The Brady Campaigns new tactic (from earlier this year)

[eqfan592]

I'm not sure if this made it's way around here earlier this year (I fell off the political radar for most of the year as I helped my now wife plan our wedding :D).

Here is an interesting excerpt from an interview that Brady Campaign legal director Dennis Henigan did, back in Feb. I believe, when speaking on a D.C. circuit court ruling.

"The Second Amendment is the only provision in our Bill of Rights that actually states its own purpose. It says "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed""

Note what Mr Henigan neglected to include while quoting the amendment. It's almost like he (and the campaign) must exist in a state of denial over the true intentions of the 2nd Amendment, and in order to do so, they have simply blocked the "offending" text from their mind, and act as if it never existed.

It could easily be written off as a "simple" slip up, but I really think it goes beyond that for some of these people.

Anyway, sorry if I'm dredging something up that was talked about earlier in the year, but I just stumbled across it and wanted to share it just in case it was missed here.

[MrModerate]

1. I'm assuming you redeemed your coupon for a free year's supply of tinfoil already?

It's "almost like" you're pulling notions directly out of thin air. Henigan's remarks don't need any conspiracy theory sauce to spice them up.

He thinks that (and these are my own words, because I don't want to put words in someone else's mouth) the second amendment is open to interpretation regarding the extent to which personal firearm ownership and use can be controlled by law.

This is not exactly breaking news, and wouldn't be if he had made the remarks yesterday.

[eqfan592]

5. wow, condesending much?

I understand the point that the Brady Campaign is trying to make, but this is an example of them trying to make their point by specifically omitting pieces of information that contradict their viewpoint. And in this case, that piece of information is a key phrase out of a specific amendment in the bill of rights.

Common practice? Yes. But does that make it right and mean they shouldn't be called out on it? I guess according to you, it does. And since I don't agree with you, I must need a tin foil hat. Yep, makes sense I guess!

[MrModerate]

8. You attributed motive without evidence. That earned my condescension.

We can agree on that much.

[eqfan592]

10. I did no such thing

I stated that it appeared, to me, that their belief has worked on them to the point where they omit pieces of information that go against their belief, and I implied that this worked on a subconscious level. I made no statement of conscious motive on the part of the speaker.

[MrModerate]

13. "Subconscious," eh? I think you need to get another coupon.

They're generally available in the Sunday edition of your local newspaper.

[eqfan592]

14. If you say so, buddy.

Thinking that somebody may have a subconscious denial of aspects of reality that go against a personal belief system isn't really "tinfoil hat" worthy in my book (especially when you look at religious zealots, which are in the same family as anti-2a zealots like the Brady Campaign), but then again, I've seen some of your other posts around here. Me thinks you make plenty use of those coupons yourself, leaving none for the rest of us. ;)

[MrModerate]

15. My point is that you're making what is at best a completely unsupported assumption . . .

On a subject that appears to be outside your area of expertise (subconsious motivations), and spinning it up into an explicit and diabolical plot to surreptitously forward an agenda of which you don't approve.

While the Brady Campaign certainly makes all efforts to control the message that is its reason for being (even going so far as attempting to restrict access to content they apparently consider unfavorable), what they're up to is very public and very easy to understand without descending into the swamps of supposedly "subconscious" behavior.

As someone once said, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

[eqfan592]

16. I was giving them more credit than you are then.

I figured more people would get enraged if I just came out and stated that I thought the Brady Campaigns idea of good message control was to alter the text of of a constitutional amendment in order to try and support their ideology, which is beyond disgusting at best. Instead, I was giving the guy enough credit to say that his belief worked against him here and pushed that part of the amendment out of his head at that particular moment. And just writing it off as a "slip up" to me seemed far to convenient, but is obviously possible (and really, it kinda falls under the previous category anyway, as I don't really think the guy wanted to leave that part out on a conscious level).

So you said it, not I. The Brady Campaigns idea of message control is simply ignoring certain parts of the Constitution. They should be beyond ashamed of themselves for such a ridiculous and disgusting act. Thank you MrModerate for showing us the truth. :)

EDIT: And honestly, I really think the fact that the Brady Campaign is doing their level headed best to bury this as deeply as possible is actually proof that they did not intend this to be a real part of their message.

EDIT 2: And I think it's best we bring this to a close either way. It's obvious we're not on the same page here.

