Brady Campaign - Do you support it?


PDA






bclark1
October 13, 2006, 02:39 AM
I just got an argument from a guy claiming that a lot of responsible gun owners support the Brady Campaign, and that their goal is not to disarm America, but simply allow reasonable ownership. I'd say more, but will feign a lack of bias for the sake of the opening entry of the poll.

* It appears the anonymous option did not work for me, sorry, first poll * I can guess how this will turn out, but I am genuinely curious how many gun owners would support the Brady's.

If you enjoyed reading about "Brady Campaign - Do you support it?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
bclark1
October 13, 2006, 02:45 AM
The background of this was actually referring to how the Brady Campaign somehow vilified the Five-SeveN, premising it as a favorite of criminals because it penetrates kevlar. It's an old argument, yes. It spun off into an issue that guns kill children (unlike cars, swimming pools, drugs that they get when their parents do a poor job, etc.), and just went downhill from there. The claim was that only "unreasonable gun nuts" want guns like the FN or assault rifles or anything high-capacity, and that there are hunters and plinkers out there who enjoy the sport but are not "psycho" about it who support the Brady Campaign.

This may not be the best sampling group, but I'd be interested in hearing from someone who enjoys shooting and doesn't think that the campaign against "gun violence" and a healthy shooting sports culture are mutually exclusive.

dasmi
October 13, 2006, 02:48 AM
The Brady Campaign is about disarming america. They aren't so much about guns, as they are control, though. 100% opposed.

Prince Yamato
October 13, 2006, 03:04 AM
A person who only believes guns are for sport is not a true "gun owner", but a fuddite. That being said, I can't think of any real gun owner who supports the Brady Bunch.

DRMMR02
October 13, 2006, 03:05 AM
No, because I do not care at all what law-abiding Americans own. A man can own a bazooka for all I care, as long as no one gets hurt, and no one's property but his own gets destroyed.

Gun laws are all about hindering the people who don't need to be hindered. The people who care about the law, don't need it. And the people who DO need it, just don't care, so it doesn't affect them.

Sindawe
October 13, 2006, 03:40 AM
I just got an argument from a guy claiming that a lot of responsible gun owners support the Brady Campaign,...Then by this chap's assessment, I guess I'm not a responsible gun owner. The claim was that only "unreasonable gun nuts" want guns like the FN or assault rifles or anything high-capacity, and that there are hunters and plinkers out there who enjoy the sport but are not "psycho" about it who support the Brady Campaign.Hmmmm...well then I don't feel so bad. Years ago I read a passage, one that struck me as being fundamental a truth about our species. "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man."

- George Bernard Shaw

Oh well, I've been called worse by better people. Said chap can go pound sand. :evil:

Warren
October 13, 2006, 04:13 AM
I voted no of course. But the poll is not anonymous, it is in fact nonymous. Not that I care though.

LadySmith
October 13, 2006, 04:25 AM
I voted NO based upon their record of lies, hysteria, hypocrisy...

G36-UK
October 13, 2006, 08:55 AM
Given that none of the laws that they advocate could be considered "responsible", and the fact that they've lied since their group was founded, I voted no.

Let's face it, their arguments are as watertight as a Supa-Saver Economy Cabin on the Titanic.

ETXhiker
October 13, 2006, 09:15 AM
I'm frankly flabbergasted that anyone would seriously ask that question. No matter what the spin, the Brady campaign aims to eliminate ALL private gun ownership. Period. For the millionth time, it ain't about hunting.

stevelyn
October 13, 2006, 09:22 AM
The Brady Pukes and their criminal mercenaries are our blood enemies next to the BATFEces Pukes. Supporting anything that originates out of their cake holes is cutting your own throat. The NRA went along with the '68 GCA and look what it got us.

You shouldn't argue with idiots. Passersby might not be able to tell the difference between you.;)

jrfoxx
October 13, 2006, 09:24 AM
I voted no, but only because "H*LL NO!" wasn't a choice in the poll. :)

buzz_knox
October 13, 2006, 09:30 AM
I'm frankly flabbergasted that anyone would seriously ask that question. No matter what the spin, the Brady campaign aims to eliminate ALL private gun ownership. Period. For the millionth time, it ain't about hunting.

For some gun owners, it's only about hunting. For others, it's about their having weapons but not those who "don't deserve them." For others, they just don't think their sacred ox will ever get gored ("I don't own one of those assault rifles and nobody should!").

Rev. DeadCorpse
October 13, 2006, 09:54 AM
The Brady Campaign should be disbanded under RICO statutes and the leaders rounded up on treason charges.

No. I'm not engaging in hyperbole here.

dragongoddess
October 13, 2006, 09:59 AM
reasonable ownership

What that means to me is I can own a fully automic weapon if I so desire without interference from LE or the government.

American By Blood
October 13, 2006, 10:10 AM
The claim was that only "unreasonable gun nuts" want guns like the FN or assault rifles or anything high-capacity, and that there are hunters and plinkers out there who enjoy the sport but are not "psycho" about it who support the Brady Campaign.

Only unreasonable music nuts want recordings of Beethoven's symphonies or Wagner's operas. There are pop music fans out there with a couple of Britney Spears CDs and maybe a Justin Timberlake single or two. They're not psycho about it and support efforts to banish classical music from school curricula and coarsen the tastes of the general public. :barf:

bclark1
October 13, 2006, 10:16 AM
Yeah, sorry, I thought I clicked the "Anonymous" thing but I see we can view.

My point had been that 5.7x28 is rather expensive, as is the gun, and no matter how fast the ammo's going most of it is lighter than a .22LR and not going to do much damage unless your shot placement is superb - it's neither something that will be sought by a criminal element, nor something any gun owner that could afford it would leave laying around. Not that I think most of us leave anything laying around, whether it's the safe queen or the Saturday night special. Oh well. Points are of no use with the majority of people involved with that cause, because they just get confused and start reciting statistics about kids dying whether or not it has any relevance.

BobTheTomato
October 13, 2006, 10:29 AM
You need a forth option that reads:

"From my cold dead hands!" :fire:

Thats what I would have voted.

wally
October 13, 2006, 10:31 AM
Next time "save the children" arguement comes up, bring up the danger of school sports. Six children (by Brady definitions, one was a college kid) have died suddenly while playing or practicing sports in the Houston area these past six weeks. Ban sports, if only one life is saved! Remember this next time the anti's trot out this old horse.

--wally.

orangelo
October 13, 2006, 10:35 AM
"Are you out of your mind?" would have been my choice but I couldn't find it so I voted no.

Eleven Mike
October 13, 2006, 10:39 AM
I just got an argument from a guy claiming that a lot of responsible gun owners support the Brady Campaign This could be true. There could be many responsible adults who own a couple of skeet-shooting guns or have a revolver in the bedside table drawer, who "support" the Brady Campaign. If they don't see the Brady's as keeping them from owning their own guns, they might think that the Brady agenda is about "common-sense gun control measures" or "gun safety."

But I hope you don't present this poll to your friend as coming from a representative sample of American gun-owners.

Green Lantern
October 13, 2006, 10:40 AM
All the BC cares about is "feel-good" and "looks good until someone actually THINKS about it" legislation. H-no, I don't support them! :mad:

Eleven Mike
October 13, 2006, 10:41 AM
reasonable ownership

What that means to me is I can own a fully automic weapon if I so desire without interference from LE or the government.I agree.

orangelo
October 13, 2006, 10:42 AM
I support the brady campaign in dropping dead.

scout26
October 13, 2006, 10:44 AM
Gun owners supporting the Bradyites would be kinda like "Jews for Hitler" or "Kulaks for Stalin".

Zundfolge
October 13, 2006, 11:08 AM
The claim was that only "unreasonable gun nuts" want guns like the FN or assault rifles or anything high-capacity, and that there are hunters and plinkers out there who enjoy the sport but are not "psycho" about it who support the Brady Campaign.

People think that because of scams like this http://www.huntersandshooters.org/

Justin
October 13, 2006, 11:09 AM
Utterly preposterous.

DirtyBrad
October 13, 2006, 11:17 AM
I started writing a nice reasonable reply to this about how the Brady Campaign does a poor job because of the obvious difference between their mission statement and their actual intent, but reading their stuff got me too fed up.

