PGP meets Sarah Brady! And crashes the Anti-Gunner party!


PDA






Helmetcase
August 29, 2006, 04:23 PM
Well, that was interesting. Norton provided a link to a press conference the Brady's gave in support of a pro-AWB politician here in MD, and I was there to crash the party.

Enjoy. (http://progunprogressive.com/?p=213)

If you enjoyed reading about "PGP meets Sarah Brady! And crashes the Anti-Gunner party!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
orangelo
August 29, 2006, 04:42 PM
Well that'll teach em. I expect them to drop Feinstein, Boxer, Kennedy, Kerry, Schumer, Lautenberg, Obama, McCarthy, Leahy, Conyers, and Klinton from shaping democrat policy right away!

:rolleyes:

Maybe the ones I listed above will see the errors of their ways and write me a reparations check for all the money they've screwed me out of with their gun bans.

K-Romulus
August 29, 2006, 04:47 PM
:evil:

Helmetcase
August 29, 2006, 04:52 PM
Well that'll teach em. I expect them to drop Feinstein, Boxer, Kennedy, Kerry, Schumer, Lautenberg, Obama, McCarthy, Leahy, Conyers, and Klinton from shaping democrat policy right away!
Yeah, cause that was the point of going down there and confronting her. :rolleyes:

If it's lost on you that the only people in the room asking questions or bothering to hear her speak were people fighting the AWB, I think you're missing the point bigtime. It's not about your laundry list of politicians, it's about confronting them in a rational manner. And being involved rather than being a keyboard warrior. Mmmmmkay?

pax
August 29, 2006, 05:22 PM
Helmetcase ~

Good article, and good for you.

I think you should post the entire article here, and bold the section which talks about THR. Should be fun to watch the resultant fireworks. ;)

pax

Helmetcase
August 29, 2006, 05:26 PM
What, you mean the part where the Brady's readily admit that they think the gun rights movement segregating itself into a right-wing only club is the best thing they can hope for? That it makes their day when the gun rights community plays into that stereotype?

Sure, no problem. :D

Peter Hamm agreed with me that the worst thing the gun rights movement can do is allow the stereotype that gun owners and gun rights activists are exclusively rural redneck types with beards and beer bellies chasing deer around the woods with AK47s. You know and I know that’s a silly stereotype, but unfortunately it exists, and he made no bones about the fact that the perpetuation of that stereotype only helps their cause. Newsflash for those High Road, FiringLine, etc. type gun rights communities—if you doubt me when I say the worst thing the gun rights community can do is continue to divide ourselves, bicker, infight, and discriminate against the non-Republican members of the movement, you heard it here straight from the Brady Campaign horse’s mouth. The fact of the matter is simple—they agree that nothing works against the gun rights movement more, and helps them do their job better, than the continuation of the idea that gun rights is exclusively a right wing philosophical domain. The more you disagree with me on this front, the more you’re helping the Brady Campaign. It’s that simple. They’re hoping against hope that the pro-gun progressive movement doesn’t grow. They’d rather have the Republican gun rights folks attacking me than Sarah Brady; I know this because they told me as much. Disagree at your own peril.

Save me the "but the Democrats and Pelosi and Boxer and Feinstein and Kerry really suck!" diatribes. I know, we get it already. Working on changing it, and it won't happen overnight. If the people lead, the leaders will follow. But the Bradyites would love nothing more than for the gun rights community to cement itself as a rightwing only boys club.

TX1911fan
August 29, 2006, 05:41 PM
Nice job Helmet. I have to ask you though about this part of your article:

Newsflash for those High Road, FiringLine, etc. type gun rights communities—if you doubt me when I say the worst thing the gun rights community can do is continue to divide ourselves, bicker, infight, and discriminate against the non-Republican members of the movement, you heard it here straight from the Brady Campaign horse’s mouth.

While many of us on THR certainly do not trust Democrats, given their penchance for gun grabbing, I have never seen anything close to discrimination against non-rednecks or non-Republicans on this board, or any other gun board for that matter. In fact, I think you are treated much better on this board than I would be treated on Democratic Underground, Daily Kos or any number of other "progressive" boards. Are you saying that expressing our distaste with "progressive" politcians is somehow discrimination? You're not trying to take away our First Amendment rights to free expression, are you? The Brady Campaign wants that stereotype, and nothing we do here will change that. I for one am certainly not going to soften my views towards politicians who would deny my 2A rights, just so Sarah Brady will like me. And believe me, I am anything but a redneck. I even grew up as a "progressive" Canadian, of all things!

Justin
August 29, 2006, 05:44 PM
Outstanding.

Helmetcase
August 29, 2006, 05:50 PM
Eh, of course not TX. I'm just saying we've little to gain from letting them get away with perpetuating that stereotype, that gun owners are exclusively rightwingers and so forth. I was merely commenting on the fact that when I pointed out that dividing ourselves and bickering amongst ourselves over non-gun related stuff only hurts our cause, many folks disagreed here. Well, the Brady's are certainly hoping we continue to alienate non-right wing gun rights folks, believe me. They admitted as much right to my face. Instead, we should be making a big show of just how inclusive we are, and make no bones about the fact that gun ownership and the RKBA cuts across the aisle.

hso
August 29, 2006, 05:51 PM
TX1911fan,

You're right and you're wrong at the same time. THR as a site would never descriminate against non-right wing folks, but there is a large vocal group of haters here who mindlessly attack anyone that isn't right of McCarthy.

Helmetcase,

Good for you! The folks that don't want to be bothered to get up off the couch to do something, but will take the time to snipe at you do more harm for our cause than good.

TX1911fan
August 29, 2006, 05:54 PM
I don't really think the Brady Campaign developed that stereotype by reading this board. Like many "progressives" they think that anyone who holds different views must be "neanderthal" or somehow stupid. President Bush has to be stupid, right, because he has a southern accent and stumbles in his sentences. Anyone who wants guns must be stupid because civilized people, those who have evolved, know that guns are dangerous. Progressives think this because of their own worldview, not because Republicans on this board refuse to accept that Democrats, despite what they say, will ever fight hard to protect our 2A rights. Heck, many Republicans won't fight for them.

Helmet, what I'd like to see, then, is how should we act on THR to make Sarah Brady like us. If we are doing it wrong, then tell us how to do it right.

Phetro
August 29, 2006, 05:55 PM
Save me the "but the Democrats and Pelosi and Boxer and Feinstein and Kerry really suck!" diatribes. I know, we get it already. Working on changing it, and it won't happen overnight. If the people lead, the leaders will follow. But the Bradyites would love nothing more than for the gun rights community to cement itself as a rightwing only boys club.

Okay, great. Come back with some results. Until the politicians reflect what you claim many of your fellow leftists do, it's all smoke and mirrors to me and everyone else who truly supports the RKBA--obviously that right and the "democratic" party don't mix. Right now it's one or the other--when you vote, you don't get both.

Helmetcase
August 29, 2006, 05:59 PM
What are you saying, that I don't truly support the RKBA?

What did you do for the RKBA today? I know what I did, and I'm sharing it with you. Don't denigrate what I did because I didn't singlehandedly get John Kerry and Nancy Pelosi to change their minds. The only thing that'll do that is continued growth of the RKBA mentality in their constituency, and nothing prevents that more effectively than keyboard warriors working to make the RKBA the sole province of the far right.

TX1911fan
August 29, 2006, 06:07 PM
I am not denigrating you for your efforts. I truly appreciate them, and wish that more, on both sides, would work to erase stereotypes. I have yet to read on this board anyone saying to you, "get off this board unless you are a Republican." That doesn't happen.

However, I am denigrating your placing blame for the stereotype on those of us on THR. That's like blaming Hispanics for the stereotype that they are lazy. It's not our fault that "progressives" want to believe that everyone who cares about RKBA is a hick. Its THEIRS, so you pontificating that its our fault actually does more harm than good. Now Sarah Brady can go to your blog and say "see, even a pro-gun guy says that the RKBA crowd is a right wing boys club only." You are perpetuating the stereotype by telling the victims of the stereotype to fix it. I think that is because you harbor the same stereotype. Your comments on this board, and your blog, lead me to believe that you think MOST of us ARE right wing hicks (not that there is anything wrong with being a right wing hick, some of my best friends are). The thing is, we are not embarassed by it. We don't think there is a need to be different just so Sarah Brady won't make fun of us. Her using the stereotype only alienates all of us, and hopefully alienates you and others like you. Instead of castigating US, you should be castigating HER and telling her to stop it because she is losing the support of people like you.

As far as what I have done for RKBA, and to try and change the stereotype, in the last several months I have taken at least 6 women, and 5 children shooting. Two of the women were very anti, but came away from the experience with much more positive views.

I'd like to do more, perhaps as much as you do, but I lack the time. Maybe someday.

tcgeol
August 29, 2006, 06:08 PM
Nice job! It might be the only thing we agree on, but at least we can work together on RKBA.

Helmetcase
August 29, 2006, 06:12 PM
I disagree TX. When we're hostile to non-right wing RKBA types, and fill up message boards with "you're with us or against us" vitriol that makes it clear that many in the RKBA community don't welcome people like me, we're living up to that stereotype.

Given the threads we've had in the last few days, I just don't see how you can argue that there's not a definite number of folks here who frankly don't welcome people like me, and do believe that RKBA = right wing. I'm a little insulted you think it's ME perpetuating that stereotype, given all that I've given in the last two years for the RKBA movement. What, I'm supposed to pretend that we don't occasionally play into it? That there's not a lot of blind liberal bashing here? That many THR members don't think you can support the RKBA and not be a Republican? I refuse to pretend that I don't see that, don't experience it, and that it's not there. It is.

If we let that carry on, the Bradys are grateful.

TX1911fan
August 29, 2006, 06:17 PM
So if someone disagrees with you, that means you are not welcome? My disagreements with you are the same disagreements 1/2 of this country has with the other 1/2. You seem to think that just because you are a "progressive" who believes in RKBA that we just jump over to your enlightened side on all the other issues. You are the one who called President Bush' position on embryonic stem cell research, which I support and agree with, "idiotic" and "neanderthal."

Welcoming you and those who hold non-RKBA views like yours does not mean we have to agree with you all of the time. On the issue of RKBA, it is that you are with us or against us. On the other issues, we can debate. That's what makes this country great. The fact that you disagree with me on practically everything I write does not convey to me that you think I should leave this board, or that I don't believe in RKBA. As another poster here said, we at least can agree on one thing.

I would expect that if I say something here that people disagree with, they will call me on it. I expect to get that on this thread, as I am sure there are people who disagree with what I have said. That doesn't mean they don't want me here, it just means they don't agree.

