thinks they are or, rather who he wants you to think they are.

You see, not all Brady Denials are because Joe Criminal, who just got released from Sing-Sing for murder, went into a gun store and tried to buy a gun from a federally licensed firearm dealer and got denied because his background check failed. In this context James Jay Baker, Wayne LaPierre and Richard Gardiner, all spokesmen for the NRA, are correct in the statements they made that Mr. Helmke seems to be calling them on simply because he now has proof that at least one convicted killer did in fact attempt to apply for a concealed carry permit and got caught. Not the same thing as getting denied a gun purchase at a gun store but the background check for a concealed carry permit is the same as that for a gun purchase. Plus the investigation for a concealed carry permit requires checking fingerprints against the FBI finger print database.

Did a light just turn on in your head?

Question 1. Did Mr. Grant already possess a firearm and was just seeking a permit to carry it on his person? If so, did Mr. Grant already "pass" an instant background check to purchase the gun? Or was the gun acquired by other means? In any event Mr. Grant's scheme ended in disaster not because of the Brady Instant Background Check but because of the fingerprint analysis portion of his concealed carry permit application.

Question 2. Does Mr. Helmke realize that it was not the Brady Instant Background Check that busted Mr. Grant? If so, why does he go on and on and on trying to convince you that the Brady Instant Background Checks are all that stand between you and certain death?

I cannot say I know the answers raised by Question 1. But, for Question 2 I can speculate that Mr. Helmke is purposely being deceitful in order to get you to believe things that are not completely true.

Even I, after first reading the article, thought that Mr. Grant's scheme ended with a negative result from a Brady Instant Background Check. I had to read it more than once to realize the trick Mr. Helmke played on me. If you look around the Brady Campaign web site take a few notes and try to substantiate some of the claims they make, especially their statistics. They seem to be a little vague in their sourcing so you may have a hard time of it. I know I did.