From their website:


Brady believes that a safer America can be achieved without banning guns. Our stand is simple. We believe that law-abiding citizens should be able to buy and keep firearms.
.
.
.
there are certain classes of weapons that should be out of bounds for private ownership. They include Saturday-night specials, which are used almost exclusively for crime...


So, the law-abiding can be trusted with dangerous things, just like they are with cars, knives, chemicals, etc, and the lawless use crappy junk guns almost exclusively?

Then why are you working so hard on laws that will only affect me and the other law-abiding people out there? Why are you trying to regulate my AR-15 or bclark1's FN?

If you really did just care about keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and to make society safer, we'd pretty much all be behind you. We don't want criminals to have guns. We're afraid of bad guys with guns, too. And we care about safety. Believe me. Go to a range and handle a gun at all like we see politicians do or like we see in the movies and see what happens.

Why do I need what you call an assault rifle? Why do you need a Hummer or a Cadillac? Can't you do all of your car stuff with a Honda? Aren't those larger luxury cars more dangerous? They're heavier, faster, and take up more resources.

The Brady types talk about this horrible world where everyone carries a gun and can get assault rifles and machineguns. Guess what, you're already living in it. Even here in Maryland, I can get a machinegun. More people live around CCW carriers than not. You've probably already walked past ten today. What you're so scared of is already the status quo. And it's so innocuous, you don't even know it.

Why don't you million moms answer my girlfriend when she asks why she can't carry a gun on the train late at night when she's coming home from law school. Explain to her why she can't lawfully carry the one thing that really can help equalize her against a man that weighs a hundred pounds more than her.

SamTuckerMTNMAN
October 13, 2006, 11:37 AM
Some things are rock solid and clear. Something as important as a free people's responsibility and right to retain arms is one such issue. It's not just about hunting, it's not just about home protection. It's much larger; nothing short than the final check of government in our constitutional republic. Groups like the Brady Campaign and the Hunters/Shooter's Association may dilute their poison with a lot of juice, but that makes it all the more deadly. When you want to know where someone stands on the issue, make it clear, ask them "What role to citizens play in a government which is 'by the people'?" And eventually, "Should citizens ever be able to defend against fascist tyranny or foreign invasion?" Most liberals think we live under fascism with G. Bush, they are fooling themselves. We won't see anything like it until someone begins limiting gun ownership among law abiding, patriotic, critically thinking citizens. We are our nations last line of defense. The Brady group is a prime example of people who have been conned into thinking we are obsolete, unnecessary, or even, in the way.
ST:fire:

buzz_knox
October 13, 2006, 11:46 AM
The Brady group is a prime example of people who have been conned into thinking we are obsolete, unnecessary, or even, in the way.


One, they weren't conned. They made conscious decisions as to what they wanted. And two, you could sum it up by saying we are "in the way." They know we aren't obsolete or unnecessary because our existence is necessary to prevent what they want: total control by the gov't and pacification of the populace. They know that when only the police have firearms you have a police state, and they (more specifically, their masters) believe that they will be in charge at the end of it.

DirtyBrad
October 13, 2006, 12:07 PM
I think that's way over-complicated. While that kind of manipulation may be going on at some level, the reason these people have the voice they do is because of the "million moms". I think it's pretty likely that not too many of them are sitting at home dreaming of the police state.

My opinion is that they are being conned. They live insulated lives and it's very easy to put violence (either by criminals or their own government) way up on a shelf somewhere and to write it off as something far away that will never really happen.

It's not exactly surprising. It's not news that living a soft and easy life makes you quickly forget about the dangers out there. Add in to that news stories about guns and kids and no stories about guns being used for the right reasons, and this is what you get. It's the same thinking that lets them shovel sausage into their mouths, but be horrified when they see some animal hurt on the side of the road.

The problem I have with us not understanding where they're coming from is that it makes it harder to change opinions, which I think is what's needed. To me, the best way to get them off the idea that guns are these inherently evil, overwhelmingly dangerous things is to bring up and show guns being used effectively to stop those trying to hurt others.

Cop saves kid by shooting hostage taker. Tough stuff, but everyone would agree that he did the right thing. Thank God there was a cop there. Woman shoots attempted rapist. Thank God "one of us" had a gun and used it. Kid shoots home invader saving himself and his mom from murder. Tough thing for a kid, but thank God he did what he had to do to protect his family.

I really think the first step is getting them to realize guns can fall on either side of the good-guy/bad-guy tool fence. Because right now, they all think that guns have no place in society at all.

Soybomb
October 13, 2006, 12:51 PM
It would be nice if playboypenguin explain his on the fence vote. Perhaps we can help him out. :D

The brady's position of being supported by responsible gun owners is those that think the 2nd amendment is about hunting and sportman games. No one needs guns unless its a deer rifle, trap gun, or single shot .22. Sadly I don't think thats all that uncommon among gun owners.

carterbeauford
October 13, 2006, 01:02 PM
I like to think most of us here are good people.

The Bradys are bad people.

I don't like bad people.

Deanimator
October 13, 2006, 01:09 PM
People think that because of scams like this http://www.huntersandshooters.org/

I virtually guarantee you that 9/10 gunowners have never heard of them and never will. Like the old National Firearms Association (the HCI proxy, not the Canadian org.), it will never be anything more than an obscure con that failed.

carpediem
October 13, 2006, 01:12 PM
If "reasonable/responsible gun ownership" means the emasculated, near-complete absence of private gun ownership in America, then yeah, the Bradys are your guys :barf:

mogunner
October 13, 2006, 01:16 PM
No! Sarah Brady and her bunch are out to totally disarm Americans.

Carl N. Brown
October 13, 2006, 01:28 PM
Two questions:
Why did the Brady Campaign change names from Handgun Control Inc.?
Why did National Coalition to Ban Handguns change its name to
Violence Policy Center?

Example facts:
Fraternal Order of Police supports the armor piercing ammo law that
the NRA helped write; Brady Campaign still harps on "cop killer bullets"
and the NRA's opposition to a total ban.

One real personal peeve-off:
The Bradys lied about Leroy Pyle.

Axman
October 13, 2006, 02:07 PM
I'll support them if they are being robbed, by taking a good shot at the harmful badguy! I dont with them to drop dead but wish their organization would disappear!

MountainBear
October 13, 2006, 02:11 PM
I hope no one expected a different result than we are getting...

Carl N. Brown
October 13, 2006, 02:20 PM
My idea of reasonable gun control is Pachmyer or Hogue.

PlayboyPenguin
October 13, 2006, 02:20 PM
I am the one undecided vote. Mainly because I have not read it yet. Once I have read it I am pretty sure I will be against it but I try not to prejudge. Maybe they have come to their senses are proposed a reasonable bill...but I doubt it.

Sometimes things are not what they seem. I would have thought I would have been in favor of something called the "clean sky act" until I actually read it.

Sistema1927
October 13, 2006, 02:25 PM
Not no, but Hell NO! :fire:

Why would any gun owner support the aims and goals of these freedom hating bas**rds? :cuss:

Gordon Fink
October 13, 2006, 02:44 PM
No. In fact, it is an ongoing testament to the harmless, law-abiding nature of American gun owners that the leaders of the Brady Campaign and similar organizations are still alive.

~G. Fink

DirksterG30
October 13, 2006, 02:45 PM
Do I support the Brady Campaign? The Brady Campaign is an organized effort to deprive Americans of their 2nd Amendment rights. In two words, He** no!

Eleven Mike
October 13, 2006, 02:48 PM
Playboy, I don't think there's anything to read here. The poll is just to find out how many gun-owners support the Brady Campaign, in general.

On the other hand, if you've never heard of the Brady's, you might need to read some of their publications.

PlayboyPenguin
October 13, 2006, 02:51 PM
Playboy, I don't think there's anything to read here. The poll is just to find out how many gun-owners support the Brady Campaign, in general.
Ahhhh...I thought the poll was in reference to a new legislative bill. As a whole I do not agree with the Brady program. Although I did meet the man himself a couple time (same fraternity) and he was a good guy.

Ohen Cepel
October 13, 2006, 02:53 PM
I think they want to disarm us all. They will never say that. However, their actions (and occassional slip ups) speak volumes!

trickyasafox
October 13, 2006, 02:58 PM
to put it mildly, our political philosophies are somewhat divided.

md7
October 13, 2006, 02:59 PM
Amen to what Dirty Brad said!