Rugerlvr
August 29, 2006, 06:20 PM
You seem to think that just because you are a "progressive" who believes in RKBA that we just jump over to your enlightened side on all the other issues.

I don't think he's saying that. I think he's saying that you and those on your side of the political aisle should stop lumping everyone on our side of the aisle in with the gun-grabbers, and dismissing us, and our input.

Helmetcase
August 29, 2006, 06:22 PM
So if someone disagrees with you, that means you are not welcome?
That's not what I'm talking about, and you know it. I'm talking about people who've refered to my efforts as pointless because I haven't had John Kerry and Hillary Clinton swept out of office overnight. I'm talking about people who've suggested I'm a Brady plant. I'm talking about people who've compared me to themselves and said they're someone who "truly" supports the RKBA, as though I don't. I'm talking about people who argue ad nauseum that people like me are so rare as to be discounted.

I could care less if you agree with me on non-RKBA issues, really. What I'm saying is that I've found that often doesn't go both ways--not with you personally, just in general. I've shared PMs with many non-rightwing folk here who agree that they feel that way in general as well.

TX1911fan
August 29, 2006, 06:25 PM
Ruger, good point. I can see that. I guess that would go the other way too. To make my point about the stereotype then, I guess I should say to those on the left that it is their fault that I have that stereotype, and that they should do something to fix it.

Let me clarify one thing. I am grateful that there are many people on the left who support RKBA. I will take any support I can get, and I certainly don't want to give the opinion that I don't want Rugerlvr, Helmetcase or any other person on the other side of the aisle to participate in the debate and to represent RKBA in the best light possible. However, if that means I can't disagree when you bring other politics into it, or that I can point out flaws in arguments or statements, then that's a different answer.

Helmet, I'm sorry that that kind of stuff happens, it shouldn't. Anyone who would dismiss the efforts of any person to further the cause is not thinking straight.

pax
August 29, 2006, 06:26 PM
<observation>

You know, there are an awful lot of people on THR who use language rather loosely -- using "liberal" as a synonym for "gun grabber," for example.

</observation>

pax

Helmetcase
August 29, 2006, 06:28 PM
And I don't doubt for a second that more often than not you can get away with it, as it's been a good predictor in years past. But some of us are trying to change that. It won't happen overnight. The Republicans have been trying to beat Kennedy, Pelosi, Boxer, Feinstein, Schumer, et al for years, what makes you think I can with just a wave of my hand? That's silly.

But we can encourage other folks who are on the fence that siding with us and not the gun grabbers is a good idea. We certainly won't have much luck if the RKBA community is a hostile place for anyone but the far right.

TX1911fan
August 29, 2006, 06:32 PM
Helmet, another thing we can agree on. Let me also postulate something to you. Those of us on the right have been attacked by the left for years, so you also have to give us time to learn that not all "liberals" are gun grabbers. Forgive us for not trusting our "enemy" right off the bat. Hopefully through your efforts, we'll be able to come to a common understanding, at least on this issue.

BrennanKG
August 29, 2006, 06:35 PM
helmetcase,


Thanks for attending and speaking up.
Thanks for sharing the experience.


B.

beerslurpy
August 29, 2006, 06:40 PM
It will take years to turn it around the Dems, but I think that deserted Brady Bunch press conferences in Maryland are an encouraging start.

Someone let me know when the national level ACLU drops the collective right interpretation of the 2nd.

JohnBT
August 29, 2006, 06:46 PM
"using "liberal" as a synonym for "gun grabber"

That's true. We need to be specific and accurate.

OTOH, aren't most gun grabbers liberals? The majority aren't conservatives, right?

John

Rugerlvr
August 29, 2006, 06:53 PM
Who's a conservative these days? Our current bunch of boobs aren't "conservative" in really any tangible way.

Stormin n
August 29, 2006, 06:53 PM
Slurpy,
Join the ACLU and tell em yourself.:what:

Rugerlvr
August 29, 2006, 06:56 PM
If everyone who claims to hate the ACLU would join the ACLU and show up and demand that they support unlimited 2nd Amendment rights, they'd be supporting unlimited 2nd Amendment rights.

Change starts from within.

Skeptic
August 29, 2006, 06:59 PM
Thanks for "Standing in the Gap"! You are the man.... I don't care what political party you are from, you are allright. Thank you very much.

Helmetcase
August 29, 2006, 06:59 PM
Amen. I used to be in the ACLU, but dropped them like a hot potato. When they call asking for donations, I make it clear why they're not getting them. Same goes for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. They've stopped calling for donations by now. :)

We need to work on both fronts; obviously we have the RNC and the NRA to thank for what gun rights we still have, but we can also gain ground by changing groups like the ACLU, the DNC, and others from within. We can strengthen our own fort while knocking down theirs.

bowline
August 29, 2006, 07:02 PM
Helmetcase, I wish you the best of luck. I'd be overjoyed to have a choice of political parties. On many issues, the Republican party just doesn't tickle my biscuit anymore.
Pointless having a debate on the furniture when the house is burning down, though. The democratic party has consistently supported stricter gun control for about the last 140 years.
Good Luck, and I mean that sincerely! Meanwhile, if there are issues we can't agree on, I'm all for finding ones we can. Such as the RKBA, and the overall moral superiority of 45ACP :neener:

TX1911fan
August 29, 2006, 07:04 PM
Ok, I might just have to hold my nose and send my $20 to the ACLU to become a card carrying member. I know that $20 is going to be used to help some kiddie porn maker get out of trouble, but I'll do it to try and change them from within. I just don't want them to start asking for a bunch of donations. At least it will confuse my mail carrier when she delivers Guns & Ammo and the ACLU publications at the same time. A bit of camo for a pro-RKBA man!

BrennanKG
August 29, 2006, 07:11 PM
At least it will confuse my mail carrier when she delivers Guns & Ammo and the ACLU publications at the same time. A bit of camo for a pro-RKBA man!

I'm smiling as I'm wiping CocaCola off my monitor.
:D



B.

beerslurpy
August 29, 2006, 07:15 PM
Where does the ACLU get its funding from? I bet they care about that a lot more than they care about my opinion on any given legal subject.

Helmetcase
August 29, 2006, 07:17 PM
Yeah, that was good stuff. :)

The democratic party has consistently supported stricter gun control for about the last 140 years.
Yeah, I like reminding today's Democrats that those original gun grabbing Dems were Klansmen trying to keep freed slaves from being able to defend themselves from lynch parties and raids on their farms. You'll never hear more pyschobabble strewn about then when you remind a liberal of gun control's racist history. "But really...my motivations are totally different!" Uh huh. Motivations might change, but the end result remains the same--easier victims for thugs.

bowline
August 29, 2006, 07:29 PM
The answer to almost any political / legal question is - Follow the money.
Take a look at all the really asinine ACLU lawsuits - see if it isn't an issue where the Supreme Court has rendered a verdict which maybe, sorta, possibly could be stretched to cover the facts of the case. If you're insane. The point of most of these lawsuits is to extort legal fees from the local governments, using the 'its' cheaper to settle than fight' model of jurisprudence.
Very few local governments are going to raise much of a fuss over, for example, an earthshaking issue over whether or not allowing the boy scouts (whose oath includes the word <gasp> God) to use city parks free of charge.
Cheaper to settle. You can hear the cash register from here.
On the other hand, what percentage in pushing an issue on which the SCOTUS seems to refuse to make a clear finding? You just KNOW the case will never make it that high up, which kind of removes the threat factor.
The ACLU isn't about civil rights. Those (people for whom I have a less than sterling regard*) could care less. They'll happily destroy societal values, as long as they can make a buck.

*Substitute sentence for a word that would cause Arts' Gramma to box my ears.

antsi
August 29, 2006, 07:29 PM
-----Quote------------
The fact of the matter is simple—they agree that nothing works against the gun rights movement more, and helps them do their job better, than the continuation of the idea that gun rights is exclusively a right wing philosophical domain. The more you disagree with me on this front, the more you’re helping the Brady Campaign.
-----------------------

You're confounding two different issues here.

Like most conservative gun folks, I would welcome and applaud any move from the Left/Liberal/Democrat side to adopt a more pro-RKBA position. If someone is L/L/D but supports RKBA, then I certainly support their efforts to change opinion on the Left, try to change their party's platform and agenda, etc.

My conflict is not with the few rare liberals who favor RKBA, it's with the vast majority who do not.

I will continue to speak out against left/liberal/Democrat politicians who work for gun control. When people like Kerry and (coming soon) Clinton pose with shotguns pretending to support gun owners, I'm going to call horsehockey on them because I know from their very extensive track records where their true agenda lies.

And I'm sure not going to go out and vote for a proven anti-gun-owner candidate just to disprove Sarah Brady's stereotypes.

Even though I disagree with you on other issues than gun rights, and will continue to do so, I certainly applaud your efforts to change the liberal mindset and agenda. If all liberals had your take on RKBA, then I would have much less reason to deplore it whenever someone with a (D) after their name wins an election. Please pardon me if I don't hold my breath, though.

bowline
August 29, 2006, 07:37 PM
Motivations might change, but the end result remains the same--easier victims for thugs

Gun control is just another word for people control. The motivations remain the same, only the excuses have been changed, to disguise the guilty.
Unfortunately there are many who don't think much beyond what they are told... sigh...
Helmetcase, you ever think these characters call themselves Democrats because it makes a better cover for them?
Maybe I'm paranoid.
Either way, I'm sure you and I would get along a lot better, and a lot more civilly, than some of our elected and non-elected representatives!

Shadan7
August 29, 2006, 07:39 PM
Good for you, Helmetcase! It is indeed the worst nightmare for the Brady Bunch to find out that the RKBA isn't just a right-wing concern. :evil:

And yeah, I've seen plenty of "You can't really be in support of the RKBA if you're a progressive" sorts of comments here. It's one of the reasons I don't post much, though I've been reading for a year+. Sure, argue the other politics, bash dems and progressives all you want, but if we can work together to take this issue off the table, why is that bad? You make allies where you have common interest, and there are plenty of us indies and progressives who are gun owners, CCWers, hunters, plinkers, and sport shooters - it's foolish to tell us we're not welcome here because we're not GOP or Libertarians. :cuss:

7

bowline
August 29, 2006, 07:50 PM
Shadan7, I don't think any real THR member will tell you you aren't welcome because of your political party. Personally, I enjoy a good debate. I would really like to see the RKBA become an accepted, non-issue.
Just like the right to... umm.. the right to, err.... Aw heck, put up yer dukes:p
Just kidding. You are welcome here - but a lot of people may mention (with reason) that you need to clean your house, so to speak. Nothing personal.
What IS it with some of those Zombies, anyway? How does Kennedy keep getting re-elected, for example. Some sort of voodoo?

the pistolero
August 29, 2006, 07:56 PM
But the Bradyites would love nothing more than for the gun rights community to cement itself as a rightwing only boys club.