[rd_kent]

21. You really don't want to let go of that talking point, do you?

The poster makes a valid point. That argument is valid in any subject where one intentionally omits information in order to further their agenda. Tin foils hat time? I think not.

[MrModerate]

24. And I maintain there's no convincing evidence that dropping "of the people" . . .

Was some Luntzian attempt to frame the debate in an underhanded, nefarious way. Or, even more unlikely, that the speaker so despairs of "the people" that he would unconsciously avoid mentioning them.

Much more likely, IMO, is a simple misquote, which the Brady Campaign is trying to suppress precisely because it triggers this sort of reaction among their opponents.

[booley]

2. I am not understanding your point.

Ok so repeating what Henigan said...

"The Second Amendment is the only provision in our Bill of Rights that actually states its own purpose. It says "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed""

And here is the 2nd amendment as written in the constitution:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

So I am not seeing the "slip up" or the insult. It seems a given that when discussing rights, it's meant the people.

Though yes I think the Founding Father's intentions were clear. States still had civilian militias and that was part of thier plan to defend the country if need be. This is supported in the enumerated powers where it discusses Militias.

BTW, do you have a link or any corroboration so all can see the context and what Hennigan said?

[Tejas]

3. Brady filed a brief against Heller

"It seems a given that when discussing rights, it's meant the people."

They were, and still are against the idea that the 2nd is an individual right.

[eqfan592]

4. Exactly.

The Brady Campaign's primary argument is that the 2nd does not protect an individual right. Of course, in order for this to make sense, you have it ignore the part that says "the right of the people," which is, of course, what the person in question did.

[booley]

6. Depends on how you interpret it

First it's hard to know if that's what hennigan meant since I still see no context or any full text to figure out what hennigan was saying. So far I only have people's opinion as to what he meant and what he believes.

But there's also the issue of the militias. Whether meant as a right for an individual or as of the people as a collective, the fact remains that the 2nd was meant for a very specific purpose, to support the militias.

Again this is supported by the constitution in the enumerated powers where it says "To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions and "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress"

and this was reinforced by Miller v California (I think) where the SCOTUS said that one did not have a right to own a double barrel shot gun because it served no purpose in regards to being in a militia. Contrast this with say, the first amendment where one does not have have one's speech serve any particular purpose for it to be protected.

So at best it can be an individual right that has a built in restriction. But I have also seen it reasonably argued that it describes a right of the people as a whole (since there are no one man militias) or a state's right.

And in any event, the current SCOTUS did rule that the 2nd describes an individual right so until that is over turned, this hardly matters.

So first Hennigan was essentially correct in his statement. I fail to see any insult.

And secondly, this seem making a mountain out of a mole hill. Even if he doesn't think it's an individual right, so what?

Oh and I should also point out that it is widely accepted among scholars that "Militia" today means National Guard.

So yes I suppose you do have an individual right to join the National Guard and carry a weapon if you do so as part of your job..

[eqfan592]

7. You're missing the point

First, Hennigan wasn't correct in his statement because HE SPECIFICALLY OMITTED A KEY PART TO THE AMENDMENT WHEN MAKING HIS ARGUMENT.

As for, "widely accepted among scholars that 'Militia' today means National Guard," that statement is simply not true. The National Guard and the militia are TWO TOTALLY DIFFERENT organizations. You can look this up in the US legal code yourself.

But even if it weren't the case, the wording of the amendment itself is pretty damn clear. It's not "the right of the militia" but the "right of the people." It baffles me that people would even attempt to argue anything else.

[AtheistCrusader]

17. Sawed off, not double barrel.

Doubly amusing ruling, since short barreled shotguns are and have been in use by the military for a very, very long time.

[Euromutt]

25. Not at the time of Miller, though

The standard military-issue shotguns at the time--the Winchester M1897 and Model 12, and the Remington M10--had 20" barrels, slightly longer than the minimum length permitted by the NFA. Frankly, Miller would have done everyone a favor if he'd been caught with an M1918A2 Browning Automatic Rifle instead of a sawed-off Stevens 311.

[Euromutt]

18. Where in the Bill of Rights does "the people" refer to a collective, but *not* to individuals?

Is it acceptable for agents of the state to search and seize my person, house, papers and effects without a warrant, provided it's only my person etc. and not those of everybody in the "collective"?

Is it acceptable for agents of the state hinder me and like-minded others in our effort "peaceably to assemble" on the basis that we do not constitute "the people" as a collective whole?