Alex45ACP
October 13, 2006, 03:00 PM
I just got an argument from a guy claiming that a lot of responsible gun owners support the Brady Campaign, and that their goal is not to disarm America, but simply allow reasonable ownership.

The Brady Campaign's idea of "reasonable ownership" is that serfs like you and I are disarmed, and only law enforcement, military, and politicians get to have guns.

TCB in TN
October 13, 2006, 03:02 PM
No! Just No!

I cannot support them in any fashion. I am opposed to the very premise upon which they say they base their position, not to mention my opposition to their actual stance on the issue of civilian gun ownership and use. I oppose any law, any act, any organization that hinders law abiding citizens from exercising their God given rights, which are by the way, spelled out in the Constitution of the United States. Brady and all of her sister organizations say that we should have to justify our need to own, possess, or use a gun, and I say that all real Americans, all people who love and value freedom should fight to protect our God given rights.

Carl N. Brown
October 13, 2006, 03:05 PM
The founder of Handgun Control, Nelson Shields,
was pretty open about wanting to ban handguns
from all but very narrow defined minority--licensed
private security, perhaps select gun clubs, maybe
veternarians or other professionals with a job-related
need. Shields got nowhere, so the Bradys were
brought on as figureheads and the rhetoric was
turned down a notch or two (from overkill to 10).

carterbeauford
October 13, 2006, 03:50 PM
People think that because of scams like this http://www.huntersandshooters.org/

There was a good article on them in a recent issue of First Freedom.

http://www.huntersandshooters.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=98&Itemid=33

There are certain factors that weigh heavily against keeping a gun in the home for self-protection. One of the most widely quoted statements about guns is that a firearm kept in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder.

The AHSA is a LIE. Real gun owners don't need the assistance of any such organization in making gun-related decisions. Just another organization who feel it is their place to tell you and I what to do.

SamTuckerMTNMAN
October 13, 2006, 03:56 PM
AND...

in addition to the political reasons written earlier;
The practicing of firearm accuracy is an incredible art form. To maintain sense of ease under pressure, to discipline the body through repetition and practice, its a real form of meditation without all the hocus pocus crap. To put a bullet where you think it to be, WOW, what a rush!!! I have seen kids go from out of control to responsible with appropriate safety and handling training working up with dummy weapons, and into air rifles with corresponding character education. Our society would only benefit from having a national school-based accuracy program from the middle school up (with air rifles). This would not only prevent mishandling by teaching safety it would also impart a sense of respect for the power of a firearm and help stop this video-game-driven lust for violence (mostly people who have never seen or experienced it for real).
The Brady's have no idea how vulnerable our country may end up in the future, or is. . . I once asked a group of friends, some were fence sitters on gun issues, "If you knew something terrible was happening and society was shaking around you, would you rather be with a Marching Mom and a pink sign or with an armed man looking out for his community and protecting his family, regardless of his religion or political views?" Needless to say, I warned them I didn't have enough food for everyone.
I don't know if the Brady's are just ignorant and misled, or in fact, intent on undermining and destroying this country for a piece of the global pie. In my book, they are treasonous cowards.:banghead:

Eleven Mike
October 13, 2006, 04:26 PM
Although I did meet the man himself a couple time (same fraternity) and he was a good guy.I'm curious what you mean by that. I'm sure he might well be a pleasant fellow in person. However, because he has lent his name to an effort to deny the basic human rights of millions, I can't imagine calling him a good guy. The average anti-gun citizen might have the excuse of being misguided on an issue he hasn't studied deeply, but I doubt he is in that category.

On the other hand, I don't know how his injuries have affected his mind.

Rexrider
October 13, 2006, 04:34 PM
I just got an argument from a guy claiming that a lot of responsible gun owners support the Brady Campaign, and that their goal is not to disarm America, but simply allow reasonable ownership. I'd say more, but will feign a lack of bias for the sake of the opening entry of the poll.

My answer to the poll was of course "NO".

But I do believe there are plenty of gun owners out there who do agree with the so-called "reasonable" gun bans/restrictions/licensing/etc.

Having been born and raised in PA and now living in AZ, I have met many "hunter only" types. These are people that own guns only for hunting and that is it. They have a bolt action and a shotgun in the closet. They put 10 rounds down range maybe once a year to make sure the scope is still zeroed. Once they have their deer and/or small game the guns are cleaned and put away for another year.

IMHO, these are the "gun owners" who get caught up in the whole "reasonable" gun law arguments. They don't see the big picture when it comes to banning guns.

When the Brady Bunch says all 5.7/saturday night specials/.50 cal/[insert gun type here] should be banned, the hunter only types do not argue against it because it does not impact their right or ability to go hunting.

This is not meant to be a sweeping generalization against hunters. There are plenty of gun enthusiasts who hunt. And plenty of hunters who could care less about 5.7 handguns being banned. I have met them. I have had them for neighbors. I have been called a "gun nut" because I owned guns that were considered useless for hunting. I have been called a gun nut because I go to the range year round with said useless guns.

These are also the people who won't know what hit them when "they" come for their high power rifle because it can defeat bulletproof vests. Theses will be the same people who will scream in anger why no one did anything to stop "them" from taking their hunting rifles.

Havegunjoe
October 13, 2006, 04:35 PM
Who gets to define REASONABLE? Whenever I hear someone, such as the Brady Bunch, say they just want "reasonable" gun control I ask this question. The answer is never, ME. Since I am the only reasonable person I know forget it, I don't want someone else setting up the rules. Reasonable to me is Vermont style. Everything else is control and that is what the Brady Bunch is all about. They are subtle, but control of our guns is what they want.

Carl N. Brown
October 13, 2006, 04:44 PM
What was reasonable alcohol control to Carrie Nation?
Busting up the local bar with a hatchet. That is the
crusader mentality in a nut shell. Their opposition to
a scapegoat they have named eeevile stocks their ego.

PlayboyPenguin
October 13, 2006, 04:46 PM
A reasonable conclussion should always be a possibility if not a probability. The second someone take the stance that a reasonable conclussion is not a possibility then they have declared that people are not capable of good judgement and have made it hard to believe they can be trusted with a deadly weapon.

When I hear someone say "who is to decide what is reasonable" my skin crawls. We are the ones that decide what is reasonable. The fair minded and free thinking people on both sides. To be a reasonable compromise it has to be something that both sides can agree on and still feel confident that their needs are being met.

The only people that are not satisfied with a truely reasonable compromise are the far extremes of both sides. In my opinion they are a minority that I would never want to please anyway.

BigFatKen
October 13, 2006, 04:58 PM
I am the one undecided vote. Mainly because I have not read it yet.

Hey, read it then vote. Or don't read it but don't vote then. Somehow, from your old posts I said to myself "If one guy's a yes, it will be that Playboy guy".

I am not for or against the people of Darfur, but I am not going to have us send in troops or anything until we know more. Most of them are being macheted to death because they have no guns except the ones who are starving by food being witheld as in a war time siege.

lee n. field
October 13, 2006, 05:00 PM
They essentially want me dead. The strong lording it over the weak is no problem for them.

Do I support them? Nyet!

Mark8252
October 13, 2006, 05:11 PM
This assault rifle owner votes no. Its the best varmint rifle I have.
Trying to explain to the Brady Bunch is a waste of time.

:) :) :) :)

PlayboyPenguin
October 13, 2006, 05:18 PM
I said to myself "If one guy's a yes, it will be that Playboy guy"
Hey, thanks. I take it as a compliment that I have made enough of impression on you to think I am a person that will say what I think even if it goes against a prevailing opinion. :)

PlayboyPenguin
October 13, 2006, 05:19 PM
Brady Who??
Yeah, it might be the "Mike Brady Campaign" they are referring to...the one that wants to require all middle aged men to get bad afro perms. :)

Stevie-Ray
October 13, 2006, 06:08 PM
Anything I've a mind to say about the Bradys would definitely NOT BE HIGH ROAD.

You get the idea.

Soybomb
October 13, 2006, 08:43 PM
I wonder if Bobhwry would be so kind as to offer up why he's on the fence. It's always nice to know.

10 Ring Tao
October 14, 2006, 01:47 AM
I can't imagine why I find this thread humorus....................

:D

spankaveli
October 14, 2006, 01:50 AM
results of the poll are somewhat surprising....



i didnt think there'd be any on the fence, either. :D

DirtyBrad
October 14, 2006, 02:07 AM
Man, are we ever dull. No one voting yes? Not even to be a wiseass?

the 22 junkie
October 14, 2006, 02:13 AM
Not a single Yes. Why am I not suprised?