If only because they wouldn't have to keep saying, for example, that a gun is no good for a woman because "her attacker could take her gun and use it against her." I agree wholeheartedly that the best thing we gun owners can do is make our tent as big as possible, but no matter how big that tent is, we're always going to be cast by the Bradys and their ilk, to some extent, as a bunch of bloodthirsty savages. And I think it's safe to say also that they even think that of the more "upscale" (for lack of a better word) gun owners and activists. Why else do you think they're always screaming about blood running in the streets and that kind of tripe every time CCW or Stand Your Ground laws come up? Once again, I think it's best that we make our tent as big as we possibly can, but no matter the demographic, we still have an uphill battle ahead of us. No matter the reality of the rest of us, the Bradys have their own reality, and it in no way corresponds with ours or, for that matter, that of anyone else who lives in the real world. In any event, Helmet, ya done good. I hope you and those like you continue to speak up and get us ever closer to that sweet day when the RKBA as envisioned by our Founding Fathers is no longer a partisan issue.

I think he's saying that you and those on your side of the political aisle should stop lumping everyone on our side of the aisle in with the gun-grabbers, and dismissing us, and our input.

And he's right, of course. I'd like to say, though, that even though it might sound as if we're trying to make the RKBA the "province of the far right," we know there are those with an "R" behind their names that are every bit as bad as Feinstein, Kennedy, Boxer and Schumer -- Mike DeWine, Lincoln Chafee (and his father John, too), Arlen Specter, Michael Bloomberg, Rudy Giuliani, et al. And I'll admit, we need to be calling those people out, as often and as loudly as we can.

Helmetcase
August 29, 2006, 07:59 PM
Eh, the same way Trent Lott or Tom DeLay or any other politician with friendly demographics in his district keeps getting re-elected--no matter how ghastly the peccadilloes in their respective closets might be.

It's not like there aren't people who'd like to see better candidates than John Kerry or Ted Kennedy...but we're still outnumbered by the zombies who just vote for the well monied incumbent--many of whom don't consider the RKBA one way or the other. Those are tough people to reach.

My conflict is not with the few rare liberals who favor RKBA, it's with the vast majority who do not.
Good, we have the same problem. :)

Edit: Well said pistolero; good to see other who agree that making this a bipartisan issue only helps our cause.

bowline
August 29, 2006, 08:02 PM
Feinstein, Kennedy, Boxer and Schumer -- Mike DeWine, Lincoln Chafee (and his father John, too), Arlen Specter, Michael Bloomberg, Rudy Giuliani, et al

Helmetcase, we share a common enemy. I'm sure the common ground we share is big enough to build on.
Oh, and zombies. Can't forget them! :evil:

Phetro
August 29, 2006, 08:03 PM
No one ever said anyone wasn't welcome here. For my part, I simply pointed out a couple of overstatements.

Overstatement: telling Sarah Brady and her cohorts and an empty room the obvious facts about the RKBA deserves a medal.

(Hint: they already know, and don't care.)

Overstatement: many leftists support the RKBA.

First, the real good to be done for the RKBA is out in the world, with everyday people, who might not be aware of the facts. People who vote. Not people who are never going to change regardless of how stupid they are (and Sarah Brady fits that bill as good as anyone on Earth). Empty rooms (save for several obstinate people) net nothing for the RKBA.

Denigration? No, just reality. Sorry if it's harsh.

Second, many leftists do not support the RKBA. If they did, the leftists in Congress would support it. What many leftists do support are the UN and "international law." Do that math and see where America ends up.

Norton
August 29, 2006, 08:09 PM
Sebastian,

Thanks for taking time out of your day to go into the belly of the beast and take a stand for all of us. Makes me feel better that at least >someone< is reading the stuff I post on that other thread.

beerslurpy
August 29, 2006, 08:15 PM
This reminds me of a problem I have with liberal organizations. A lot of them do things that I agree with, but are also anti-gun (like the ACLU, most prominently). Not neutral, anti.

As long as most liberals are anti-gun, most gun people will avoid supporting them for fear they are helping the enemy.

UnknownSailor
August 29, 2006, 08:16 PM
When it comes to knee-jerk labeling hoplophobes with the liberal tag, one thing to keep in mind, helmetcase, is that the most vocal people trying to restrict my 2nd Amendment rights are all radical leftists, and all have (D) in their name.

I have stopped using liberal as those like Rush Limbaugh use it, to describe the radical leftists of the world. I prefer to use that term in it's classical sense.

Instead, I call the likes of Ted Kennedy by what their public record says they are: Leftist to the core, and an affront to the Constitution and everything it stands for.

You won't find me calling names, as that is the favored tactic employed by those who's policies I am fighting against.;)

Helmetcase
August 29, 2006, 08:28 PM
Thanks for taking time out of your day to go into the belly of the beast and take a stand for all of us. Makes me feel better that at least >someone< is reading the stuff I post on that other thread.

Well, since I didn't cure cancer and singlehandedly remove the entire DNC leadership from office, apparently I was wasting my time. :rolleyes: :D

Overstatement: telling Sarah Brady and her cohorts and an empty room the obvious facts about the RKBA deserves a medal.

Who the hell said I deserved a medal? I'm just reporting what happened today. Talk about overstatements. Get your facts straight before you post. Not very THR of you.

But I'm sure what you did for the RKBA today was much more important. Look forward to the link on your blog about what you did today. <taps foot>

Overstatement: many leftists support the RKBA.
Define many. I personally know a bunch, but what constitutes many? I've freely stipulated I'm in the minority. But we don't need everyone on this side of the aisle to convert, just enough to supplement the majority we hold with the GOP.


First, the real good to be done for the RKBA is out in the world, with everyday people, who might not be aware of the facts. People who vote.

And tomorrow, some of those people will read a Washington Post article or an NRA News article where it's mentioned that the only person who asked any questions was a gun rights supporter who got off his ass and spoke up. They'll read about me rebutting Brady at her own press conference. If you don't think there's real good for the RKBA to be found in confronting people like Sarah Brady and Jim Rosapepe, and making it known to the RKBA cause just how few people showed up at their event, and how poorly their opinions are received...then I dunno what the hell you're doing here.


Not people who are never going to change regardless of how stupid they are (and Sarah Brady fits that bill as good as anyone on Earth). Empty rooms (save for several obstinate people) net nothing for the RKBA.
Wrong. Empty rooms--that you wouldn't have known about were it not for me, by the way--are an important indicator that we're doing something right.

Denigration? No, just reality. Sorry if it's harsh

If that's your idea of reality, get me a nickel bag of whatever is in your bong, Cheech.

If you spent as much time and energy for our cause as you do belittling THE THINGS I DO FOR THE RKBA, we might actually get somewhere. You've obviously got a bigger hardon for me than you do the gun grabbers, and that's EXACTLY the phenomenon that I'm pointing out, and that the Brady's are counting on. Way to support the home team, chief. If you don't think confronting the Brady's and reporting on what they're doing to the RKBA community is useful, then I don't think there's any reasoning with you. You'd rather belittle me than support the cause...fine if that's the case, but I'm gonna call that spade a spade.

Phantom Warrior
August 29, 2006, 08:46 PM
Anyone else read the thread title and go, "Huh? What does encrypted e-mail have to do with Sarah Brady?"

orangelo
August 29, 2006, 09:17 PM
If everyone who claims to hate the ACLU would join the ACLU and show up and demand that they support unlimited 2nd Amendment rights, they'd be supporting unlimited 2nd Amendment rights.

Change starts from within.

More likely than not they will just ban you from speaking. Isn't that what the Anti-American Communist Lawyer's Union did recently ? Their board of directors put a gag order on their members from criticizing them in public. Yup, free speech an' all that. :barf:

I'd rather go spend whatever ACLU membership dues cost on food from Taco Bell and sit on the toilet for an hour. It'd be more productive, more patriotic, and be more hygienic than joining those bolsheviks.

Skeptic
August 29, 2006, 10:01 PM
A brief departure... Anyone else read the thread title and go, "Huh? What does encrypted e-mail have to do with Sarah Brady?"

I know (or think that I know) you are joking around, but just in case...PGP is Helmetcases website.... Pro Gun Progressive. We here behind the lines in the Peoples Democratic Socialist Republik are much more familiar with his work and when I saw it and his screen name I knew it would be a good read.

Helmetcase is one of the good guys.

I have been known to lurk around PGP....

Helmetcase
August 29, 2006, 10:06 PM
Yes, do appreciate your insightful comments Skeptic. Please contribute any time.

Funny that my acronym can be a lot of other things...but writing out the full URL for my site takes up too much space ;).

lance22
August 29, 2006, 10:07 PM
I greatly enjoyed reading your blog entry.

White Horseradish
August 30, 2006, 12:42 AM
No one ever said anyone wasn't welcome here. That is not true. Granted, you personally may not have seen it, but it has been said, both in so many words and implicitly. I have seen it.

bumm
August 30, 2006, 03:52 PM
This on the US newswire today...

