BradyWatch: oh god think of the children!!!!1!!two

In one of their most hilariously histrionic posts yet, the Brady Campaign quotes from a muddled and thoroughly paranoid Boston Globe column:

Will it really kill legal gun owners if we restrict them to one gun purchase a month? It may kill children if we don’t…. Some gun enthusiasts feel they need to buy more than 12 guns a year. Some parents in our besieged cities know they need fewer guns on the street. We live in a world where we have to find a reasonable balance between those needs.

Ah yes, the most prudent of justifications for restrictions on human freedom: it may kill children if we don’t pass this law! What do they think we are, infants? If preventing children from dying is a sound justification for restrictions and bans, when we ought to outlaw swimming polls and bathtubs, because 781 children drowned in 2007, compared to only 398 at the hands of guns! Don’t take my word for it, see for yourself at that website.

She also touched on the absurdities of looking at the Second Amendment as absolute, and how that translates into defending terrorists’ right to bear arms:

We are now seeing the ridiculous but logical extension of that position in Washington: Incredibly, the NRA is supporting gun rights for suspected terrorists, opposing a federal law that would prohibit people on federal terror watch lists from buying guns.

Notice how they quote her as saying “suspected terrorists” but in their analysis, it’s just “terrorists” they’re talking about. So much for due process! I guess to the Brady Campaign, being put on a secret government list is enough to convict. How liberal of them!

Which begs the question: if people on this secret government list are too dangerous to fly or buy guns, should they really be able to have driver’s licenses? Why not bar them from jobs that involve transporting hazardous materials? Heck, if we’re so sure they’re dangerous, why not just arrest them and be done with it?

There are really two possibilities here: Either the list is mostly correct and people on it really are terrorists, in which case they should be locked up right away, or else the list is a flawed and error-prone, in which case those on it should be treated using the principle of “innocent until proven guilty” just like those Americans accused of anything else.

Me? I’m not sure I like the idea that the government can strip people of their constitutional rights by placing them on a secret list they can’t know about or see, then demand that they prove their innocence and jump through hoops to get off it. It’s one of the most illiberal things I’ve ever heard of, and anyone who supports it ought not only to be ashamed of themselves, but also think long and hard about the possibility of their political opponents getting ahold of the power to put people on that list.

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s