DFW1911
October 14, 2006, 03:54 AM
I've not read the replies of others - intentionally - so here's what I think: who is the Brady (Bunch) Campaign to determine what arms we can bear? The message they send is paradoxical: they say they are about supporting our rights to own firearms (only some, of course), and pass judgment on how each state is performing / upholding THEIR view of firearm ownership. In other words, some are "okay" some are "not." :confused:

I might suggest they look beyond our borders and our time to learn the lessons of history.

Those lessons, it seems, are the easiest to forget, at least for some.

Take care,
DFW1911

SAG0282
October 14, 2006, 07:54 AM
I support the brady campaign in dropping dead.


My thoughts exactly......I've never seen anything but disingenuous hysteria and outright lies from this group. A gun owner would have to be retarded to support this group, regardless of any "balance" on issues they perceive.

ETXhiker
October 14, 2006, 12:14 PM
The fair minded and free thinking people on both sides. To be a reasonable compromise it has to be something that both sides can agree on and still feel confident that their needs are being met.

The only people that are not satisfied with a truely reasonable compromise are the far extremes of both sides. In my opinion they are a minority that I would never want to please anyway.


:scrutiny:

PlayboyPenguin, the Brady campaigns only "needs" are to take your guns. And you want to compromise with them?

When faced with oppression it must be defeated, not bargained with. Sheesh.

Sleeping Dog
October 14, 2006, 01:21 PM
require all middle aged men to get bad afro perms.
... as opposed to GOOD afro perms? :neener:


Man, are we ever dull. No one voting yes? Not even to be a wiseass?
I gotta admit I thought about it, being an incorrigible wiseass, but couldn't bring myself to do it. Brady bunchers are just too annoying

Regards.

Deanimator
October 14, 2006, 03:04 PM
A reasonable conclussion should always be a possibility if not a probability. The second someone take the stance that a reasonable conclussion is not a possibility then they have declared that people are not capable of good judgement and have made it hard to believe they can be trusted with a deadly weapon.
What "reasonable conclussion" do you expect from the neo-Nazi National Alliance or NAMBLA?

Yes, it is entirely possible for somebody to not only be completely wrong, but completely evil.

PlayboyPenguin
October 14, 2006, 03:42 PM
Deanimator,

And in those cases you are dealing with extremes. Most scenerios are not composed etirely of extremes and the people in the middle are the ones most likely to broker a mutually beneficial compromise. Sometimes compromise is not possible, and should not even be considered in some case (such as with NAMBLA or neo nazis), but to rule out compromise and reason just because you are afraid of who the reasonable people may be or what parts of your argument they may not agreee with is absurd.

Norm357
October 14, 2006, 05:34 PM
100% opposed.

Eleven Mike
October 14, 2006, 07:18 PM
Well, that's very enlightened. We don't need death threats toward gun-control groups on the High Road, whether jokingly or otherwise.

Deanimator
October 14, 2006, 07:49 PM
And in those cases you are dealing with extremes. Most scenerios are not composed etirely of extremes and the people in the middle are the ones most likely to broker a mutually beneficial compromise. Sometimes compromise is not possible, and should not even be considered in some case (such as with NAMBLA or neo nazis), but to rule out compromise and reason just because you are afraid of who the reasonable people may be or what parts of your argument they may not agreee with is absurd.
What ADDITIONAL "compromise" of your rights would you make with anti-gunners?

Registration?
Licensing?
No "assault weapons"?
No "handguns"?
No "sniper rifles"?

unixguy
October 14, 2006, 08:11 PM
Well, I've been hanging THR around for coming up on 2 years now, and had seen a number of comments about anonymous vs. not anonymous polls, and it turned out to be helpful today.

I was curious about the one YES vote, and hoped that the voter would explain their reasoning. What I found is that either the voting mechanism is broken or "someone" wasn't paying attention when they voted, because their post doesn't match their vote.

Ahem. :)

Unlike PlayboyPenguin, I figured that if it's coming from the Brady Campaign it has to be bad for gun owners. I'm going to save myself some time and presume that Brady isn't going to be doing anything different now than they've been trying to do for the last 10 years.

Norm357
October 14, 2006, 08:13 PM
I was curious about the one YES vote, and hoped that the voter would explain their reasoning. What I found is that either the voting mechanism is broken or "someone" wasn't paying attention when they voted, because their post doesn't match their vote.


Yeah, ummmm, that was me and i had an ND.:banghead:

Mannlicher
October 14, 2006, 08:15 PM
bclark, what is this, some sick joke?

PlayboyPenguin
October 14, 2006, 10:43 PM
What ADDITIONAL "compromise" of your rights would you make with anti-gunners?
I think I have made myself clear on what compromises I am willing to make. I will repost this previous statement for clarification.

I said...
That is why I do support some gun laws and enforcement of the good ones we have now and do not feel new ones are needed.

I also think that the laws should not be any more complex than...
*Must be 18
*Must not have been convicted of a violent crime for xxx amount of time.
*Must take a CCW safety course and pass a background check to prove citizenship and criminal history to receive a CCW permit (not a violent felon...none of this you have unpaid parking tickets or once got arrested for jaywalking crap).

I might even add that you cannot currently be under a restraining order.

Deanimator
October 15, 2006, 01:59 AM
Quote:
What ADDITIONAL "compromise" of your rights would you make with anti-gunners?
I think I have made myself clear on what compromises I am willing to make. I will repost this previous statement for clarification.

I said...
Quote:
That is why I do support some gun laws and enforcement of the good ones we have now and do not feel new ones are needed.

I also think that the laws should not be any more complex than...
*Must be 18
*Must not have been convicted of a violent crime for xxx amount of time.
*Must take a CCW safety course and pass a background check to prove citizenship and criminal history to receive a CCW permit (not a violent felon...none of this you have unpaid parking tickets or once got arrested for jaywalking crap).

I might even add that you cannot currently be under a restraining order.
Those things are already the law at the local, state and federal level for the most part.

If you're not willing to go BEYOND those things, then your opportunities to "compromise" with the Bradys, et al, are exactly ZERO.

Unless you're willing to go along with licensing, registration, one-gun-a-month, "cheap gun", "assault weapons" and .50cal. bans, repeal of concealed carry, and the ultimate BAN of handguns, I simply have no idea what you think you're going to compromise.

KC&97TA
October 15, 2006, 02:05 AM
The thing that irritates me most... isn't the paper work... it's the fact that I have 2 AR's, but had to wait 10 days to pick up a shot gun that will only shoot 2-3/4 shells, only holds 3 rounds total, and has to have the choke removed to shoot numerically lower than 7 shot.

If I can produce a registered hand gun to ME, why should I have to wait at all to buy another gun, of any kind.

The only thing I do support is INSTANT BACK GROUND CHECKS and age requirements.

S&W620
October 15, 2006, 02:09 AM
I don't really understand the point of these threads.

This is a gun forum.

You are asking if gun enthusiasts agree with anti gun legislation.

Common sense should answer this.

Do we all agree with safe gun ownership? Of course.

Do we agree with legislation that restricts us in any way? Of course not.

Werewolf
October 15, 2006, 11:01 AM
I don't really understand the point of these threads.

This is a gun forum.

You are asking if gun enthusiasts agree with anti gun legislation.

Common sense should answer this.Sorry but some times common sense isn't so common.

Oklahoma, where I live, is a big time hunting state. Lots of guys and gals here who are gun enthusiasts - as long as the guns in question are what would be considered mainstream hunting guns. I don't hunt - plenty of meat in the supermarket - but have nothing against the guys that do - each to his own.

Would that that applied to some hunters. I know 3 that would have no problem at all if the goobermint decided that my battle rifles and semi-auto hand guns should be taken away. They're good guys but I've learned not to even bring the subject up anymore - there's just no convincing them that the 2nd has nothing to do with hunting, that their high powered hunting rifles could easily be taken as sniper guns and that their pump and auto bird guns could easily be taken as street sweepers.

The sad part of this is that IMO those types make up a majority of the estimated 80 million gun owners in the US and it is why our elected officials are not overwhelmingly pro-gun because if all those 80 million understood that the 2nd isn't about hunting and all about freedom - well...

Green Lantern
October 15, 2006, 11:06 AM
I don't really understand the point of these threads.