Sarah Brady, Maryland Senate Candidates Pledge Broad Effort to Pass Bill to Get Assault Weapons Off the Streets
8/29/2006 2:46:00 PM
To: State Desk
Contact: Peter Hamm of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, 202-898-0792
ANNAPOLIS, Md., Aug. 29 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Sarah Brady of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and leaders of CeaseFire Maryland, Inc. joined with candidates for the Maryland Senate today. The coalition announced they would work together to push for passage of a bill to get military-style semiautomatic assault weapons off Maryland streets - and started today with a public plea for voters to support two candidates who have pledged to make the issue a priority if elected to the Maryland Senate.
"Enough is enough," said Sarah Brady, the wife of Jim Brady, the former press secretary to President Ronald Reagan. "If you can't change the law, it means it's time to change the lawmakers. The people of Maryland have wanted these dangerous weapons removed from their communities for more than a decade. We are joining forces to say we're going to push this and push this until it's a done deal."
Last year, Mrs. Brady and her organization, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, joined with CeaseFire Maryland Inc., the state's leading gun violence prevention advocacy organization, in targeting Maryland Senator John Giannetti for defeat after he blocked Senate passage of an assault weapons ban. They were joined today by Jim Rosapepe, the former state legislator who has been waging an extremely promising effort to unseat Senator Giannetti in the Senate District 21 Democratic primary election. The primary is on September 12.
"John Giannetti has used his position to help the extreme gun lobby, instead of Maryland families," Mrs.Brady said. "I've known Jim Rosapepe for many years - he cares about our children, not the extreme special interest lobbyists."
She was also joined by Mike Lenett, who is seeking a state Senate seat from District 19 in Montgomery County. "As Counsel to the United States Senate Judiciary Committee, Mike Lenett was instrumental in the fight to enact the Brady Bill and the federal ban on semiautomatic assault weapons. Now we are calling upon Mike again to help lead the fight in Maryland to enact a ban on military-style assault weapons, as well as to enact other reasonable measures to keep guns out of the hands of criminals," Mrs. Brady said.
"For too long, the ban on assault weapons in Maryland has been stalled. I want to say to the voters in Mike's home district in Montgomery County, we need Mike's leadership, knowledge, and drive to help us break this intolerable impasse," Mrs. Brady said. "Mike knows these issues, Mike knows how to fight the NRA, and Mike knows how to win. Please support him on September 12. Send him to Annapolis so he can carry on his fight for public safety."
CeaseFire Maryland, Inc. leaders joined Mrs. Brady in the endorsements.
"CeaseFire Maryland, Inc. is proud to endorse Jim Rosapepe and Mike Lenett for the Maryland Senate because they understand that assault weapons are a menace to public safety and they will fight to ban them once and for all this January," said Lisa Miller Delity, Board President of CeaseFire Maryland, Inc. "As the sister of a law enforcement officer who was gunned down with an assault weapon, I know we can't afford to have legislators like Jim's opponent, John Giannetti, who pander to the NRA even as they pretend to support law enforcement.
"Voters can be confident that if they send Jim Rosapepe and Mike Lenett to Annapolis, they will be sending people with the experience and know-how to lead the fight against the NRA and its minions from the very first day," Delity said.
Mrs. Brady and CeaseFire Maryland, Inc. are also strongly supporting the re-election of Delegate Neil Quinter, who is the principal sponsor of the assault weapon legislation. Delegate Quinter was unable to attend Tuesday's announcement.
The Brady Campaign has been targeting Senator Giannetti in direct mail and in emails to supporters for a year. In April, for example, a letter was sent to some 800,000 households nationwide.
"Senator Giannetti," the letter read, "thought that single- handedly killing the state's Assault Weapons Ban would win him favor with the NRA and guarantee him an easy re-election. But he is now learning a tough lesson: adopting the NRA's dangerous agenda is not only bad for your state: It's bad for your career...
"In January, he personally called us to ask that we take the heat off him. But we won't."
http://www.usnewswire.com/
-0-
/© 2006 U.S. Newswire 202-347-2770/

Phetro
August 30, 2006, 04:54 PM
Gianetti needs to fight back, and hard. He needs to publicly call these anti-gun bigots a bunch of idiots (or nutcases), and publicly state that he did what he did specifically FOR the families, who need to be able to protect themselves with any weapon they choose. He also needs to state that preventing those families from being able to defend themselves will have no effect on criminals, save that of making their "jobs" easier.

On a side note, I must have missed the part in the article where it mentions the lone guy standing up to defend gun rights--can someone point it out? :D

Maybe I'll write about it on the blog I don't have (because no one but pro-gunners would read it anyway, and moderates are the ones in need of convincing)...

nico
August 30, 2006, 05:10 PM
On a side note, I must have missed the part in the article where it mentions the lone guy standing up to defend gun rights--can someone point it out?

I think you missed the fact that this was a cease-fire press release, NOT a news story. Would you have mentioned that the only private citizen who cared enough to show up to your otherwise empty press conference was there to show his opposition to the exact reason for having the conference in the first place?

this thread has proven the point that even pro-gun liberals are often treated with hostility on this site. If helmetcase had started a thread (that didn't mention his own political views) with pictures of how he took two people shooting for the first time, he'd have gotten nothing but "great job, you're really helping our cause" type comments.

Smurfslayer
August 30, 2006, 05:55 PM
And that, ladies, gentlemen & moderators is called taking the fight to the enemy. In spades.

Helmetcase, I applaud and salute your effort. If only a few people who read your story gain only a tenth of your leadership it will make a significant difference in the pro rights movement. Motivation is one of our greatest challenges. We've got all the time in the world to type on THR etc., but apparently not enough to pick up the phone and call our congressional delegation, state & local reps...

Job well done.

bouis
August 30, 2006, 06:20 PM
Calling yourself a "progressive" today means that you support the welfare state and all of the Constitutional abuses that allow it to exist. So, ask yourself, as a "pro-gun progressive," whether you believe that gun ownership is a right, or merely a privilege that the nanny-state should allow its subjects.

Now, if you answered the former, as I expect you did, you should understand that, by advocating a federal government that blatantly disregards the Constitution, you are undermining the protection of all its guarantees, including the right to keep and bear arms. This is why you shouldn't be surprised that so many of your "progressive" comrades refuse to recognize the RKBA.

Helmetcase
August 30, 2006, 06:49 PM
On a side note, I must have missed the part in the article where it mentions the lone guy standing up to defend gun rights--can someone point it out?

:D :neener: Heehee, the fly in the ointment. :evil:

Bouis, you raise some important points. I'll gladly stipulate that I spend a lot of time reminding folks that the govt doesn't GIVE rights, it exists merely because it guarantees them. When it stops doing that, time to change it. I believe it was Jefferson who said something about the tree of liberty being refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants...I think people on both sides of the aisle need to be more aware of the way our rights get chipped away at constantly, and the responsibility folks like us have to keep reminding others of this inconvenient fact.

bouis
August 30, 2006, 07:06 PM
I'd be happy to agree with you about that, but the Constitution is not merely the bill of rights (or, it's not merely the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 14th amendments...). It requires a federal government of limited and finite authority, that's far exceeded by the massive State of today.

Otto von Bismarck wasn't one of the founding fathers.

dragongoddess
August 30, 2006, 07:09 PM
What the heck is a RKBA?

Now I'm one of those liberal democrats you keep bashing. Yet I've always supported the 2nd Amendment even before I owned gun one.

The problem we face is we are not organized in any manner except for the NRA. On the other side the NRA is viewed like the ACLU is on this side. Thats got to change and change now. You cannot wait till the Sherriff comes for your guns to become involved in the process. Its too late then.

Want to fight the Anti's in MD. Then send a contribution to the guy who supports your issue. If you live in MD. join his campaign and work to get him elected. The anti's are doing this for their guy so you better get in there and start putting your time,energy and money into what you believe or you guarntee that this is the last generation to hunt or spend time at the range.

Want to keep your sport? Then get off your but and get involved.
*****************
Does the local High School have a Track Team,Golf Team, a Football Team for the kids? Then explain to me why there isn't a Prescision Shooting Team or a Trap and Skeet Team. How come?

injuries in Kids, by Sport

Children aged 5 through 14 sustained an estimated 2.38 million sports and recreational injuries annually from 1997 through 1999. By sport, this number includes the following:
Pedal cycling 332,000 injuries
Basketball 261,000 injuries
Football 243,000 injuries
Playground equipment 219,000 injuries
Baseball/softball 185,000 injuries
*************************
from AP
It's that time of year: Kids hit the sports fields running, and often hobble back off. Back to school means back to organized sports for more than 30 million children and teenagers — and roughly 2.5 million emergency-room visits during the year for resulting injuries

TX1911fan
August 30, 2006, 07:16 PM
Dragongoddess, RKBA is the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Great point about the kids shooting club. I can almost hear the moms screaming about it, and I live in a conservative county in Texas. But, I think I'll pursue it. I know some kids at the high school, and I would be more than willing to volunteer to help with a clay sports club. Thanks for the idea.

Spot77
August 30, 2006, 07:24 PM
Not sure who the original quote comes from:

Not people who are never going to change regardless of how stupid they are

I'll admit, as I think many here on THR would that there was a time (when I was young and dumb) that I would have voted for gun bans.I had no interest in guns and was pretty impressionable. Not all of us had the luxury of growing up in a gun friendly environment. We feared guns because we were brainwashed into thinking that.

Fortunately, I changed.

444
August 30, 2006, 08:28 PM
"his impression was that John was a finger-in-the-air guy who can’t be trusted, and will waffle depending on what the smart move politically might be"

I wonder if that is what they mean by representing their constituency ?

Art Eatman
August 30, 2006, 08:52 PM
dragongoddess, I'm happy to accept that you're as wonderful a person as has ever visited THR.

You face a problem on any firearms website: Since the beginnings of the efforts that led to the Gun Control Act of 1968, right on to the present time, the leading proponents of gun control have self-styled themselves as liberal Democrats. And that's from personal observation, from having been involved in this never-ending squabble. Sheesh! Thirty-eight years' worth!

Those who have drawn derogatory cartoons, those who have labelled us "Neanderthals" and those who have repeatedly lied about every aspect of firearms about which one can think have styled themselves as liberal Democrats.

So I hope you can see where is the source of your being targeted...

Best regards,

Art

pax
August 30, 2006, 09:04 PM
Two of our local high schools have precision rifle teams.

Mmmmm, well, two of them did last year. This year, one of them was having a very hard time finding a coach. I'm outside the district and overbooked ... but I found it really hard to believe that I was the entire person in the entire area who was likely to step up to the plate. I don't know if they'll field a team this year or not.

pax

Silver Bullet
August 30, 2006, 10:53 PM
And that, ladies, gentlemen & moderators is called taking the fight to the enemy. In spades.

Helmetcase, I applaud and salute your effort. If only a few people who read your story gain only a tenth of your leadership it will make a significant difference in the pro rights movement. Motivation is one of our greatest challenges. We've got all the time in the world to type on THR etc., but apparently not enough to pick up the phone and call our congressional delegation, state & local reps...

Job well done.
My sentiments exactly, but Smurfslayer said it better than I would have, so I'll just get his quote posted again.

Helmetcase
August 31, 2006, 09:32 AM
I think that's an important point about taking it to the enemy, and something I discussed with Peter Hamm (of the Brady Bunch). He asked me why I'd take a day off work to drive all the way to Annapolis just to ask Sarah Brady questions, especially given how generally anti-gun MD is.

I pointed out to him that my belief was that the more we take the fight to them in MD, and make them defend ground that they thought they could take for granted, the less able they'll be to take ground away from us in Virginia, Pennsylvania, WVA, Ohio, Maine, Idaho, Wyoming, Arizona, etc. Surprisingly enough, he agreed with me and my tactics. We're fighting an insurgency type guerrilla battle here in MD. We're outnumbered, but we can keep denying them a comfort zone, even in territory like MD that they take for granted.