Is it acceptable for agents of the state to hamper me in petitioning the government for redress of grievances if I don't represent the entire people?

The fact is, that when the Bill of Rights speaks of retained by or reserved to the people, it means rights held individually by each member of that collective. The whole notion of a "collective right" is, frankly, idiotic; it's a post hoc rationalization to justify how the state can arbitrarily strip an individual of something that is supposedly a right, while continuing to pay lip service to that right.

[gorfle]

19. But it's not hard to interpret.

But there's also the issue of the militias. Whether meant as a right for an individual or as of the people as a collective, the fact remains that the 2nd was meant for a very specific purpose, to support the militias.

The 2nd amendment in fact speaks to two specific purposes.

First, it speaks to militias that are necessary to free states.

Second, it speaks to the people, whose right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

It is interesting and important to note that the founders specifically said it was the people's right to keep and bear arms that shall not be infringed, not the militias' right to keep and bear arms.

and this was reinforced by Miller v California (I think) where the SCOTUS said that one did not have a right to own a double barrel shot gun because it served no purpose in regards to being in a militia.

To be pedantic, the Miller case concerned "sawed-off" shotguns, not double-barrel shotguns.

Contrast this with say, the first amendment where one does not have have one's speech serve any particular purpose for it to be protected.

This is not so. For example, you cannot use your free speech to serve the particular purpose of inciting a panic, by yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater, for example. All rights, even Constitutionally enumerated ones, are understood to have limits.

Oh and I should also point out that it is widely accepted among scholars that "Militia" today means National Guard.

I reject such suggestions. The intent of the militias was to provide for decentralized military forces capable of eliminating the need for, or at least being able to counter, federal military forces. They were the military analog of all the other checks and balances our founders built into our government.

Since the militias were federalized in 1903, this effectively usurped the power and ability of those militias to counter federal military power, as they now are federal military power.

Moreover, the Dick Act of 1903 provided for both the Organized Militia (National Guard) and the Unorganized Militia, all able-bodied men aged 17-45 not otherwise in the National Guard.

[X_Digger]

9. Bwahaha!

Do you have a better cite for that?

Searching on that phrase explicitly, it comes up a few times..

There is probably less agreement, more misinformation, and less understanding of the right to keep and bear arms than any other current controversial constitutional issue. The crux of the controversy is the construction of the Second Amendment to the Constitution, which reads: "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." In addition to the five decisions in which the Supreme Court has construed the Amendment, every Federal court decision involving the Amendment has given the Amendment a collective, militia interpretation and/or held that firearms control laws enacted under a state's police power are constitutional. Thus arguments premised upon the Federal Second Amendment, or the similar provisions in the thirty-seven state constitutions, have never prevented regulation of firearms.

--American Bar Association
Background Report on
Firearms Control

Also the original brady link (now dead) appears to be- http://www.bradycampaign.org/bradyreport/2007/may/front/

(looks like a 2007 link, so he may have been conveniently leaving out 'the people' for a while now.)

[eqfan592]

11. The Brady Campaign has done a good job putting a lid on this.

I do have a link to a website where the video has been posted.
http://www.icarry.org/ftopict-1903.html
This is a forum for people in Wisconsin and Illinois that support concealed and open carry rights in those states.

[X_Digger]

12. Another examiner link..

They're scrubbing the interwebz to try to make that video go away ;)

http://www.examiner.com/x-2581-St-Louis-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m11d12-The-Brady-Campaign-against-their-own-words

[gorfle]

20. I watched the video, and I can say.

I watched the video, and I think I can pretty safely say this was no innocent screw up or mis-quoting. This guy had very obviously memorized and prepared exactly what he wanted to say.

You can talk about militias all you want, but in the end, it is the right of the people to keep and bear arms that shall not be infringed.

[X_Digger]

22. Agreed..

Seems this guy has been trying to put his spin on the second amendment since at least 2007. Search for that exact phrase and you'll find a brief from NATIONAL COALITION TO BAN HANDGUNS from.. get this.. 1981.

[eqfan592]

23. Wow, how doesn't this ring alarm bells for some people?

People who have supported the Brady Campaign and are even remotely rational should have alarm bells going off like crazy with something like this. These sort of tactics are what we'd expect out of the worst kind of conservative radio/tv talk show host. How can people support this at all? It really just blows my mind.