I didn't either at first, but look at the results now....TWO (as of now) voting yes. Two on the fence...

It leads to some good discussion, and hopefully education for the yes-voters.

I'm thinking that some of Mr. Volk's posters would help a lot in the one case - namely the one about how antis wanted to ban a hunting revolver ("HUNTERS - you aren't untouchable!!!")

Ah, here it is: http://www.libertyoutlet.com/store/itemdetail.html?detailid=173

"It's just one guy" some may say. "That one guy can tell a lot of OTHER guys that one day the Bradys will come after THEIR guns too!" I would reply! :cool:

***************************
Sure, there may be some things that I agree with with the Bradys. I bet there are some things that the NRA and the Brady's even agree on.

But just because if Sarah Brady, Wayne LaPierre and I agree, say, that the world is "round" -

does NOT mean we're all on the SAME SIDE! :uhoh:

Groups like NRA promote SAFE and RESPONSIBLE gun ownership - while working hard to PROTECT the RKBA! They're not PERFECT of course, but they sure have our interests "at heart" more than the Bradys!

The Brady's promote making society SAFE from gun ownership by working hard to RESTRICT the RKBA as much as they can.....
And they're SNEAKY about it too! Why do ya THINK they changed their name from HANGUN CONTROL INC????

BTW, as Mike said....I hate being "PC" toward groups like the Brady Campaign as much as anyone - but the "death threats" and the like? NOT COOL. Not smart! Not helping OUR position.

Troutman
October 15, 2006, 12:14 PM
I'm going to vote yes. I agree with the "Brady bunch". Texas gets a D- for(D-am good rating), in my book. No hassels.
p.s. If this vote was to support a bill of some kind, I would vote no.

Troutman
October 15, 2006, 12:50 PM
I can understand for the posting.
When one goes into politics, and tries to make an argument, whether itís for, for or against a bill, either one has to make a counter argument for the other. This is where among other things, the NRA goes into action. You don't want to be un-prepared.

akodo
October 15, 2006, 01:29 PM
here is my view of gun control

Felons, the mentally unstable, non-citizens should not be allowed to own guns.

Law abiding mentalyl stable citizens should be allowed to own any guns, and purchase any amounts of guns and any amounts and types of ammo.

There should be a two different option check system

Option A. Government keeps a list of felons, mentally unstable, non-citizens here legally. You buy a gun from FFL, this list is checked and within 10 minutes you pass or fail

Option B. Allow people to be checked against this list and once they clear, they are issued a card good for 1 year at no cost, which when presented with valid government issued i.d. card allows you to skip any checks by the FFL, this option is included for those who get false positives due to similar names, etc.

Repeal process if you think somehow you are getting your records mixed up with someone elses.

Wesker
October 15, 2006, 01:31 PM
Typically, if a group of people want to be in the way of me and my legally owned guns, and the right to carry them concealed or otherwise, I'm pretty adamantly AGAINST them.

The Brady Bunch can hug my root.

Green Lantern
October 16, 2006, 10:10 PM
Felons, the mentally unstable, non-citizens should not be allowed to own guns.

I used to agree 100% with all 3 of those, and still do for non-citizens.

But someone here opened my eyes with one simple comment that got me to THINKING - in effect, he posed the question:

If someone is either too dangerous or too unstable to be trusted with a firearm...
Then why the heck are they walking around free?! Why aren't they in prison or a mental hospital...????

ETXhiker
October 16, 2006, 10:46 PM
I used to agree 100% with all 3 of those, and still do for non-citizens

My wife is from South Africa. She is a legal, resident alien, on the long path to citizenship, in a country she loves. She is training diligently to handle firearms effectively and responsibly, with the intention of getting her CCW soon.

Please explain to me why she shouldn't own a gun? :fire:

the pistolero
October 17, 2006, 12:06 AM
Brady believes that a safer America can be achieved without banning guns.
Yet Brady supports gun bans on the local level everywhere they've been implemented, most notably Washington, D.C., where they say, "Don't repeal the laws that keep D.C. families safe!" I could say much more about these vile creatures, but in the interest of staying on the High Road as much as I can, I shall refrain.

Why did National Coalition to Ban Handguns change its name to
Violence Policy Center?
They actually changed their name to The Coalition To Stop Gun Violence. Same modus operandi as Handgun Control, just a bit more open about what they want to do...

mp510
October 17, 2006, 12:23 AM
A person who only believes guns are for sport is not a true "gun owner", but a fuddite.
Yes, he is a true gun owner. Diane Feinstien is an equally true gun owner. If you own one gun, regardless of why, you are a gun owner. To say otherwise is to be counter realistic.

That said, I think the Brady Campaign does a good job at only 1 thing. Covering up their agenda. They could care less about safety, and all about control.

ProguninTN
October 17, 2006, 12:23 AM
I voted no. I will not allow the door to tyranny to be opened with disarmament. On another note, the Brady's are trying to punish everyone for something John Hinckley (sp ?) did, and it's appalling. :barf:

BullfrogKen
October 17, 2006, 12:57 AM
I've stayed away from posting to this thread until now.


I've been persuaded some time ago to think about this issue from the premise that the right to self defense is a basic human right. It isn't granted by men, but an acknowledgement of the nature of sentient beings and free men. We also ought to have available to us an effective means of self defense.

S&W620 said: I don't really understand the point of these threads.

This is a gun forum.

You are asking if gun enthusiasts agree with anti gun legislation.

Common sense should answer this.

Well, the point is that many, MANY gun owners do not agree with us. I've belonged to private ranges and clubs, not the cinder block rental facilities but bona fide private ranges, that prohibit men who carry arms about society the means to practice on their range. They don't permit any sort of "rapid fire", movement, or drawing from a holster. They even go as far as to banish members who use a human sillouette target.

When I asked the officers at club meetings about this situation, the response is that they don't want "that crowd" in their membership. They prohibit men from being afforded the opportunity to practice those skills; these are self-imposed restrictions. They come from gun owners. They come from men who don't think we should carry guns, in a state with a LONG history of carrying arms, and only see guns as recreation.


Pengiun, there was a time that men here can recall where a young man could walk into a shop, buy a gun as a 16 yr old, and walk away that day. Boys took guns to school, and we policed ourselves to know who we were selling to. The nature of man has not changed in the modern age. Bad men have always preyed on others, and governments have always sought to gather more and more power unto themselves. Introducing laws serves little more than to remove personal responsibility from our community and give it to the nanny state. Those laws just don't work. They don't. Same with the state of social welfare.

People have a right to an effective means of self defense. Even the young and the former criminal. If you assert a man cannot be entrusted with arms, how can you with a straight face conclude we can trust him to walk about society, and simply barring him access to guns keeps us safe from him? You aren't naive enough to believe a law is sufficient to prevent him from obtaining one, are you? I'm persuaded once we deem a man can be released to return to society, that he ought to have some opportunity to regain full rights as a citizen. Loss of a basic right for LIFE is one free men have historically been loathe to impose.


And, the Brady Campaign are treacherous liars, my friend. I would no sooner compromise with them negotiate with than a wild animal.

Eleven Mike
October 17, 2006, 02:04 AM
Wow, Ken. Good post.

BullfrogKen
October 17, 2006, 02:25 AM
Thank you. I seem to find an acorn from time to time.

PlayboyPenguin
October 17, 2006, 02:36 AM
I will agree with most of what bullfrog said but I will strongly disagree with the idea that children have the right to arm themselves with firearms for self defense.

Defending a child is the responsibility of the parent.

Children do not possess the required decision making skills to know when or when not to use deadly force. They just simply do not.

As for a day when kids could buy firearms...I remember when we could buy a rifle and even then you had to have a parent with you. I never remember a time when a 12 year old could walk into a gunshop and buy a handgun.

I even asked a gun dealer friend this question once and he said that is a falsehood. There may not have been a set law against it but that was because one was not needed because gun dealers would never even consider it back then. He is 72 and been in the business since he started working for his dad 58 years ago.

BullfrogKen
October 17, 2006, 02:47 AM
PlayboyPenguin said: Children do not possess the required decision making skills to know when or when not to use deadly force. They just simply do not.

But, we let them drive. And even . . . . :eek: :uhoh: Big GASP, get birth control and have an abortion without parental involvement. Big dichotomy.


PlayboyPenguin said: There may not have been a set law against it but that was because one was not needed because gun dealers would never even consider it back then.