There's a very real sense in which fighting the Brady's here in MD helps you elsewhere in the country. If she's devoting her time and resources to the State Senate race in MD and wasting a day giving a press conference to three people (two of whom were pro-gunners and one of whom was a reporter), that's great. If she's having to worry about fighting John Giannetti, she's not out making life difficult for other pro-gun candidates.

THAT'S taking the fight to the enemy.

TX1911fan
August 31, 2006, 11:54 AM
Given that my previous comments spurred a lot of the discussion on this thread, I'd like to comment to Helmet's last post.

Helmet, I don't think that I, or anyone else, objected to your taking the fight to the enemy. We all appreciate your efforts, and hope that you and many others keep up the fight. My objection was to the rest of what you included in your blog.

I have been thinking about this thread for the past couple days, and I think I have distilled my thoughts to this. When people to the left of the political spectrum post pro-gun posts here, I think they are widely supported and encouraged. When they go on to post on non-gun topics, or, as I think Helmet did, they perpetuate the stereotype that all gun enthusiasts are white, male rednecks (or blame the victims of the stereotype), then they are challenged.

Helmet, if you had just posted that you went to the meeting, that you asked Sarah Brady your questions, and left it at that, then three pages worth of this thread would never have occured. It's when you went on and said that it's our fault that Sarah Brady thinks we are a bunch of rednecks that you ran into problems.

Now, I am not saying that you shouldn't post whatever you want to post. However, if you come to a place where you KNOW the political ideology will slant right, and then start criticizing that political ideology (neanderthal and such), you should EXPECT to be challenged, and maybe even "yelled at" so to speak. If that didn't happen, what would that say for the passion those of us on the right have in our views?

Silver Bullet
August 31, 2006, 12:01 PM
Some of the ideas in this thread remind me of a post I made three years ago:

I'm not in favor of off-topic topics, as I believe all it does is splinter the RKBA community here at the High Road. Let's say there are 10,000 pro-RKBA members here. Let's say that 70% of them are pro-life on the abortion issue. If the 30% pro-choice are heckled and harassed on abortion topics, potentially 3000 pro-RKBA members are driven away (or maybe they go away because they preceive that THR is both a pro-RKBA and pro-Life site, and they don't want to support pro-Life). Of the remaining 7000, let's say 5000 of them are Republicans and 2000 are Democrats. If the Republicans are intolerant to the Dems in "Who here is a Democrat?" threads, suddenly there are only 5000 pro-RKBA left. By the time you throw in another three or four divisive (non-RKBA) issues, there may be only 1000 members left.

On one of the threads here a few weeks ago, I saw one of the most liberal members here, very articulate and well-spoken, and very pro-RKBA, being referred to as a troll because he was in the minority position on the Iraq war. We need this High Roader as much as any other High Roader; he adds to our RKBA strength. If we want to utilize our collective strength to the maximum extent possible, it doesn't make sense to drive off good members on non-RKBA topics.

Just my opinion.

Still true today.

Norton
August 31, 2006, 12:02 PM
TX1911fan,

I understand the gist of your post, but let me say that the Brady creature isn't too far off of the mark about how people outside of the gun culture view us.

I will also say that Helmetcase isn't too far off of the mark when some of us perpetuate that stereotype. I've sat through the hearings with Helmetcase in Annapolis and I will honestly say that we do ourselves a diservice when we show up to the State House in camo, bluejeans, etc to testify. There's nothing >wrong< with it (and honestly I'm more comfortable in work boots and jeans than a shirt and tie) but we feed into their political motivations when we give them the caricature that they have created.

I know that the reality is that rights aren't based on appearance, but politics is rarely (if ever) about reality and is more about perception.

TX1911fan
August 31, 2006, 12:55 PM
Good points. I will say that any type of discussion that focuses on party affiliation and denigrates someone simply because of that is inappropriate, mainly because the two parties are so close together that it often does not make sense. I will reserve my right, however, to engage in discussion of issues raised. To use the prochoice, prolife point. If someone comes on this board and wants to try and evangelize their pro-choice point of view, I will call them on it. I will not be rude and will stick to THR principles, but I also will not shrink from the discussion simply because I'm afraid that a pro-RKBA "progressive" might get offended and never come back.

I also agree on presenting a better image. However, as I was looking at the pictures of the people protesting in California when that US Post Office flag was replaced with a Mexican one, I noticed that most of the people at the protest had that "red neck" look. I thought that at least they are there and working to save our rights. I guess you could make the same argument there as Helmet makes in his defense. Don't complain about how people look unless you are willing to get out there and take their place.

Norton
August 31, 2006, 01:03 PM
I thought that at least they are there and working to save our rights. I guess you could make the same argument there as Helmet makes in his defense. Don't complain about how people look unless you are willing to get out there and take their place.

Agreed! I will take overalls and muddy boots out there doing something to save our rights rather than a guy in a $1000 suit sitting home admiring his collection of rifles.

Phetro
August 31, 2006, 01:23 PM
Bouis, you raise some important points. I'll gladly stipulate that I spend a lot of time reminding folks that the govt doesn't GIVE rights, it exists merely because it guarantees them. When it stops doing that, time to change it. I believe it was Jefferson who said something about the tree of liberty being refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants...I think people on both sides of the aisle need to be more aware of the way our rights get chipped away at constantly, and the responsibility folks like us have to keep reminding others of this inconvenient fact.

These sound like the sentiments of a libertarian, not a "progressive." A "progressive" is just a communist in disguise, and "progressives" don't talk this way.

I think an awful lot of people out there have been led down the garden path, and think they're "liberal" or "progressive," because those are positive labels, but aren't. Those labels have been applied to things that are diametrically opposed to American ideals. I mean come on, there can't be that many people actually supporting the welfare state; high taxation; unauthorized government programs, agencies and spending; globalization; borders open to invasion; and self-defeatism ("pacifism")...can there? How many people really want what will "progressively" happen with the Ds in power: Communism in America?

Helmetcase
August 31, 2006, 03:27 PM
Helmet, if you had just posted that you went to the meeting, that you asked Sarah Brady your questions, and left it at that, then three pages worth of this thread would never have occured. It's when you went on and said that it's our fault that Sarah Brady thinks we are a bunch of rednecks that you ran into problems.

Ok, let's get this clear right now--I'm not saying it's our fault the stereotype exists. I AM saying it's our fault if we don't actively counter it at every turn and make sure we DO NOT do anything to encourage or perpetuate that stereotype. It's the number one worst thing we can do to just idly let it continue without rebuttal, and the Brady's will tell you the same thing. And it goes beyond muddy boots in Annapolis on Gun Bill Day--it's about us maintaining a professional image and being an inclusive community that recognizes that the RKBA benefits people of all walks of life.

These sound like the sentiments of a libertarian, not a "progressive." A "progressive" is just a communist in disguise, and "progressives" don't talk this way.
Sigh...don't labels really suck sometimes? There's no one pigeonhole to fit me in, I suppose. I am pretty much a libertarian these days, but I also just feel that some issues require quality govt. We still need good government to do some important things (national defense, protect the environment, protect consumers and ensure public safety, law and order, etc) so I can see the benefits of actively participating in creating that good government. I don't think you can govern effectively and mitigate the inherent evils of government with any efficacy if your fundamental premise is that govt is universally evil and should be throttled almost entirely. I favor continually looking at how we're doing things, and not necessarily doing them "the old way" just because that's the way it's been done--I favor making progress and improving the world around us.

But on the other hand, wherever possible I find myself erring on the side of personal liberty, so I do sound a lot like a libertarian.

I guess I'm an issue by issue guy, but "progunlibertarian" just doesn't have the same alliterative ring to it. :)

Tim James
August 31, 2006, 03:57 PM
Let's use sweeping labels and stereotypes just for a second to concentrate on my point.

Maybe the problem is that most gun owners can't see how the left could ever be pro-gun. They see the left as looking for big-government control on most issues. Also, when you read Unintended Consequences, you see how those punks in the EPA and FAA are just like the jack-booted troopers in the ATF, and you equate all that with the left. They see a consistent attempt to control independent citizens trying to mind their own business. They see it as inconsistent for the left to support gun rights and also load up your small business with red tape to make sure you're only dumping 0.02g of arsenic into the water instead of 0.03g. They also worry that if "the party of control" (bear with me) gets back into office by supporting gun rights, new big-government types might join the party that don't support RKBA.

However, Helmetcase has just given you all a reason why it is consistent for the left to support RKBA -- it's part of a platform that he sees as individual rights -- pro-choice, freedom of speech, freedom from unreasonable monitoring or arrest. That's a plausible (but not necessarily true) explanation for why a pro-gun leftist makes sense. He's given you an ideal for perhaps a new type of leftist. He has a website that attempts to move people toward that ideal. Now you can debate him on whether that ideal would ever remain consistent or plausible.

Some people here may never want a pro-gun leftist in power because of all the extra baggage they bring on other issues. That's perfectly fine! For the rest of us, let's keep this debate to whether a pro-gun leftist makes sense and could ever exist for a long period of time. Because if not, you're just electing leftists to power that will quickly turn on RKBA. I think that's what most people here, other than those that hate the left for other reasons, are afraid of. I could be wrong.

benEzra
August 31, 2006, 04:03 PM
Helmetcase, that's awesome.

I'd love to meet Ms. Brady, or Mr. Hamm, sometime and point out that out of 520 homicides in Maryland reported to the FBI in 2004, all rifles COMBINED accounted for only 2 (yes, two). So just why is it so important to outlaw popular civilian rifles with handgrips that stick out?

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/offense_tabulations/table_20-22.html

I don't know whether Brady and company just hate law-abiding gun owners and want to screw us any way they can, even if there's no rational basis for doing so; or they are merely blinded by their own "modern-looking-rifles-are-the-devil" rhetoric. In any case, one definition of a fanatic is someone who redoubles their efforts after losing sight of their goals.


To all: Helmetcase brings up something here that I think some gunnies who happen to be republicans miss.

(1) Tying the RKBA to a right-wing agenda means that if the right-wing agenda falters, our RKBA will die. Not to mention the fact that many of us gunnies don't WANT to see the whole right-wing shebang enacted, since we are not all of the right-wing political persuasion. Don't tie gun rights to the immigration issue. Don't tie gun rights to lowering taxes or abolishing the Department of Education. The Bill of Rights TRANSCENDS that stuff, and there are a lot of gun owners out there who are 100% pro-RKBA but who don't support your position on immigration/the Minutemen, lowering taxes, or abolishing the DoE. Don't tie my gun rights to somebody else's red wagon. Which brings us to #2...

