Previous Post
Next Post


“We fought a long, hard battle to pass the Brady Bill with bipartisan support in 1993 and now we simply need to finish the job!” – Sarah Brady in Lawmakers Taking Another Crack at Expanding Gun Checks [at]

Previous Post
Next Post


    • “Simply” finish the job? If it’s so simple why has it taken 22 years? Btw, good luck with that.

    • If there can be national “universal background checks”, then there can be national universal carry reciprocity.

  1. “Damnit, rednecks, there is no ‘slippery slope’! Now slide down to the bottom of this slope so we can…’finish the job…'”.

    These people are Bond villain material.

  2. And if you pass it, and it fails to stop crime (which it would), what next?

    What will be the next gun control measure you propose (that won’t work)? And the one after that (which also won’t work)?

    • Yep! My question would be: since the passage of the Brady Bill, what has been the impact on the ability of “prohibited persons” to obtain firearms, and/or commit crimes with them?

      I am fairly certain that the impact is equal to, or near, zero.

    • What next?

      How about what NOW, the true goal of these grabbers, all of them:

      “Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in.”

      Everything these antis do is oriented toward their ultimate goal so eloquently expressed by Feinstein years ago.

      And that from a person who clearly understands the need for self protection which is why she carried with a CCW years ago. Now she can afford paid security and keep her hands…clean.

  3. Oh look, they’re dragging out poor Gabby again

    Former congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords is returning to Capitol Hill on Wednesday to help kick-start a longshot campaign to expand criminal background checks to all commercial firearms sales.

    Imagine the outrage if somebody on our side toted around a brain-damaged victim to speak on behalf of the cause.

    • expand criminal background checks to all commercial firearms sales

      Here I’ve been doing paperwork and paying for a background check when I purchase from a merchant and I didn’t have to? What store does not do background checks? Here I was being stupid and thought it was illegal already.

    • Imagine her embarrassment when someone explains to her that “commercial” gun sales already require background checks!?!?!?

      She needs to be taken into protective custody and her husband arrested for abusing and manipulating her for personal financial and political gain.

      • In case you have not figured it out, they are playing a “bait and switch” game. They use “commercial” for the people who have no clue to scare the stupid, but if given the chance to write the law, they are talking about “private” sales and they want a bill as bad as the one passed in Washington State.

        This is normal tactic for them.

        • Oh, I been fully aware of that since the ’70s.

          I feel bad for Ms Giffords, she is being abused and used and no one will step in to stop it. Those close to her are in fact ramping it up in hopes of raking in more cash. They don’t really give a f**k about guns or crime, just filling their pockets.

  4. Sarah Brady trying to establish relevance again? Where’s Shannon? I thought she was the “new face” of “gun sense.”

    The anti’s are in the “throw everything at the wall and see what sticks” mode. The have arrived at that point where they are resurrecting an ineffectual “key” player from their movement from OVER TWENTY YEARS AGO.

    Theirs is not a movement with popular support. The message changes daily, the ‘face’ is a constant rotating band of buffoons spouting tired illogic and hailing past failures as partial successes…to ‘finish the job.’

  5. Sarah Brady bought a gun for her son in Dover Delaware against the rules she insisted on, which is basically gifting a firearm to someone else. She told the interviewer about how she chuckled at the thought.
    Ha ha very funny. Almost as funny as using her husband to front an organization dedicated to empowering criminals over us because one criminal committed a crime and essentially got slapped on the wrist for it.

  6. “We fought a long, hard battle to pass the Coercive Acts with bipartisan support in 1774 and now we simply need to finish the job!”

    Um, we who know history know where this is going…which really sucks.

  7. Since 1993 we have 22 more years of data that shows background checks do nothing to reduce violent crime or make communities safer.

  8. This woman needs to be institutionalized. Too bad she was part of the liberal campaign to end institutionalization for those who are clearly a danger to themselves and others, such as her.

  9. Does this head-case realize that commercial sales of any and all types are already covered by existing regs? Do these people even understand the laws they themselves hav pushed into law?