Exactly. The shop owner knew the customer, and his family. If Dad said, my boy's ready, sell him that .22 revolver sir, there were states that permitted it and shops that did it. Also, there were a lot of places that turned away those they didn't think ought to have one because of his reputation of behavior. The nanny state taking it all over removes individual responsibility.


It used to be a non-issue. The are people who can remember how gun transactions took place before this current generation of hysteria.

PlayboyPenguin
October 17, 2006, 03:01 AM
Bullfrog,

I am going to need some help finding where it has been legal to sell handguns to minors. Most info I am finding is saying it has never been legal. Some things I am finding are referring to a date of 1938 as when it became officially illegal.

I know people are always talking about how it was legal when they were young and there were no issues with it but I cannot find where it was ever legal for children to buy handguns. Unless the people are talking pre-1938 which would make them nearly 80 to be able to remember that.

I have also never seen any gun related studies pre-1938 on which to base my opinion.

If anyone has this info please pass it on to me. I like to have the facts before I form a hard opinion.

evan price
October 17, 2006, 04:02 AM
Well, first, let me say I have no intention of voting in this poll, because it serves no purpose and is a waste of bandwidth, IMHO.
However my opinion on this is pretty obvious- NO.

Now, The Brady campaign is something I can understand. Most of us can. What happened to Sarah Brady, or more particularly, her HUSBAND, during the assassination attempt on President Reagan was a tragedy in every sense of the word. I feel for her; I wish that that crime had not happened; and I understand her need for vengeance and to "right wrongs" she perceives had wrecked her life.

Unfortunately I also believe that her past tragedies in no way excuse her for creating more tragedies, unrest, disappointment, divisiveness, and ultimately hatred in some, to pursue her idealistic dreams. A world without guns would be great! If it was 100% without guns. Or knives. Or sticks. Or empty bottles, or people with large physical stature or strength... if the world were truly equal.

But let's be realistic. This is not going to ever happen. The weak will be preyed upon by the strong. If the weapon of choice is a pallet slat with a nail in it (until we ban boards with nails, will we ever be safe???) then we need a bigger board, with a bigger nail.

Basically, what I am saying is, I do not hate Sarah Brady. I don't pity her either. I wish she would just shut up and go away. She and her cronies have made a pile of money by standing over the crippled body of her husband and waving his bloody shirt in our faces.

Enough, already. You suffered, unfairly. Life is unfair. Grow stronger from it and put your talents to use doing something about the real problem, which is not gun ownership.

If you really want to save lives, Sarah Brady, then why don't you start a National Campaign to Stop Automotive Violence? More people die every year in the US from cars than guns. There's your enemy. We don't need stricter enforcement of existing laws about automobile ownership, we need Car Control.

My $.02, and worth every penny.

Eleven Mike
October 17, 2006, 08:20 AM
Well, first, let me say I have no intention of voting in this poll, because it serves no purpose and is a waste of bandwidth, IMHO.
However my opinion on this is pretty obvious- NO.

But haranguing Sarah Brady (who's probably not reading this thread) with your obvious opinion, while actually preaching to the choir is worth your precious bandwidth?

I didn't vote either.

benEzra
October 17, 2006, 10:16 AM
bclark1,

The Brady Campaign supports "gun rights for hunters who ONLY own hunting guns that we approve of." That's their definition of reasonable gun ownership. There are a few (very few) gun owners who fit that category.

The problem with your friend's view is that

(1) he thinks most gun owners are hunters and such who only own guns the Bradyites approve of, whereas only 1 in 5 gun owners nationally hunts (there are between 2 and 3 times as many handgun owners as hunters, for example); and

(2) he has fallen for a load of crap about the FiveSeven (with civilian ammo, it will NOT penetrate any vest that is rated to stop .357 magnum), assault weapons (any civilian gun holding more than 6 or 10 rounds, or any civilian rifle or shotgun with a handgrip that sticks out), etc. etc. etc.

pharmer
October 17, 2006, 10:27 AM
It is interesting that 1% of the general public is actively psychotic and completely disconnected from reality and the same percentage voted yes on a gun board:neener: Joe

thumbody
October 17, 2006, 03:08 PM
I will agree with most of what bullfrog said but I will strongly disagree with the idea that children have the right to arm themselves with firearms for self defense.

Defending a child is the responsibility of the parent.

Children do not possess the required decision making skills to know when or when not to use deadly force. They just simply do not.


Penguin I believe this family believes you're wrong.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/poe/poe1.html
There have been many incidences of young people arming themselves and protecting themselves and/or others some of these stories have been shared on this forum
Here is one
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=227831

Green Lantern
October 17, 2006, 03:11 PM
My wife is from South Africa. She is a legal, resident alien, on the long path to citizenship, in a country she loves. She is training diligently to handle firearms effectively and responsibly, with the intention of getting her CCW soon.

Please explain to me why she shouldn't own a gun?

*opens mouth, removes foot* ;)

People like your wife were not exactly what I had in mind there, even though they do meet the definition of "non-citizen." But in her case, she did come here LEGALLY and is in the process of becoming a citizen. Which should count for something. :cool:

Just curious (I should be more informed on this), but just how long does/will it take for her to gain full citizenship?

Ok, ok...how's about I improve it:

"I used to agree with all 3 restrictions, and still do for anyone not in the country legally!"

Penguin - I can see what you're saying to a point, however - age does NOT equal maturity!

If in a gunfight and given a choice, I'd pick one of these "kids" that have defended their families to watch my back, over an IANSA-brainwashed "adult" that wets his pants at the mere sight of an "evil" gun!

Justin
October 17, 2006, 03:29 PM
LISTEN UP.

I just wasted a not insignificant amount of time excising a lot of off-topic idiocy from this discussion. (God knows it certainly wasn't ribaldry.)

For those of you who took part in the discussion, you might consider how your so-called contributions to the discussion reflect on both you and on THR. If you're still unsure, take a quick perusal of THR's Code of Conduct (http://www.thehighroad.org/code-of-conduct.html), which I'll note you all agreed to when you signed up here.

Ponder on it for a bit, and consider what topics are appropriate for THR.

Ok, back to the discussion.

Cosmoline
October 17, 2006, 03:38 PM
Children do not possess the required decision making skills to know when or when not to use deadly force. They just simply do not.

What about the son who just shot an intruder to defend his mom? Did you see that article? Children shouldn't have the full rights of an adult to be armed in public, but that doesn't mean they can't be trained and prepared to defend the household.

buzz_knox
October 17, 2006, 03:56 PM
Now, The Brady campaign is something I can understand. Most of us can. What happened to Sarah Brady, or more particularly, her HUSBAND, during the assassination attempt on President Reagan was a tragedy in every sense of the word. I feel for her; I wish that that crime had not happened; and I understand her need for vengeance and to "right wrongs" she perceives had wrecked her life.

Sarah Brady didn't turn anti as a result of the shooting. In an interview (in the early 90s when the movement needed a boost and to make herself more credible), she said she decided to work to limit access to firearms after a child gained access to a weapon someone had left in a vehicle. As stated above, She uses her husband's wound as a bloody shirt to wave, just as Cindy Sheehan uses her son's death.

PlayboyPenguin
October 17, 2006, 05:48 PM
just as Cindy Sheehan uses her son's death.
I find this comment offensive. If you have never lost a child to war you should get down on your knees and give thanks that you haven't and then beg forgiveness for that comment. :mad:

Justin
October 17, 2006, 05:58 PM
Careful, PP. Sitting on a horse that high's liable to give you a nosebleed.

PlayboyPenguin
October 17, 2006, 06:04 PM
Careful, PP. Sitting on a horse that high's liable to give you a nosebleed.

No high horse here (at least I like to think not). I come from a military family that has lost loved ones to war and I find that comment offensive.

I do not think stating so in anyway violates and conduct codes. I am not attacking anyone. I found problem with a statement. Not with a person. I do not think a bad statement makes for a bad person. I say offensive things all the time (just ask alot of people on here) and I think I am pretty neat. :)

I just think sometimes people latch onto comments like that and repeat them without any real reference to what they mean and how hurtful they can be to someone who has suffered such a loss.

kikr
October 17, 2006, 06:19 PM
Just like I don't support Sarah Brady having a CCW and trying to tell me I'm not responsible for one. :mad:

The brady bunch is about responsibility. They are essentially saying that the average American citizen is not capable of maintaining responsible gun ownership.

buzz_knox
October 17, 2006, 07:49 PM
You can be as offended as you want. It doesn't stop the statement from being true. Sheehan was a professional protestor before her son went into the military and his death provided her a soapbox to carry on her work. She's used the "celebrity" she's obtained to rage not only against the war (understandable) but also for her pet causes, such as (until her handlers reined her in) Israel's "evil" treatment of the Palestinians.