(2) Roughly half of U.S. gun owners are NOT republicans, and around 1/3 are registered Democrats. Ben Franklin's adage about "we must all hang together, or we will surely hang separately" comes to mind. The repubs gleefully accepted the mantle of Defenders of the Second Amendment when the national Dems idiotically handed it to them in the early 1990's, but don't forget for a minute that for the national republican party, being pro-2ndA is merely a means to an end of pushing the broader republican agenda...which in recent years seems to be very, very neocon. Also don't forget that the national repubs came very close to dumping the 2ndA in the early '90's until they realized what a blunder the Dems were making, and decided for pragmatic reasons to take advantage of it.

(3) If a Dem honestly stands up for the 2nd Amendment, support him/her on it!!!!!! Even if you can't vote for him/her because you disagree with him/her on other issues, don't bash them because they did the right thing on the 2ndA. Praise them for doing the right thing!

If you bash non-conservatives/non-libertarians/non-whatevers who stand up for the 2ndA because they aren't a conservative/libertarian/whatever, then what you're saying is that you don't want anybody but conservatives/libertarians/whatever supporting the 2ndA. Guess what, the Bradyites will be GLAD to welcome them to their camp. Don't shove them in the bradyites' direction.

bouis
August 31, 2006, 04:06 PM
Pro Choice? What about the choice to do with the fruits of your labor as you wish? The fact is that economic liberty is just as important, if not more so, than the hedonistic liberty that leftists advocate.

If you don't support socialism, you are not a progressive. If you already know that, why the heck do you throw your lot in with them?

Tim James
August 31, 2006, 04:27 PM
Okay, my last post was way too convoluted. Try these two questions:

1. Looking at the big picture, is it ever worth supporting RKBA candidates if you disagree with the rest of their platform? (Hint: there is more to this than you think.)

2. Purely from a firearms standpoint, would it ever be a long-term benefit to RKBA to support the ideal of a pro-gun left? Answer the question in these terms: yes, because gun rights could always be consistent with their philosophy based on Helmetcase's idea; or no, because the left would naturally gravitate toward control of everything, and RKBA would always fall in the end.

Hayward Juhbuzzoff
August 31, 2006, 04:40 PM
If you don't support socialism, you are not a progressive

Socialist and Progressive are not one and the same.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism

bouis
August 31, 2006, 04:49 PM
Hayward, unless he's just arrived here via time machine, the only definition of "progressive" that is applicable is the second (and maybe the first).

In a somewhat more restricted sense, "progressive" is a term used within left-wing politics to distinguish left-wingers who advocate moderate or gradual social change (called "progressives" or "reformists") from those who advocate larger and more rapid changes (called "revolutionaries" or "radicals").

Now, what does that sound like to you? Oh, I know--

The Bolsheviks felt that the working class should lead the revolution in an alliance with the peasantry with the aim of establishing the democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry, where the Party acts as extreme revolutionary opposition. On the other hand, the Menshevik vision was one of a bourgeois democratic revolution in which they could take part in government.

Hayward Juhbuzzoff
August 31, 2006, 08:06 PM
They're not the same. The fact that the word "social change" is in the excerpt does not mean anything significant. You could say the Christian Right is lobbying for "social change" and it wouldn't mean that they are socialists.

It may be more appropriate to let people who consider themselves as Progressives define what that word means, rather than people from opposing ideologies imposing a definition.

...Honestly, I don't see a Progressive connection to the Bolshevik quote.

bouis
August 31, 2006, 08:47 PM
"Progressive" is a euphemism just like "pro choice." But unlike killing children, which is a very specific and easy to describe act, "progressive" refers to an ideology, abstract ideas that would be hard to describe even if the progressives weren't trying to hide what they really are. So it shouldn't surprise you that even self-styled progressives can't agree what it means, other than more state control. And it sure sounds nice -- who could be opposed to progress?

To understand that quote I guess you need to know what a Menshevik was. They were communists in Russia who believed in the same crazy ideas the Bolsheviks did. They only disagreed on how to go achieve the same goals. The Bolsheviks wanted to overthrow the government and immediately install a temporary (hah!) dictatorship. The Mensheviks wanted to coopt the movement to establish democracy in Russia, who would overthrow the Czar for them, at which point they'd exploit the masses of Russian peons to win elections and gradually build a communist state. I guess in this story our pro-gun progressive would be one of the hapless bourgeois democrats.

Hayward Juhbuzzoff
August 31, 2006, 11:29 PM
Bouis...
I think I see the connection you're trying to make in your bolshevik/menshevik analogy - instant versus gradual change? If that is the basis of your Progressive = Menshevik comparison,... Is EVERY political philosophy which advocates a gradual change a Menshevik philosophy?

Regarding your first paragraph... "even if the progressives weren't trying to hide what they really are"... Do you think that comment encourages rational discussion?

Progressive is no more of a euphemism than Conservative, Liberal, etc.

Helmetcase
August 31, 2006, 11:43 PM
God luv ya BenEzra; where the RKBA internet community would be without ya. Love your stuff on DU as well. Keep it up.

As for the progressive stuff, Haywood's pretty well nailed it, but dammit if the endless redefining of the word by conservatives to make it mean what THEY want it to mean isn't tiresome as hades.

I'm not a communist. I'm not a Bolshevik. Quit saying I am. It's childish, and pretty damn stupid.

I've already explained quite thoroughly why I believe that govt is a necessary evil (and away from the keyboard warrior zone of "I miss the good old days of the 1790s" most rational people accept that necessary evil...I think a lot of this "reduce the govt to what it was like under the FF's" is an overly romanced notion of what life was like before the turn of the 20th C). I've explained why good government is essential, and why I believe that we need effective govt working for us, despite the fact that I'm also a civil libertarian.

So can the bull**** about me or anyone using the word progressive being a communist, and the nonsense about YOU telling ME what the word means. I know damn well what it means, and it ain't what you think it is. Thanks to Haywood for making that clear.

bouis
September 1, 2006, 12:06 AM
He never actually said what it's supposed to mean. And neither have you for that matter.

No_Brakes23
September 1, 2006, 05:01 AM
Good job, Helmetcase.

<observation>

You know, there are an awful lot of people on THR who use language rather loosely -- using "liberal" as a synonym for "gun grabber," for example.

</observation>

pax
Pax, if you can't tell from my siglines, that's my personal crusade.

Someone let me know when the national level ACLU drops the collective right interpretation of the 2nd.
Beerslurpy, that's also my big stumbling block with these guys.

Yeah, I like reminding today's Democrats that those original gun grabbing Dems were Klansmen trying to keep freed slaves from being able to defend themselves from lynch parties and raids on their farms.
That certainly precedes some verbal gymnastics, in my experience.

Gun control is just another word for people control. The motivations remain the same, only the excuses have been changed, to disguise the guilty.
How's that saying go, bowcase? "scratch a leftist, and you'll find a facist"?

Gray Peterson
September 1, 2006, 06:10 AM
Lemme ask everyone an interesting question:

Has anyone here taken a look at the State of Ohio?

We have two basically equal people on the gun rights arena as far as that is concerned, between Ted Strickland and Ken Blackwell. Ted is far ahead of Blackwell in the polls.

It was Republicans in that state that held up CCW for almost a decade.

It was Republicans in that state that kept selling gun owners up a river.

It was Republicans in that state that absolutely refuse to pass HB347, which would preempt gun control laws at the local level, because they're afraid of crossing a governor of their own party who currently has less than a 15% approval rate.

Yet these same idiots would not pass a bill with Ted Strickland as governor. I personally hope the Republicans in Ohio get clobbered.

The acid test is this really:

Would you support a democrat who is pro-choice (or pro-abortion depending on your political persuation), pro-civil union (civil unions for all, not seperate but equal marriage for heterosexuals and civil unions for gays, but civil unions for ALL), for an Enhanced Medicare system giving medical and dental coverage to every American, and also fight tooth and nail to have repealed the machine gun ban, the 1934 registration act, much of the 1968 gun control act, and get carry reciprocity/shall issue carry and/or Vermont-style open and concealed carry across the United States?

Versus someone in the Republican party who is the opposite of all of them? The feeling I've get is that despite being quite pro-gun, the Republican is still going to get a bunch of the "gun vote" due to not liking Enhanced Medicare or gay rights or abortion.

That is the true acid test of whether someone is really pro-gun, especially if the Democrat has a history of being quite pro-gun from every level of government he or she has served.

It's a true shame that it seems like people would rather go for idealogues rather than philosophy.

Smurfslayer
September 1, 2006, 09:55 AM
This thread is an object lesson for us all on how divided we are as a voting block. Instead of taking the good from Helmetcase's deeds, we picked at him like a gaggle of starving vultures at a rotting corpse. Instead of seeing an example we scoffed. We berated his actions and when that failed to get traction we attacked his affiliations in an attempt to discredit the messenger.

SO WHAT if he identifies with a party other than the predominant representation on THR? I don't like the Congressional Axis of Weasel any more than the next guy but Helmetcase is working to change it, demonstrated by actions, not THR bickering.

Now we're bickering back and forth about idealogy and "My party is better than your party" or "My party will kick your party's <content deleted; Art's Grandma and such>". All the time bickering herein could've been channeled toward something better politically, legislatively or any number of ways.

Helmetcase
September 1, 2006, 10:30 AM
I appreciate your sentiments, smurf...all I can think is that old habits die hard. But the RKBA community will get stronger as we continue to expand the places it can draw from in the political landscape--that's what I'm here for. :cool:

Malone LaVeigh
September 1, 2006, 11:46 AM
Good work, Helmetcase. I would like to borrow some of your words in that blog as a sig line, if you don't object.

Folks, it's true that a lot of conservatives distrust Democrats and so-called liberals over the gun issue because of a history of being burned by many on that side of the political aisle. However, what I read in a lot of the comments I get is that the really hard-core, partisan right-wingers want to keep this issue in the domain of Republicans and so-called conservatives. Especially speaking to this audience, it serves the RNC and the junta over at the NRA as one of those fringe issues that keeps the rabble in line.

"Don't look at the man behind the curtain who's dismantling the Bill of Rights and wrecking the economy, look at those lib'ral gun grabbers!"

The tenor of the objections I get around here is that right-wingers around here are more threatened by the prospect that PGP and others might rob them of their pet issue that they are by the Brady types.

TC-TX
September 1, 2006, 12:20 PM
Nice job Helmetcase!

Great work BenEzra!