    • Well, yeah. But that was 20 years ago. Those laws are outdated now, no one follows them anymore. This years laws are new and fresh, hip even (do the kids still say hip?). Look forward! Just one life! For the kids!

  10. Why is there an image of a raisin being used for this blog post?

    Oh wait, I get it now.

    The use of the raisin image depicts how gun control dries up liberty into a wrinkly former shell of itself.

  11. Here is a radical thought. Pass laws that actually punish the Perps instead of treating them like victims and the guns like the villains. And after that, actually enforce those laws. Would do much more for lowering violence and crime than blaming inanimate objects for our problems.

    • “Pass laws that actually punish the Perps”

      Where do you live that murder, armed robbery and rape are not ALREADY against the law?

      We don’t need them to ‘pass laws.’ The law is fine. The problem is on the ‘punishment’ side…bed wetting non-prosecution in combination with the revolving door for those that DO get convicted.

      • Well, we can’t afford to house all the criminals with all the people in jail for minor offenses and victimless crimes. Besides, when you send someone to prison it really just grants them a degree at criminal university and they come out that much more effective…I mean, rehabilitated.

  12. If anyone wants to see what Sarah Brady and Handgun Control Inc was up to in Dec 1993, read this document. It isn’t long and is essential for people that weren’t around battling these bastards in the 80s and 90s.

      • That is just… Wow. Just wow. “Estimated 60 billion in damages from firearms” Where do they get that number? Is this counting all the wars in the 20th century? Banning of camouflage clothing? Banning the assembly of more than 4 armed people that aren’t peace officers?

        I see now why they don’t openly push this anymore- With the political climate of today, this would lead to open revolt. Yet what people don’t seem to realize is that they’re still hoping to pass these laws… they’re just taking the long road.

    • I remember HCI and its anti-America crusade. I also remember all they did was a complete failure. As all this current crap will fail. I also remember being called crazy for pointing out HCI’s agenda and its blatant unconstitutionality.

    • Can’t decide which activity is my favorite. The national registry of gun owners, the random police searches or the unlawful assembly of more than 4 people.

      Super sweet police-state stuff.

      • Here is my fave from that:

        “It would be expected that gun groups and lobbying groups such as the NRA would encourage non-compliance. Thus, nationally recognized groups will be technically “organizing to break the law”. Once this can be proven, these groups will be vulnerable to lawsuits based on the RICO statute and drained of their financial resources through repeated legal action.”

    • And the most sobering thing about that list? Their goals remain absolutely the same today.

      Is there any sourcing for that memo? Not that I don’t trust “Varmint Al”…

      • Follow up: after a few minutes with The Google, I can’t find much evidence that the memo is legitimate. The original source appears to be a claim/reference by Gary Kleck (the researcher often cited regarded the prevalence of defensive gun use), who himself apparently said that the memo was “almost certainly a hoax”.

        • Funny, I remember Sarah and her minions spouting that list of “goals” on TV and in newspapers and magazines from the late ’80s into 2000. After a certain point in 2001 they kinda went silent, then picked back up around 2004-5. Sad part is James was trying to protect the President when he was hit, Sarah twisted that into her little America hating jihad. Very sad, indeed.

          • Oh, I have no doubt whatsoever that the memo accurately reflects the goals of then-Handgun Control Inc/now-Brady Campaign. I just can’t find anything that legitimizes this memo as actual meeting minutes of that meeting.

        • Oh, and please do not construe this as a defense of James Brady. He was an early part of the RINO movement which has caused America so much grieve during the last 40 odd years.

        • There are some video interviews out there from the 90s of Feinstein stating the ultimate goal was to ban all the rifles. She also pushed for handgun bans in the 1980s. For some reason, the interviews etc. from the HCI group from the 1980s and 1990s gets cleaned up.

