Another Brady Staffer

Ethel K. Jensen writes

Court shouldn't muzzle common sense gun control

Yes, this is boilerplate anti-gun stuff, but it's still fun;

Political bias may blur the justices' comprehension of this amendment.

This statement is classic. Comprehension? The only one with a lack of comprehension here is you, as evidenced by the very next line:

I believe its simple purpose is to permit the states to have militias.

I'm sure you believe that, all historical writings and legal opinions to the contrary notwithstanding.

The colonists didn't need a Second Amendment to possess guns. They had guns!

The Second Amendment doesn't grant US citizens the right to possess guns, it protects them from people like you.

To possess a gun should be a privilege, not a right, and all privileges require
some restrictions.

See above.

One of the easiest ways to get a gun illegally is at gun shows where private sales don't require background checks.

Private sales don't require background checks, period. The "gun show" angle is just a little bit of smoke you folks throw up to obfuscate the matter.

The most sickening setback to gun control was the failure of Congress and President Bush to renew the ban on assault weapons. Now there are hundreds of ads for machine guns, large-capacity magazines, and ammunition on the Internet.

What's sickening here is the lies and misrepresentation of the above statement. (a) The assault weapons ban had nothing to do with machine guns, (b) magazines of all shapes and sizes were still legally obtainable during the ban, and (c) ammunition has been available (legally) on the internet since the internet began.

Finally, we have the "impending doom" ploy:

And there will be a ''crime creep'' from the besieged cities to the smallest neighborhooods.

Dang, I live in one of those smallest neighborhoods. Better buy another gun.

Fun with Bradies. I could get used to this.