Helmetcase
September 1, 2006, 12:53 PM
Good work, Helmetcase. I would like to borrow some of your words in that blog as a sig line, if you don't object.
By all means, I'd be flattered. My stuff is public consumption, I don't expect nor would I accept any renumeration. Take whatever you think will advance the cause.:cool:

The tenor of the objections I get around here is that right-wingers around here are more threatened by the prospect that PGP and others might rob them of their pet issue that they are by the Brady types.
I think *most* people here just wanna see the RKBA protected above all else, but there is definitely an impression I get that's similar--the last thing Karl Rove wants is for the left to drop gun control, I'm quite sure of that.

antsi
September 1, 2006, 01:34 PM
---quote------
However, what I read in a lot of the comments I get is that the really hard-core, partisan right-wingers want to keep this issue in the domain of Republicans and so-called conservatives.
--------------

Let me get this straight: you are saying that you have seen "a lot" of comments by Republicans or right-wingers, objecting to the idea of Left/Liberal/Democrats adopting a pro-gun position?

You're seeing posts by Left/Liberal/Democrats clamoring to promote RKBA, and right-wingers are replying "You liberals aren't allowed to be in favor of gun rights! We insist that you keep on fighting against our Second Ammendment rights!"

I'm not buying it. Let's see "a lot" of links to such comments.

Now, I do agree that a lot of right-wingers have expressed scepticism about the prospect of the Democrat party truly embracing RKBA. In my opinion this is a healthy scepticism based on past behavior, such as Kerry "posing" with a shotgun before jetting halfway across the country in the middle of a critical primary campaign in order to vote for renewal of the AWB.

Neither I, nor I believe any of the other conservatives on this board, would object if the Democrats and liberals would truly embrace a pro-RKBA platform. Personally, I would be thrilled to see that and I wish you all the luck in the world trying to reform your party.

Just don't expect me to have an epiphany every time John Kerry or Hilary Clinton has a media event shooting skeet somewhere.

jlbraun
September 1, 2006, 01:38 PM
Would you support a democrat who is pro-choice (or pro-abortion depending on your political persuation), pro-civil union (civil unions for all, not seperate but equal marriage for heterosexuals and civil unions for gays, but civil unions for ALL), for an Enhanced Medicare system giving medical and dental coverage to every American, and also fight tooth and nail to have repealed the machine gun ban, the 1934 registration act, much of the 1968 gun control act, and get carry reciprocity/shall issue carry and/or Vermont-style open and concealed carry across the United States?

If you insert "basic preventative care" instead of Medicare, then not just yes but hell yes!

TC-TX
September 1, 2006, 01:54 PM
sorry - double post

Malone LaVeigh
September 1, 2006, 02:16 PM
---quote------
However, what I read in a lot of the comments I get is that the really hard-core, partisan right-wingers want to keep this issue in the domain of Republicans and so-called conservatives.
--------------

Let me get this straight: you are saying that you have seen "a lot" of comments by Republicans or right-wingers, objecting to the idea of Left/Liberal/Democrats adopting a pro-gun position?
No, that's not what I'm saying, but thanks for asking for a clarification. I'm saying I have seen "a lot" of comments objecting to the idea that Left/Liberal/Democrats are able to adopt a pro-gun position. There are a discouraging amount of posters here who believe their ideology is doctrinairally (is that a word?) pure. That someone who disagrees with them, for instance on a subject like single-payer health insurance, would be incapable of also supporting RKBA. I think these people feel so secure in their black/white world view that evidence to the contrary creates a disconnect that they can't handle.

I also believe, as Helmetcase pointed out, that the political strategists on the right are more interested in winning political contests than advancing your rights, and so would love nothing more than to keep this (perceived) divide the way it is. Not just the Karl Roves... I think we have a few of those right here.

Norton
September 1, 2006, 03:29 PM
threatened by the prospect that PGP and others might rob them of their pet issue that they are by the Brady types.

Helmetcase, we wouldn't know anyone threatened by us taking away their pet issues...would we? :p ;)

antsi
September 1, 2006, 05:51 PM
-------quote----
I'm saying I have seen "a lot" of comments objecting to the idea that Left/Liberal/Democrats are able to adopt a pro-gun position. There are a discouraging amount of posters here who believe their ideology is doctrinairally (is that a word?) pure. That someone who disagrees with them, for instance on a subject like single-payer health insurance, would be incapable of also supporting RKBA.
-----------------

Okay. Well, it does seem a bit inconsistent when someone who generally believes in the government monopolizing large sectors of human activity (like health care), professes to believe in individual agency when it comes to self defense and the ability to challenge the government with force if necessary.

However, there is no law saying that everybody has to be 100% consistent.

If there is a large movement of left/liberal/democrats to embrace and support individual agency regarding armed force for defense of self and liberty, while continuing to work toward government monopoly in other areas, I will certainly applaud such a move. Although it would seem slightly inconsistent to me, I am much more concerned about the effects of government monopoly on armed force than I would be about the government monopolizing health care. So again, this would be a welcome change from the left and would certainly lessen the intensity of my opposition to left/liberal/democrats.

----quote------------
political strategists on the right are more interested in winning political contests than advancing your rights
----------------------

This is generally true of all politicians and political parties. Are you seriously proposing that political strategists on the left are more driven by motivation to advance our rights, and less concerned about electoral success? James Carville? Donna Brazile?

Helmetcase
September 1, 2006, 05:53 PM
wouldn't know anyone threatened by us taking away their pet issues...would we? I've never heard of that kind of thing. Whatever can you mean? :evil: :neener:

Helmetcase
September 1, 2006, 05:59 PM
Okay. Well, it does seem a bit inconsistent when someone who generally believes in the government monopolizing large sectors of human activity (like health care), professes to believe in individual agency when it comes to self defense and the ability to challenge the government with force if necessary.
I think I've already explained this a couple times, but it bears repeating. My metric for this sort of thing is basically to protect individual determination wherever possible, without ignoring the fact that there are some aspects of governance and policy (I already gave a laundry list) that simply require the intervention of govt.

It's not about govt monopolizing activity, it's about the fact that in some arenas govt is a necessary evil. There's nothing inherent in my belief system that makes respecting the basic human right of self defense in any way contradictory. In fact, quite the opposite. I can't see how people like me can respect choice and individual determination on so many other social issues and NOT do so for self defense.

Make sense? I don't really care if you think my stances on social issues are right or wrong, but I do strenuously object to the notion that they're internally inconsistent.

Henry Bowman
September 1, 2006, 07:07 PM
Lemme ask everyone an interesting question:

Has anyone here taken a look at the State of Ohio?

We have two basically equal people on the gun rights arena as far as that is concerned, between Ted Strickland and Ken Blackwell. Ted is far ahead of Blackwell in the polls.

It was Republicans in that state that held up CCW for almost a decade.

It was Republicans in that state that kept selling gun owners up a river.

It was Republicans in that state that absolutely refuse to pass HB347, which would preempt gun control laws at the local level, because they're afraid of crossing a governor of their own party who currently has less than a 15% approval rate.

Yet these same idiots would not pass a bill with Ted Strickland as governor. I personally hope the Republicans in Ohio get clobbered.
Lonnie: I'm a little late responing to this, but I can't let it stand unchallenged. I was/am here and watched it all frist hand. You are incorrect, or at least mischaracterize the situation.

Ted Strickland is giving lip service to gun owners because it is a political necessity. Ken Blackwell is the real deal. They are not "basically equal on the gun right arena". Unfortunately, Blackwell (who has openly fought RINO Governor Bob Taft on many issues) bears the taint that Taft has put on the Ohio republican party.

Republicans did not hold up CCW in Ohio. RINO Bob Taft did. He is just one person. Things had not yet deteriorated enough for him that Republican legislators would take him on (like they have since).

It may take the Republican getting clobbered to wake them up. But please don't wish a socialist agenda on us here in Ohio just because Bob Taft is a $@#&^$(*&^. Blackwell has promised (and I believe him) to actively push legislation to fix CCW poison pills and preemption. Give us a little time to get the smell out of the governor's mansion before broad brushing all the R's in the legislature.

KnifeLawGuy
September 1, 2006, 07:49 PM
Helmetcase,

Thanks for the informative write-up. I was struck by the five person "press conference", and in my mind I'm picturing a cavernous ballroom with five people clustered together at the podium waaay up in the front. Like throwing a big anti-gun party and no one showing up. :)

If that's the drawing power of the anti-gun organizations today, on what was a hot-button issue just two years ago with the federal AWB, then that's a good sign. Perhaps, as you pointed on in your article, the AWB is really off the radar, even for the mainstream media, in terms of issues that voters care about today.

Good job in being there to represent the pro-gun side.

Stay safe.

Gray Peterson
September 1, 2006, 08:09 PM
Republicans did not hold up CCW in Ohio. RINO Bob Taft did. He is just one person. Things had not yet deteriorated enough for him that Republican legislators would take him on (like they have since).

Not enough to pass HB347, apparently. They keep insisting on passing it after the elections, which happened in 2004 and as a result things got gutted.

Bob Taft didn't want it passed. Neither did Governor George Voinovich, nor did Senator Dan White or currently Senator Bill Harris, as well as a House Speaker that kept holding it up. Also the head of the state Republican party hates CCW too. Mike Dewine and George Voinovich are now representatives to the US Senate, and they are among the most ANTI-GUN Senators, even by "anti-gun Democrat" standards that everyone seems to be harping on. This has been going on for over a DECADE.

The Republican party in Ohio are spineless cowards who only give lip service to gun owners and then stab them in the back. I'd take Ted Strickland and Marc Dann over psycho dominionist Blackwell and anti-gun Betty Montgomery any day of the week. Saying that Blackwell is the real deal, well, after Shaft, can you expect ANY gun owner to believe a GOP politician in the state of Ohio?

K-Romulus
September 6, 2006, 05:44 PM
I guess someone has been reading BenEzra's posts:

http://www.wtop.com/?nid=598&sid=903945

Study: Long Guns Used in Md. Crime Once Every Two Days
Sep 6th - 12:10pm

BALTIMORE (AP) - Semiautomatic rifles and shotguns are used in a crime in Maryland on average once every two days, according to a study released Wednesday by gun control advocates.

The study is based on an analysis of crime statistics for 1998 through 2001. It said at least 789 semiautomatic long guns that can legally be sold in Maryland were traced to a crime in Maryland during that period.

Delegate Neil Quinter, D-Howard, and CeaseFire Maryland, a gun control organization, said the study shows that Maryland needs to expand the 1994 law that bans the sale of semiautomatic pistols to include rifles and shotguns.

Opponents have defeated bills that would expand the law, arguing that the ban would infringe on the rights of lawful gun owners and would do nothing to reduce crime because such guns are seldom used to commit crimes.

