This is going to sound insensitive, to say the least.

And you know what? I really don’t give a damn at this point.

As far as I’m concerned, James Brady can go take a rolling jump off a cliff. I’m sorry that he got shot, but for him to use his tragedy and his status as a public figure to advocate for more restrictions on the people who didn’t shoot him or anyone else is just beyond the pale.

And Brady’s argument that Ronald Reagan supported gun control, while true, still has absolutely no merit. Yes, Reagan endorsed gun control while governor of California and while President — and there are those who don’t think he deserved the icon status that has been bestowed on him because of that and who demand a full accounting of that when looking back on him so fondly.

We haven’t even gotten to the shift in attitudes since then, either. Gun control was a much bigger winner in the public’s mind back in the ’80s and the early ’90s; attitudes had shifted so much in the time between 1980 and, say, 2004 that both the NRA and the SAF felt compelled to whitewash Reagan’s anti-gun legacy in the wake of his death. And then there was everything else that happened in those years — for example, the Democrats’ drubbing in the wake of the passage of the 1994 “assault weapons” ban and 48 states having laws allowing for concealed carrying of pistols. One of the reasons Ann Richards lost to George W. Bush in the ’94 Texas governor’s race was her opposition to concealed carry, in fact.

Reading on in that story, I am struck by the thought that getting shot scrambled Brady’s thought processes as well. Going to the Democratic convention to remind them of one of their biggest congressional losses at the polls in history? And to tell them they need to do what caused that, again? All righty then.

(h/t David Codrea)



5 Responses to “This is going to sound insensitive, to say the least.”

  1. Crotalus Says:

    Good. Let him go there and remind people that the Dems are the party of gun control, and that Obama really does want us disarmed.

  2. TomR, armed in Texas Says:

    His goofy wife Sarah probably also helped push his public anti-gun stance.

    • southtexaspistolero Says:

      You’re probably right, Tom. I am sure that at best, he probably didn’t care one way or the other before, though.

  3. Windy Wilson Says:

    He should go talk to them, they are still the party of reasonable confiscation, and they should take his advice to heart and follow it as much as they can. After all,they’re Democrats.

  4. Windy Wilson Says:

    Oh, and criticizing Reagan for being squishy on gun control before all the facts were in is like criticizing the founding fathers because they wrote the Constitution yet owned slaves. In both cases they got the big picture right, and thankfully we’ve been able to roll back both bad situations in the intervening years.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: