This is for those who think the Brady bill is still in effect as some have posted. It ran out in 2004 and Congress refused to reinstate it.The Brady family was all over pleading with them to pass it again. Brady in his wheel chair with his wife pushing him.
You are misrepresenting the facts and the law.
The Brady
ACT (once a Bill becomes law it is called an Act) remains on the books. The only part of the Brady Act that is not in force now is the 5 day waiting period which was replaced by the Instant Background Check in 1998.
The "Assault Weapons Ban" was part of a different law titled the "Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act". The two Bills were introduced separately, debated separately and signed into law separately.
Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act
Introduced as H.R.1025 by Rep. Charles E. Schumer (D-NY) on February 22, 1993
Passed the House of Representatives on November 10, 1993 (238 - 189)
Passed the Senate on November 20, 1993 (63-36)
Signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 30, 1993
Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act (Including Title XI, subtitle A -- AKA "Assault Weapons Ban")
Introduced in the House as H.R. 3355 by Jack Brooks (D-TX) on October 26, 1993
Passed the House on November 3, 1993
Passed the Senate on November 19, 1993
Signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 13, 1994
While the ban did name 19 specific guns the criteria for prohibition was entirely cosmetic and firearms functionally identical to the "banned" guns remained legal to manufacture, distribute, sell and own federally. It really didn't ban anything -- including high capacity clips so the oft heard statements that the shooter of Rep Giffords would not have been able to acquire the extended magazine for the Glock pistol is also false.
That commentary has so many ridiculous and incorrect statements all it demonstrates is just how pathetic a journalist looks when spinning for a political agenda.
Moyers begins lamenting NRA officer Wayne LaPierre's "cosmic sense of timing" where he speaks about guns and killers kill with guns . . . What a despicable and spurious correlation to draw. It is also ridiculous because LaPierre's job is to day-in-day-out make those statements -- that Moyers needs to strain to find an instance in 2007 and then his recent appearance at the UN ignores the hundreds of appearances he has made, spoke in similar fashion and no mass homicides occurred afterwards . . . The only thing of cosmic proportions is Moyers' disingenuousness.
LaPierre didn't just "show up" at the UN -- the NRA has Non-Governmental Organization status and has the right and duty to speak on issues that the organization is interested in. Again, disingenuous spin.
Moyers statement that "Toys are regulated with greater care and safety concerns than guns" is another stupid statement that would only appeal to the ignorant and gullible. Especially when no connection is drawn to his "Oregon Trail" self-inflicted gun deaths and the reason why that as millions of guns are added every year accidental deaths are on a downward trend for the last century.
Moyers says that we Americans are, "Fooling ourselves that the law could allow even an inflamed lunatic to easily acquire murderous weapons and not expect murderous consequences." Really????? The law allows? Moyers is the either the fool if he believes that or believes YOU are a fool for believing him. Yeah there is a fool here and it isn't people who know the law; it is the people who think Moyer's disingenuousness "nails it".
Moyers also accuses Americans that we are "
Fooling ourselves that the Second Amendment’s guarantee of a “well-regulated militia” be construed as a God-given right to purchase and own just about any weapon of destruction you like, a license for murder and mayhem. A great fraud has entered our history." The only one fooling themselves so they can embrace a fraud are the ones that need to misrepresent what the 2nd Amendment says in plain language and to posit that "murder and mayhem" can be, in any manner, the exercise of a "right" in any sense of the word. More disingenuousness.
Is Moyers introducing Islamic jihadist Adam Gadahn into the discussion an attack on the 1st Amendment or the 2nd Amendment? It certainly has not resulted in those who would consider Gadahn's words as marching orders, going out and doing what Gadahn suggests. What is Moyers point here? None of the guns used in the Aurora shooting were acquired in the manner Gadahn instructs, so really, what is he talking about?
Moyers closes with, "
The NRA is the enabler of death -- paranoid, delusional and as venomous as a scorpion. With the weak-kneed acquiescence of our politicians, the National Rifle Association has turned the Second Amendment of the Constitution into a cruel and deadly hoax."
Hyperbole much? The only one appearing, foolish, unhinged and sociopathic is Moyers.
