<$BlogRSDUrl$>

Sunday, August 01, 2004

BRADY BILL BOGUS 

A RESPONSE TO NATIONAL SECURITY BY MICHAEL SECORE

Hi.  I found your flyer in the city, and am enjoying your site.  I must, however, point out a small discrepancy in some information contained in one piece.  While it is a small point, it is something that is very powerful and has the potential to shape people's opinions.  Here is the line which I refer to:  "We are constantly warned that terrorist cells are operating within our borders yet the president has done everything in his power to rescind the ban on automatic weapons (the Brady Bill). "
 
I can say with confidence that the Brady bill did not have to do with automatic weapons. It did, in fact, have to do with certain aesthetic features of certain rifles in production.  It was a lame effort to appease those who fear because they are told to.  There were 5 basic points which were identified as constituting an "assault" rifle.  These included a separate handrip, a bayonet or lug to mount one, a flash suppressor, a high capacity magazine of more than 10 rounds, and a folding stock.   The combination of more than 2 of these features was their definition of an "assault" rifle. 
 
If you would like to refer to a piece of legislation that put a restiction on automatic weapons for the civilian market, please see the National Firearms act of 1934. http://usgovinfo.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/ch53.html
 
I had the displeasure of sitting home during the summer of 1994 and watching c-span live when the Brady bill was debated and passed.  It was a truly digusting display of self-serving corporate and political agendas, as well as a sad example of ignorance , both by the legislators and the public at large.  The end of the Brady bill is something to simply ignore as we did the creation of it.  noone will notice a difference in their daily lives without it, just as they noticed no change when it passed.  The Brady bill basically failed to do anything to prevent any sort of crime.  There is no true evidence to support its effectiveness, as it did not stop any criminals.  Criminals don't purchase their guns legally.  It did, however, interfere with a number of purchases by people who were lawfully entitled to purchase firearms.
 
I would like to compliment your publication for doing something to help change the state of things.  I do feel that it is important to state the facts accurately, though.  That said, keep up the good work!
 
-Michael Secore
 
PS  Here is another link I found while researching this topic that may interest you
http://www.jpfo.org/GCA_68.htm

Labels:


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?