A Brady Buzzword is Born: “Common Sense Restrictions”

OK, it’s three words. But you have been served notice: gun control is dead! Long live “common sense restrictions on guns”! The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence’s post-election press release uses the term four times, including this gem from failed Indian senate candidate and Brady Prez Paul Helmke: “On the Democratic side, gun control supporters – Senators Barbara Boxer in California; Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand in New York; Ron Wyden in Oregon, Barbara Mikulski in Maryland and Daniel Inouye in Hawaii won. Richard Blumenthal in Connecticut, Michael Bennet in Colorado and Chris Coons in Delaware were elected to the Senate as well . . .

This shows again that support for common sense gun laws will not hurt candidates at the polls, regardless of political party. A number of candidates running for the Senate who sided with us on the gun issue won.”

Not hurt as in help? Anyway, this euphemization from the same people who self-righteously excoriated the firearms industry for trying to replace the term “assault rifle” with “modern sporting rifle.” The same people who hailed the Supreme Court’s McDonald decision—striking down Chicago’s handgun ban—as a victory for gun control. Damn! I mean, common sense restrictions on guns. And continue to do so . . .

“As a candidate in six primary elections and four general elections in Indiana, I learned that most voters support candidates who stand up for common-sense gun laws,” Helmke said. “Gun owners and even NRA members are willing to vote for candidates who will talk clearly about public safety measures consistent with the reasonable restrictions that the U.S. Supreme Court has made it clear apply to the Second Amendment.”

IMHO, common sense gun control—sorry restrictions—would attempt to prevent criminals and mentally ill people from buying or possessing firearms and . . . that’s it. Common sense says that criminals and mentally ill people are not going to respect any other measures, nor would additional restrictions on legal owners significantly restrict their access to firearms. As we’ve seen in Massachusetts, California and the entirety of the United Kingdom.

Common sense says that the best way to reduce gun crime is to more closely monitor the mentally ill and punish gun criminals. But, as Voltaire said, common sense is not so common.

comments

  1. avatar MKEgal says:

    This misconception about "mentally ill people" is one of the most widespread untruths… about like the "gun show loophole".

    People with brain disorders are allowed to posess tools for effective self-defense just like pretty much everyone else. People who have been _adjudicated_ _mentally_ _incompetent_ or been _involuntarily_ committed to a mental institution are the ones who are restricted from owning or using a gun. That's a much higher standard. Go read a 4473.

    I have seasonal depression. Even with a light box & drugs, winter is a difficult time for me. Not too long after I bought my first pistol I told my shrink about it, expecting she would object. She surprised me. She thought it was a good sign, showing that I value myself enough to protect my life.

    If people with brain disorders are to be prohibited from self-defense, I want people with epilepsy or Parkinson's to be included in the ban. They can't control their body, how can they shoot safely? (I'm only half kidding.)

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email