It's what they don't say that matters.

From Media Matters:

Major gun violence prevention groups are upfront about their support for law-abiding citizens to be able to keep firearms for their own protection. Here's what the website of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence says:

We believe that law-abiding citizens should be able to buy and keep firearms. And we believe there are sensible gun laws that we can and should insist upon when it comes to gun ownership.

And here's Mayors Against Illegal Guns:

We support the Second Amendment and the rights of citizens to own guns. We recognize that the vast majority of gun dealers and gun owners carefully follow the law. And we know that a policy that is appropriate for a small town in one region of the country is not necessarily appropriate for a big city in another region of the country.

Reading those quotes from the Brady Campaign and MAIG, I don't see anything that explicitly supports the right to keep firearms for self-defense.

The Brady Campaign says they "believe that law-abiding citizens should be able to buy and keep firearms." Buying and keeping a firearm is one thing. Being able to lawfully carry and/or use it for self-defense is another. For example, a modern day English subject can (under extraordinarily draconian restrictions) buy and keep a firearm. However the use of it in self-defense will result in a night in jail. And if you dare carry a firearm, you are automatically a criminal.

If you peruse the Brady Campaign's website, you won't find anything in support of self-defense in the home or outside of the home. On the contrary, you will find plenty against self-defense. For example, their opposition to HR 822 which would protect the right of self-defense across state lines and their opposition to Castle Doctrine which protects the right of self-defense in the home.

The story is no different for MAIG. Nothing on their website explicitly states that they support the right of self-defense inside or outside the home. MAIG is opposed to HR 822. MAIG founder Mike Bloomberg is also no fan of guns or gun owner's period.

So where is this upfront support for law-abiding citizens to be able to keep firearms for their own protection? Definitely not on their websites.

The Money Mike Roadshow.

If his traveling circus ever darkens Oklahoma soil, i'll do my best to be there with some anti-propaganda.

The "Terror Gap".

The newest scheme being pushed is the closure of the "Terror Gap". As marketed by the gun-controllers, this will "Prevent Sales Of Guns To Terror Suspects". And what is a "Terror Suspect"?

Ted Kennedy was a "Terror Suspect". So are countless other people who have done absolutely nothing. The closing of the Terror Gap is essentially the elimination of due process. People who have committed no crime will be denied their Second Amendment rights. They will not be notified if they are on the list. They cannot petition the government to know if they are on the list. Most of the people on the list will never know they are on the list.

If the gun controllers really have a problem with suspected terrorists buying guns, why not do the intellectually honest thing and arrest them? If you can't trust someone to buy a gun or ride on a plane, you can't trust them to buy gasoline, a moving van, or a bag of fertilizer. You can't trust them to walk free, period. So arrest every person on the list, put them on trial, and use our system of due process to determine whether they should walk free with all their rights intact or stay locked up.

I don't endorse the above, because I think the concept of "secret watch lists" is completely useless in preventing terrorist acts (See: Fort Hood). But at least it would show that the gun controllers are actually concerned about potential terrorists and not just guns (as usual).

This is why you lock them up. Part II

A tragic shooting in Money Mike's backyard: Bronx girl, 15, shot in head walking home.

Naturally, this will be followed by cries for Common Sense® gun control, all for The Children® of course. But what won't be discussed is the criminal histories of those responsible for the shooting:

DWAYNE TAYLOR
- 14 arrests since Dec. 2002
- Charges include: weapons possession, harassment, grand larceny, burglary, assault and endangering the welfare of a child.
- In April 2006, Taylor allegedly pushed his ex-girlfriend into a wall, grabbed her hair and bit her back. Her young children were home and saw the attack. He left girlfriend’s apartment, but returned and kicked and banged on door.


CARVETT GENTLES
- No prior arrests


CLIVIE SMITH, aka Moe
- Nine arrests since Feb. 2007
- Charges include: weapons possession, menacing, drug possession and sale, gang assault
- In July, armed with a handgun, he allegedly threatened his aunt, Zelita Mighty, and told her: “I’ll make one phone call and all this will be smashed up.”


CLEVE SMITH
- Six arrests since May 2005
- Charges include: assault, menacing, harassment, grand larceny, robbery, drug possession and sale
- In October, he allegedly told a cop who asked him and friends to disperse from a scene: “F--- you. I’m not leaving.” He then resisted arrest, swung at the cop, caused a cut and swelling.


ROHAN FRANCIS
- Five arrests since Sept. 2007
- Charges include: weapons possession, drug possession, gang assault, robbery, drug sales.

Excluding, Gentles who has no record, none of these people should have been walking free. The most law-abiding among them still had 5 arrests and all them have records of assault. And these are all arrests within the past 7 years. That means on average, each of these criminals is being arrested twice a year.

There is a serious problem in a system where a person can be arrested nearly twice a year for 7 years and still walk free. Had all of the responsible parties been locked up for a minimum of 5-10 years after their third arrest, this shooting would have never occurred.