          The stuff at Varmintal is not a hoax. It has been up even before the Assault Weapons ban expired.
          The Hoax is HCI, now The Brady Campaign, is that they want everyone to believe that it is a hoax. That is why they have tried to “reinvent” themselves in the media. HCI was against the NICS until they lost a couple of SCOTUS cases and they had to get on board with it. One major smack down was the Prinz and Mack case against them.

          • The stuff at Varmintal is not a hoax. It has been up even before the Assault Weapons ban expired.

            Again: I am 100% certain that the goals found in the memo are accurate. I merely cannot find any evidence that the memo represents actual minutes of an actual meeting held by HCI.

      • There used to be more things out there, but they liberal sites have hidden them as much as possible. However, a quick review of the history of the gun ban lobby and why the NRA-ILA was formed is very helpful.

        There are old interviews out there of the key players like Feinstein, Holder etc. running their mouths back in the 80s and 90s. The Brady Bill had a couple of set backs with losses before the SCOTUS including the case brought by Sheriffs Prinz and Mack. HCI was against it until then. Now they try and call it “Brady Checks” which is dishonest as all get out.

    • My favorite, hands down, was homes within 1000 ft of schools cannot have guns…

      You know those grader schoolers, they love them some breaking and entering.

  13. I check my gun every time I pick it up, every time before I hand it to someone, again when they hand it back, and before I set it down. I can’t think of any mote checks that need to be done.

  14. I find it disgusting, these people who use a disabled spouse to their own ends, and lively hood.

  15. Come on Sarah stop the lying already.
    You know as well as anyone a sale online at a gun shop or done between a dealer at a gun show has to go through your named after James check.
    You KNOW this.
    If I want to sell my property to my neighbor, brother, or distant cousin. That’s my business NOT yours.
    Criminals don’t buy guns and have a check done anywhere.
    Give up the lying already enough is enough.
    Apparently for you it isn’t.

  16. I don’t know about this specific memo, but I’ve heard some of those bans/restrictions by county size proposed before. Quick number crunching based on 2012 census figures and that 200,000 county population threshold:

    90% of counties have populations of 200,000 or fewer. These 90% of counties have a total population of approximately 106 million, or roughly 1/3 of the U.S.

    That’s reasonable? You may only exercise your rights out in the middle of nowhere, far from even the modest population centers, where two out of three don’t live?

    Try restricting the First Amendment as they want to infringe upon the Second. See how well the NY and LA liberals like that.

    • We see how they would like it all the time, in the form of their mass exodus to “sane” europe that is not and will never be taking place.

  17. Here is a quote from Nelson “Pete” Shields, former leader of HCI until he died.

    The New Yorker,” July 26, 1976, 57-58

    “I’m convinced that we have to have federal legislation to build on. We’re going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily — given the political realities — going to be very modest. Of course, it’s true that politicians will then go home and say, ‘This is a great law. The problem is solved.’ And it’s also true that such statements will tend to defuse the gun-control issue for a time. So then we’ll have to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen that law, and maybe again and again. Right now, though, we’d be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal — total control of handguns in the United States — is going to take time. My estimate is from seven to ten years. The problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns sold in this country. The second problem is to get them all registered. And the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition — except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors — totally illegal.”

    • You beat me to it, Bronco. We like to say (with good reason), that when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns, but they know this, too. They really know that rapists and other criminals don’t care about gun free zones. Their ultimate goal is confiscation, period. If all guns in the country were totally confiscated, it would no doubt reduce gun crime of citizen on citizen (Thank God knives can’t kill people…Oh, wait!). But it would also totally allow for a totalitarian regime to totally repress us. As long as they think they’ll be the ones in charge, with a statist regime in control, they’re fine with totalitarian control of people like “us,” i.e., gun rights groups, libertarians, the Tea Party, and conservatives in general. But the problem for ANY side is that no side stays in control forever, and when you find yourself on the proverbial end of the totalitarian stick, politically speaking, you may just find yourself on the LITERAL end of the totalitarian stick. Or more to the point, the end of a totalitarian gun, holding only a stick yourself.

