The Brady Campaign has chosen to flex their electoral muscle:
The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence today announced they are targeting state legislators who voted against sensible gun laws and electing candidates who will work to pass sensible gun laws to keep dangerous weapons out of the hands of dangerous people.
They are targeting races in the Chicago suburbs. This is where the Brady’s are probably the strongest. If we have them only really fighting on their home turf, that’s a good development. Watch these races closely. If they can’t turn over any races even in the Chicago Suburbs, it’s probably over for them.
UPDATE: Thirdpower has more.
I just saw some pamphlets with a Mike Ditka clone saying Obama will protect his job AND his guns.
How pathetic is it when even the guy you’re trying to “support” is trying to undermine your cause even if only in words, not deeds?
Interesting. They’re focusing on where the safe win for them is. We need to focus where the swing win is for us. For example, Democrats (except for Burdick), here in Oregon aren’t too bad about guns. The State Democratic Party even states as part of their platform that they support the Second Amendment and the Oregon Constitution with regards to these issues. We need to convince these types to stand with us, because they and people like Jim Webb are the only people on the left who can keep this issue alive for us. If they really do end up with strong control of executive, senate, and house, we’re going to have to fight each individual battle hard, and the swing states make a good place for us to win these fights.
…”sensible gun laws to keep dangerous weapons out of the hands of dangerous people.”
This is the kind of statement that always worries me, and gets my hackles up. On the surface, it sounds so right: who could argue with that sentiment? But…those laws ALREADY EXIST:
Theft: ALREADY ILLEGAL
Straw sales: ALREADY ILLEGAL
Possession by felons (dangerous or not):ALREADY ILLEGAL
If you have a decades-old misdemeanor for domestic violence, even if you unwittingly ‘pled out’ to avoid the hassle and expense of a lengthy court proceeding? Yep, YOU CAN’T HAVE A GUN.
Nobody seems to be able to give me a satisfactory answer to just WHAT law, in addition to those already on the books, would be “reasonable”, and “keep daaangerous weapons out of the hands of daaangerous people”.
So, I’m just afraid that phrases like, “sensible(or ‘reasonable’) gun laws”, “common-sense gun-control”, and “reasonable restrictions on the Second Amendment” go right on the mental junk-pile, along with “gun-show loophole”, as utter bullshit, that makes my eyes glaze over and dismiss that person’s argument out-of-hand. To my mind, such a person just wants more government control, for any (or no) excuse at all.