The Brady Campaign is pissy about Sarah Palin calling Obama on his extremely well-documented support for all sorts of gun bans. And his Attorney General wants to bring back and make permanent the ban on “assault weapons”. So yeah, there’s a story there, and she’s totally right: he wants to do it but is smarter than to try in this political climate.
But the Bradies want you to know that this is just a bunch of baseless fearmongering:
… guns haven’t been banned in this country and the Constitution, as well as politics, makes it clear that they won’t be banned next year, or any year.
Wait, guns haven’t been banned in this country? Tell that to the residents of Chicago, who are suing their city over it! And what about residents of Washington, D.C., who sued their city over it and won? Heck, what about African-Americans in the south following the Civil War? And what of the Bradies’ own push to ban scary looking rifles they call “assault weapons”? Apparently none of these are really gun bans because they’re not “total”:
Two years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the case District of Columbia v. Heller that total gun bans violate the Second Amendment’s individual right to own a gun in the home for self-defense.
So, to recap: The Brady Campaign is simultaneously arguing that guns can’t be totally banned at the federal level, but also that piecemeal bans against only some kinds of guns, or those at only the state or local level aren’t really bans because they’re not “total,” and hence, guns have never been banned in this country.
This makes about as much sense as arguing that slavery wasn’t really slavery because only the south did it. You see, it wasn’t total enslavement at the federal level, so it was okay if Alabama wanted to do it! In fact, that means there never was any slavery!