      That’s the ultimate difference between us and them. Sure, we love our hobbies of collecting and shooting, and we believe in the right to hunt, but the most important right associated with firearms is the right to defend yourself, and even then, the most important right to defend yourself is not even from a burglar or rapist…but from your own government, if it becomes tyrannical. And we believe any negatives associated with firearms are so far outweighed by the positives it’s light vs. darkness. And they believe the opposite. Remember back in the Reagan era when conservatives liked to chant, “Better dead than red!” and “I’d rather die standing than live on my knees!” and the far left chanted the exact opposite in response? That’s still the way it is. And so confiscation is where the rubber meets the road…and we can NEVER forget it.

      • Yours is probably the most effective argument for the non-committed. The Anti’s want to disarm the citizenry because they expect to be in-charge and want to control the masses unwilling to go along with “what’s best for us”. How can they be so sure that someone else won’t ever be in-charge?
        What if it were:
        – big business
        – the Tea Partiers
        – Conservatives
        – Libertarians
        – racists
        – Mexican drug cartels
        – ISIS
        – some threat we’ve never thought of?
        Imagine a dis-armed populace with the best (to say nothing of the worst) of the foregoing in charge. If you aren’t comfortable with the prospect then you have to be really really sure that YOUR “right” people will always remain in-charge.

  18. I’m beginning to think that there is a SUPPLY-side and DEMAND-side to the analysis of “gun-control”. Attempting to control the supply-side is futile if you can’t plug the last hole in the sieve. And, with machine-tools, you can’t plug that last hole.
    So, turn to the demand-side. Can you reduce the demand for guns by criminals? To some extent, the answer is Yes. If you will be: hanged for committing a crime using a gun; life-without-hope when using a knife; and, 50 years when using blunt object, that should tip the demand away from guns and toward blunt-objects.
    Rational people will argue that a common-law crime is THE crime irrespective of whether it is committed with a per-se weapon or strong-arm. (I’m pretty close to this view.) Be that as it may, others may differentiate based on weapon.

    Let’s assume we have an Anti-gun debate partner and an uncommitted audience. Whether it’s rational or not to discriminate among arms, if the Anti-gun people want to do this then let’s follow their preference through to its conclusion. We raise the actual penalty for crime committed with guns. That means, society must ENFORCE this policy decision.

    Assume that (however rational/irrational) society wants to long incarcerate persons convicted of crimes while using guns. Society must persuade prosecutors to not plea-bargain away the gun-aspect of indictments and persuade judges to impose long sentences. To do that, society must either build more prisons or release other prisoners.

    Arguably, the evidence (of plea bargaining, short sentences and early releases) is that society is – in fact – SOFT on crime using GUNS. Society could reconsider and become hard on gun crime. We PotG have no objection to a decision by society to become hard on crime using guns.

    Perhaps the real debate is whether society ought to be more squeamish about sending a:
    – thug to prison for 25 years when “nobody got hurt”; vs.
    – young mother to prison for 3 years because she carried a gun so as to be prepared to defend herself?

    If the Anti’s can’t figure out how to plug the last hole in the sieve, thugs will still use guns when committing crimes no matter how many young mothers are sent to prisons.

    We, the PotG object to criminalizing non-violent benign behavior by law-abiding gun owners; e.g., the young mother.

  19. Sometimes, when I hear Sarah speak or read her writing, I seriously wonder which Brady was actually shot in the head.

    • I’m embarrassed to admit my alma mater considers her a noteworthy alum.

      Needless to say, I don’t send them an effing dime.

  20. Công ty Nội Ngoại Thất Đại Phát cung cấp dịch vụ thiết kế thi công trọn gói
    quán cafe uy tín, chất lượng cùng giá thành cạnh tranh nhất trên thị trường
    tại khu vực TP. Hồ Chí Minh

    Các dịch vụ của chúng tôi.
    – thiet ke quan cafe
    – thiet ke quan tra sua
    – dong quay bar

    Noi Ngoai That Dai Phat
    Hotline: 0931 868 883
    Email: [email protected]

Comments are closed.