Cosmoline
October 17, 2006, 07:57 PM
Exactly. It's not about the significance of losing a family member to war or violence. It's about USING THAT DEATH as a rank political tool. The libs are particularly good at it.

beg forgiveness for that comment

From SHEENAN!? You can't be serious.

buzz_knox
October 17, 2006, 07:59 PM
What was it that some of Clinton's former staff said? That they wished 9/11 had happened on their watch because it would have been their moment to shine and establish a legacy?

PlayboyPenguin
October 17, 2006, 08:04 PM
Sheehan was a professional protestor before her son went into the military and his death provided her a soapbox to carry on her work. Could you please provide me the information on which you are basing this statement? I know that Rush, O'Reilly, and Hannity called her a "professional protester" (all on the same day after receiving their talking points) as part of their two word culture of slander. I have however never seen evidence of this and have seen two of the three back off this statement. I am just curious on what it is based.

And when I said beg forgiveness I am saying from every person who has lost a child to war. If you have not you have no right calling those emotions into question. One should never speak of something they know absolutely nothing.

Eleven Mike
October 17, 2006, 08:12 PM
Playboy, I don't care what she did before her son died. If in no other way than this, she is using his death to pretend she has more say on the Iraq war than others do. She is using her grief as a shield from any and all criticism.

She should spend the rest of her life on her face before other families of slain military personnel, begging their forgiveness. Especially to those families whose loved one's name has been used in her protests without so much as a by-your-leave.

Cosmoline
October 17, 2006, 08:27 PM
If Plan A is to defend Cidy Sheehan, might I suggest a Plan B.

http://z.about.com/d/urbanlegends/1/0/O/E/chavez_sheehan.jpg

PlayboyPenguin
October 17, 2006, 08:56 PM
Cosmoline,

Would a picture of Rumsfeld with Saddam or Bush with the Bin Laden family or Cheney with Momar mean we cannot support our govt?

Not that I actually support her (I have never really listened to her) but I would never call her emotions involving the loss of her son into question and think doing so is in poor taste.

If she really feels strongly about losing her son to a war she feels is unjustified (a feeling I share) then she has every right to say what she thinks and to use the attention she receives to make her point.

How is that different than people like Rush and Hannity going out and spewing what they are told (whether they believe it or not) just for the cash.

I also hate people falling into the trap of the "two word" culture the neo-caons have tried to impose on people. Use you search engine on the words "professional protester" and her name and you will see that every right wing rag printed stories using that same phrase the same day and kept using it to this day. Talk about manuipulation.

cbsbyte
October 17, 2006, 10:16 PM
I voted on the fence. Not because I agree with the Brady group on most issues, I don't support most of their stance on RKBA. I do agree with them on some issues, for example background, mental health checks and limits on high capacity magazines.

buzz_knox
October 17, 2006, 10:43 PM
On second thought, forget it. Why give her the publicity?

Cosmoline
October 17, 2006, 10:58 PM
Would a picture of Rumsfeld with Saddam or Bush with the Bin Laden family or Cheney with Momar mean we cannot support our govt?

Sheehan isn't working for the State Department the last time I checked, and doesn't have to go around posing with nasty rulers in the interest of diplomacy. She does it because she personally likes their politics. Her son is not the issue. It's her use of her son's bloody shirt for a political cause. She is in this respect the same as Sarah Brady. They rely on their association with tragedy to silence critics. In Brady's case, she's used her husband's head injury to ride roughshod over every one of our rights. I hate her for that, and will raise a toast when she dies a badly needed death. Sheehan I don't personally hate, but I know the breed and don't trust it. When anyone starts telling you to support their cause because of a dead relative or "the children," it's a good idea to scrutinize their motives.

PlayboyPenguin
October 17, 2006, 11:05 PM
I hate her for that, and will raise a toast when she dies a badly needed death.
Okay, that tells me all I need to know about this conversation. I am done being involved in it.

10-Ring
October 17, 2006, 11:05 PM
Yeah, uh, No, not so much

Cosmoline
October 17, 2006, 11:07 PM
You want me to respect or honor the woman who's responsible for the BRADY BILL?! She's not from some upright, respectable opposition. These people are out to put us six feet under, folks. They'll do it bit by bit if they have to, but they're dedicated to the cause of making the American gun owner EXTINCT. They'll do it with their husband's brains and their children's bloody shirts because they have no honor.

bigun15
October 17, 2006, 11:08 PM
I'm going to keep this anger that PlayboyPenguin has built in me (a human doesn't know how to safely operate a weapon until their 18th birthday, then they are suddenly perfectly fine). That may be a thread for later. Instead, I'm going to address this:

I do agree with them on some issues, for example background, mental health checks and limits on high capacity magazines.

Why is that?

PlayboyPenguin
October 18, 2006, 12:01 AM
I'm going to keep this anger that PlayboyPenguin has built in me (a human doesn't know how to safely operate a weapon until their 18th birthday, then they are suddenly perfectly fine).
Do you get equally angry when people deny a 9yr old a drivers license? Just curious. :)

or are you saying that they are not mature enough at 18 and should have to wait longer? or that maybe each person should have to take a maturity test before buying a firearm.

I think I will just stick to the legal definition of adulthood. A lot less arbitrary.

bigun15
October 18, 2006, 12:44 AM
Okay, that tells me all I need to know about this conversation. I am done being involved in it.

Apparently not.

Do you get equally angry when people deny a 9yr old a drivers license? Just curious.

Nope. Giving a 9 year old a license would either never or extremely rarely save his/her life.

Maybe you haven't read many of my past posts but I am 16 years old and my biggest pet peeve on this forum is when people tell me that they are important enough that they should be able to defend themselves, but I am not given that same privelage.

Read the Second Amendment. It doesn't end with "if the individual is over 18." Why can you purchase, carry, and use a gun while I can't? Am I not important enough? Is my life not worth it? Can you look me in the eye and say this? I hate it when people misinterpret the Constitution (sound familiar?)

There really is no reasonable age limit that will take out all the irresponsible people and leave only the responsible ones. You should know this. You're an adult and your life is worth protecting and mine is not.

My parents are responsible for protecting me, eh? Replace "parents" with "cops" and make the sentence in reference to everyone. Sounds familiar, doesn't it? Should my parents be by my side the full 18 years until I'm an adult? I don't think so. I am responsible for defending myself (also sounds familiar, doesn't it?).

What about when someone breaks into my house. My dad can't get his gun in time and he kills my parents. I can't get out of my house without risking getting shot because the door is in the middle of the house. All he has to do is come back out of the room, and now the whole family is dead.

Every argument that is used by the members of this board for owning their own firearms can also be applied to me. Of course there are irresponsible people my age. There are irresponsible people your age too. Guns don't kill people, people do.

Sounds familiar, doesn't it?

PlayboyPenguin
October 18, 2006, 12:48 AM
Apparently not.
I meant I am done discussing Sheehan with Cosmoline. He obviouly has strong feelings about that subject that I do not want to get into.

Nope. Giving a 9 year old a license would either never or extremely rarely save his/her life
And how does that differ? Seems to me a child with a firearm is more of a danger in the vast majority if situations. Seems to me alot of abductions occur on the way to school. If they could drive themselves there they would not be so vulnerable.

DirtyBrad
October 18, 2006, 01:06 AM
bigun15,

While you are probably just fine with a gun, the law makes a distinction between children and adults, of which you are of course aware.

The analogies you make here aren't quite accurate. Your parents are not analagous to the police. Your parents have a responsibility for your safety and upbringing, the police do not. Time after time it's been shown that the police have no duty to protect you.

Your parents do. If your parents aren't providing adequate nutrition and shelter for you, they will be held accountable. If, through omission or a direct act, they put you in a position of danger, they'll be held accountable.

The legal line between childhood and adulthood is somewhat arbitrary by nature, but we need an ability to clearly define who is an adult and who is a child. While people may be unfairly on one side or the other, that will be the case with any system we devise.

