Sarah Brady tips the Deck:

Most of my friends, and readers are none too surprised that the Brady Campaign (to End Gun Violence) uses quite a bit of misstatements, false statistics, and fearful rhetoric.

Now the Brady Campaign’s mission, as far as they will tell you, is all about “sensible” gun laws, and that they are NOT a “gun ban organization”.  Their Presidents (they have a new one every couple years) have all made statements that the Brady Campaign “respects gun owner’s rights” and does not want to ban all guns.  They have made statements supporting the right to carry, as long as the person has had training, and a background check.

I’ve never trusted their statements to reflect their true motives, and yesterday, Sarah Brady sent out an email that only validated my suspicions:

Here dear old Sarah tips the deck.  It is rare that a member ( and a Board Chair at that) revels their true desire to ban all guns, and civilian carry of guns.
The Brady Campaign often praises states that have background checks and training requirements.  They also favor states that have “may-issue” laws that limit the carry of privileged civilians, like well, government officials.

I would bet the farm that even in places that are extremely prohibitive with civilian carry of handguns, like California, a Governor, and most other government officials, would would have no trouble getting a permit to carry, in compliance with state law.

In Texas, in order to receive a Concealed Handgun License, the applicant must have completed training from a state approved trainer, complete a proficiency test, and pass a background check.  Governor Perry would have completed all of these steps prior to obtaining his permit.

Governor Perry did not make any radical “pro-gun” statements.  When asked if he carried, he replied honestly, and admitted that he kept it concealed.

Given Brady’s past statements, you would think that a high profile citizen who went through training, a background check, competency test, and was approved by the state would be “Brady Approved” to carry.  Instead, we get this:

Only an egotistical extremist would carry a loaded weapon into a crowd

I wonder if Police Officers, Private Security, Secret Service, and Military are “egotistical extremists”. I wonder if Brady would have condemned Gabrielle Giffords as an extremist, should she had been able to defend herself.  I wonder if the Brady Campaign will stop the facade that they will be content with anything less than the complete disarming of society.  (Which of course would mean that only the police, and criminals will have guns.)

Thank you Sarah Brady for finally bringing to light what we all knew all along.  You will not be content with any law abiding citizen being armed.