One commenter to the story noticed that "traced to a crime" could mean "stolen from the lawful owner = the crime."

Edited to add:

Here is a link to the actual study: http://www.ceasefiremd.org/Reports/CeaseFireMDAssaultWeaponsStudy.pdf

I just opened it, but here is the first doozy (page 5):

The Mini-14 is a small, lightweight semiautomatic rifle manufactured by Sturm, Ruger.
One reason for the popularity of the Mini-14 is that it does not have the menacing appearance that is associated with the AK-47 and M-16. This resulted in most variants of the Mini-14 being specifically excluded from the federal and many state bans on so called
“semiautomatic assault weapons,” even though the Mini-14 was functionally equivalent to, and even fired the same ammunition as, other banned firearms. It is considered to be more accurate than the AK-47 and SKS designs that it generally competes with in the civilian market.

Edited again:

Pages 11-12 are a major attack on Sen. Giannetti and MSI . . .

In February 2004, an assault weapons bill was set to move forward in the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee. A vote was planned, but later postponed putting a final vote in doubt. Freshman Senator John Giannetti Jr. (D-Dist. 21) of Laurel was the sole swing vote on the committee and the target of intense lobbying from both sides.
Giannetti acknowledged calls and face-to-face meetings with Governor Ehrlich, who opposed the bill.27

Giannetti ended up voting against the bill, citing as his reason his concern for conservative Democratic legislators in other districts from having to vote for gun control. In his public statement at the time, he wrote:

“I believe that the bill would be filibustered on the Senate floor, and that in order to end debate, many conservative democrats would be forced to make votes for cloture, which would potentially hurt them politically in their district."

However, an early 2005 posting at Maryland Shall Issue28 stated the following on a
Gianetti fundraiser:
Maryland Shall Issue went to show our gun owner support of Giannetti as he was a heck of a stand-up guy last year - preventing the Maryland Assault Weapon Ban from getting out of the Judiciary Committee. I was pleased to see how warmly we were treated, and how many of us were there!

By March 2005 the posting was taken down.

Helmetcase
September 6, 2006, 10:10 PM
I don't see any actual descriptions of the "gun crimes" they're speaking of. There haven't been that many shootings total with rifles in MD in that period. They're obviously stretching the truth.

My favorite doozy is the idea that semiauto rifles are more dangerous than fully auto rifles (an interesting switcheroo for them). If that's the case, why aren't our troops carrying AR15s instead of M16s, M249s, etc?

Helmetcase
September 6, 2006, 10:22 PM
Phil Lee has a good rebuttal to the idea that AW's put cops at risk. (http://www.mcrkba.org/LEOsKIA.pdf)

If AWB's are needed to protect cops, how come no officer has been killed by rifle shot in MD since Jimmy Carter was president? :rolleyes:

Helmetcase
September 7, 2006, 10:27 AM
Ok, here's my response to the Brady/Ceasefire attack on assault weapons.

http://progunprogressive.com/?p=220

See what you think.

Malone LaVeigh
September 7, 2006, 03:42 PM
Two thoughts:

1) In the absence of pertinent source information, their statistics are no more than an assertion. They deserve no attention other than to point this out until they show their sources.

2) How much support are you getting from RKBA groups in your area, Helmetcase? It seems to me that you are doing a valuable service and if no one else is stepping in to do the job, you should be getting some support from the NRA, etc.

Norton
September 7, 2006, 03:56 PM
How much support are you getting from RKBA groups in your area, Helmetcase? It seems to me that you are doing a valuable service and if no one else is stepping in to do the job, you should be getting some support from the NRA, etc

Yeah, Helmetcase.....just how come the NRA isn't helping you? Oh, it's because you're one of us unsophisticated agitators :evil:

Helmetcase
September 7, 2006, 11:28 PM
Yeah, I'm pretty much the lone wolf around here. Our local NRA representative isn't particularly active...they're more of the "work behind the scenes, play defense" mentality. So needless to say they think of me as a meddler in their "secret plan to protect our rights".

I say ffff that. But Norton, Spot77, and others do lots of good work around here as well. We just need to keep at it and not get discouraged.

You guys around the country want to give Sarah Brady a kick in the teeth?

Really wanna piss them off?

You should contribute to the Giannetti campaign. They've made defeating him their top priority this year. If you don't live around here, you might wonder why you should contribute...you've probably never even heard of Giannetti. So why should you care about him?

Because the Brady's see MD as their last redoubt, their last stand, their Alamo. Its the last place where they think they'll get away with passing a new AWB. It's their last stand.

If we can beat them here, they'll waste resources that they can't spend taking your rights away elsewhere. If they fail to beat Giannetti, if they fail to achieve their stated top electioneering goal, it'll be a huge blow to them.

I can't overstate how important this race is. We're planning a last second push to protect John's seat. Campaign contributions are desparately needed. Whether you live in California or Wyoming or Idaho or Nebraska or Alabama or Florida, you can give Sarah Brady a punch in the gut by supporting John.

Give contributions here, and send the Brady's a message that their misguided campaign to deny our rights needs to stop. (http://www.johngiannetti.com/ht/d/Contribute/pid/646418)

Helmetcase
September 8, 2006, 12:20 AM
Here's my take on the Brady's and Ceasefire's latest. The more I think about it, the more I'm pissed off to the point I can't see straight. (http://progunprogressive.com/?p=221)

Their tactics are nothing short of disgusting.

Want to give them a kick in the teeth? Donate to Giannetti!

Malone LaVeigh
September 9, 2006, 07:41 PM
Want to give them a kick in the teeth? Donate to Giannetti!

Why don't you see if the mods will sticky a thread to that effect? I'll hold my breath... or maybe not.

Skeptic
September 9, 2006, 07:48 PM
I just donated for the cause.

The NRA is not helping in the fight against the gun grabbers here in MD and when you call them...... they're never in. I wonder why?

I would love to get a number and name to someone on the NRA-ILA team and ask them the question.

nico
September 9, 2006, 11:27 PM
With all the press the NRA has been getting about gun grabbers whining lately, I was going to join, but with the way they've snubbed Marylanders I'm having serious second thoughts.

Norton
September 10, 2006, 09:53 AM
With all the press the NRA has been getting about gun grabbers whining lately, I was going to join, but with the way they've snubbed Marylanders I'm having serious second thoughts.

I understand your hesitation but it is still true that the NRA is the one with the clout to wage the big fights.

I keep my membership because I figure that it gives me the right to complain to them. When I call and ask them why they are behind the sniping going on here in MD, I can say, "As an NRA Life Member I'm having a hard time......etc, etc"

Skeptic
September 10, 2006, 10:15 PM
Looking at Nortons sig line I noticed Tripwire. Having not been there is quite some time, I went to the site.... the guy who runs it certainly has no love for MSI and seems to be an angry person.

Wouldn't it be easier if all the pro gun folks worked from the same sheet of music so to speak?

I gotta be at the next legislative session......

nico
September 11, 2006, 12:37 AM
Wouldn't it be easier if all the pro gun folks worked from the same sheet of music so to speak?

It would. The only problem with that is that Jim Purtillo has anointed himself as the leader of the pro-2A movement in MD. Since he thinks he's the boss, anyone who doesn't follow his lead must obviously hate the 2nd Amendment. His name calling and childish websites are one thing, but with his current smear campaign against the biggest 2nd Amendment advocate in the MD legislature, I've personally lost all respect for the man.

Since we're on this topic, could someone explain what exactly happened to cause the falling out between MSI and Purtillo? About a year and a half ago, I was under the impression that they were beginning to settle their differences. There was even some indication from some of the folks on this site who are more involved and informed than me, that Purtillo wanted to settle their differences and was even beginning to have a change of heart on the CCW issue.

Gray Peterson
September 11, 2006, 03:05 AM
nico,

I think Jim Purtilo has crossed the line and now is getting into the territory of libel and slander. Sue him.

Norton
September 11, 2006, 04:07 AM
Wouldn't it be easier if all the pro gun folks worked from the same sheet of music so to speak?

You have to understand that, for the most part, everyone is.

Yes each organization has its focus issues (AGC's interest lies in representing its member clubs, MSI's focus is CCW, there are sportsmen's groups that are interested in hunting issues, etc, etc) but the bottom line is that they all pretty much support every pro-RKBA effort and get along.

More and more, it is clear that it is Purtilo who is on the outside looking in and he has chosen to further widen the gulf by attacking our friends rather than our enemies. Why isn't he attacking Neil Quinter, one of our worst enemies in the House, rather than the GOA Legislator of the Year, Don Dwyer?

Skeptic
September 11, 2006, 11:00 AM
It seems to me that the Tripwire bubba likes to "stir the pot". Controversy seems to be his strong suite... not to mention (IMHO) he thrives on it. Being the nice guy dont get his name in the spotlight. I noticed that he has a very poison pen and is not shy about using it.

If I'm in the country next year during the legaslative session, I have to attend.

648E
September 14, 2006, 12:54 AM
Damn I thought that said RPG! ;)

Spot77
September 14, 2006, 07:48 AM
Damn I thought that said RPG!


:D

Helmetcase
September 14, 2006, 10:52 AM
Since we're on this topic, could someone explain what exactly happened to cause the falling out between MSI and Purtillo?
Purtilo likes being the only person of influence playing in the gun rights sandbox. MSI started getting noticed, having some influence, and stealing his thunder. Why? We're more active, more determined, and prefer being visible and noisy in the effort to restore our rights. He seems to prefer subtle, behind the scenes machinations and back of the legislative building dealings. He thinks we're stirring the pot too much and should just "shut up and leave this to the professionals." To get the point across, he started and perpetuated the false rumor that MSI was trying to broker an AWB in exchange for CCW rights--a false rumor that I've had to debunk here as recently as six months ago. Amazing what some people will believe.

Sorry Jimbo, but we've been leaving it to the pros for three decades now and look at the mess we're in. I think he liked being known as "the" guy rights guy in MD, but sorry this job needs lots of people working together.

The idea that we should all just shut up and leave it to a guy who publishes an online newspaper and sends out defamatory postcards about other gun groups and attacks the only progun legislators we actually have instead of the antigunners and owns websites deriding other progun groups and calls people who don't conform to his tactical command "splinter groups" is ****ing insane.

This year's campaign, his lack of effectiveness, and his attacks on other groups and progun legislators have finally shown him out to be the charlatan he is.

He knows we're on to him. The fact that he's not here defending himself speaks volumes.

If you enjoyed reading about "PGP meets Sarah Brady! And crashes the Anti-Gunner party!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!