Stating that there are situations where a gun could save your life doesn't mean that it should be the law. I applaud your ability with firearms and hope that every parent would raise their child to have the same. And if you were in a situation where using one would save you or another innocent, I would hope you did so. I would also hope that a 13 year old, if he had a car nearby when being chased by a potential murderer, would get in and get away. That doesn't mean that I would support a law saying that 13 year olds should drive.

You recognize that there is a lower limit to grave responsibility. You would probably not argue that a five year old should be allowed to purchase and carry a gun, even if he is able to physically manipulate it. We recognize that a five year old doesn't have the level of maturity or understanding to carry. That line has to be drawn somewhere. It happens to be at 18 (or 21).

Something that separates this from discrimination is that there are no permanent children. Once you hit the legal age, you'll have the same responsibilities and rights as the rest of us.

It sucks now, but it will be over soon. Think of it like boot camp.

Cosmoline
October 18, 2006, 01:06 AM
I meant I am done discussing Sheehan with Cosmoline. He obviouly has strong feelings about that suject that I do not want to get into.

I don't have strong feelings about Sheehan, but I agree it's off topic. I do have strong feelings about Sarah Brady and her campaign against the right to keep and bear arms. I have no sympathy for the person after what she's done and what she continues to do.

DirtyBrad
October 18, 2006, 01:16 AM
I don't quite get the spite at Cindy Sheehan. There are lots of war protestors, some of whom are veterans, some relatives of soldiers, some not directly connected at all.

I don't know much about her, so could of course be missing something horrible that she's done, but I don't see what's wrong with her invoking her son's name in her protest. I'd imagine it was his death that got her started down the road and is the root of her strong feelings on the subject. Which seems understandable.

It's hard to imagine a war that we all agree on and that isn't protested.

Cosmoline, I think you lower yourself when you talk about celebrating death. And I think it reflects poorly on all of us. It seems to me that a big part of the mission of this site is to show the world that we are a rational and noble bunch. I think toasting the death of a woman undermines that.

Gator
October 18, 2006, 01:19 AM
I just got an argument from a guy claiming that a lot of responsible gun owners support the Brady Campaign, and that their goal is not to disarm America, but simply allow reasonable ownership.

He was lying.

I'm sure that has been said already in this thread, but I really cant read more than the little bit I've seen.....my blood pressure couldn't take it.

Cosmoline
October 18, 2006, 01:49 AM
I've had to live under Sarah Brady's law for many years now, and I find my nobility has run out. I absolutely, totally detest that person. Thanks to her we must become supplicants to a federal lord merely to purchase a firearm. The fact that she used her husband's brains and blood to lubricate her bill's passage in DC adds to my hatred of her.

DirtyBrad
October 18, 2006, 01:59 AM
Cosmoline, I understand what you're saying.

However, if my girlfriend applied for her CCW, was denied (which she would be here in sunny MD), and was subsequently murdered by a guy with a knife on the train, I'd sure as hell be plastering her name all over the next hearings in Annapolis.

PlayboyPenguin
October 18, 2006, 02:18 AM
DirtyBrad,

I agree. I do not understand how people see her using her personal experience to give relevance to her stance as a bad thing. She suffered a loss and she is sharing her experience to motivate others that share her beliefs. It is called talking about what you have actually experienced and not just what you have been told. it gives weight to your argument and adds perspective. This is more an act of bravery and committment than one of exploitation. Despite what right wing pundants want you to believe. They would rather you not hear the truth from people that have actually experienced the effects of this war. They would rather you just listen to their high paid monkeys that have never experienced anything but fetch and stepping and cashing a big check. That is why they subversively try to tear her down with labels like "professional protester" that they have all the talking heads and right wing rags repeat and repeat, then retract it when noone is listening. I just don't see how people fall for this and call themselves free thinking.

Cosmoline
October 18, 2006, 03:00 AM
She suffered a loss and she is sharing her experience to motivate others that share her beliefs.

No, she cynically used her husband's injury to bring in donations and push for a law which was subsequently passed. It was not a matter of eliminating some federal restriction which prevented her husband from defending himself. Indeed, thanks to her actions all of our freedoms have been reduced. That's not a noble or honorable, it's an evil plot.

That is why they subversively try to tear her down with labels like "professional protester" that they have all the talking heads and right wing rags repeat and repeat

Are you still on about Sheehan? I thought we'd agree to leave that aside as off topic. You're the one repeating and repeating it.

PlayboyPenguin
October 18, 2006, 03:09 AM
Cosmoline,

I was discussing Sheehan, or however you spell her name, with DirtyBrad. That is not a topic I said I will discuss with you. However, now that I re-read your post I think I took something you said about Brady to be about Sheehan. My mistake.

I know nothing about Brady. She may be the devil for all I know and may only be in this for power and money. I have never met her but I did play cards with her husband and the country group Alabama one night in Virginia (we are all PiKapps). Sheehan has little to gain.

I will also admit to at first being appalled by the "celebrate her death" remark but then I thought it is probably just a moment of anger coming out in bold faced type. I know I have had to edit some of my own posts before after saying something I should not have said.

Lord knows there are alot of people in politics and organized religion these days that I would have to hold in a giggle if I heard they had been hit by a bus so can I really throw any stones?

BullfrogKen
October 18, 2006, 03:20 AM
That is why they subversively try to tear her down with labels like "professional protester"

You wouldn't mean like:

just listen to their high paid monkeys that have never experienced anything but fetch and stepping and cashing a big check.

Wow, dude. You managed to separate your distate of personal attacks and subsequently launching your very own by a period.

PlayboyPenguin
October 18, 2006, 03:24 AM
Bullfrog,

My attacks were not subversive at all. They are forthright and directly spoken. They are not misleading and I will not retract them late friday afternoon when noone is listening. I at no-time try to use a misleading catch phrase and then repeatedly drill it into peoples heads before later denying it. See the difference?

Green Lantern
October 18, 2006, 07:34 AM
limits on high capacity magazines.

I too ask, WHY? :confused:

And DOES Sarah Brady have a CCW, as mentioned on the last page? Offhand the only anti I know of that does is Fienstein. But I sure wouldn't be shocked...

Dr. Dickie
October 18, 2006, 09:08 AM
I'm always willing to stick my nose in where it's no welcome.
As far as Sarah Brady, I have to agree at first with PlayboyP.
I see her inital response the tragedy of her husband being shot, as gathering a cause and fighthing for what she believed to be right (however misplaced it may be); HOWEVER, once the initial emotion had had time to settle, and cooler heads prevailed, she still sticks to what must (should) be apparent to any truthful rational person to be an untenable position. She must (deep down inside) either WANT to prevent folks from defending themsevels (I doubt this), or believe what most liberals believe and that is she knows better what is good for us. Since she continues to support this position, I can understand the frustration that Cosmoline feels. I do believe she thinks she knows better that the rest of use knuckle dragging boobs, we must be disarmed for our own good, since at best we will accidently hurt someone with our pervert lust of weapons.
Cindy Sheehan is similar. At first her grief at the loss of her son mostly likely did drive her to adopt her anti-war campaign, but now she is simply being used and abused by the Left, Bush hating folks of this country (my anger is not at her, but those that seek to exploit her personal tragedy--for her, I feel sorry).
I can understand the use of a personal tragedy to try an right a wrong (although that is not the job of government), look at what John Walsh has done. However, there is a big difference between enforcing the rules and a wholesale assult on freedom for security. In fact that is one of the most important differences there is!
My $0.02
The fight can now continue un-abated:neener:

buzz_knox
October 18, 2006, 09:16 AM
As far as Sarah Brady, I have to agree at first with PlayboyP.
I see her inital response the tragedy of her husband being shot, as gathering a cause and fighthing for what she believed to be right (however misplaced it may be);

And once again, according to her, it wasn't about her husband; she only became anti-gun when a child obtained a weapon that someone left in a vehicle apparently owned by family or friends. The child wasn't hurt, but she got involved to reduce access to the firearms. This was the statement she made in a TV interview (60 Minutes if memory serves) during the period drumming up support for the Brady Bill, one of the "we're not out to ban guns" pieces. According to her own statements, her husband's injury did not drive her to this; it's just something she uses to support her ambitions.

Werewolf
October 18, 2006, 10:40 AM
My attacks were not subversive at all. They are forthright and directly spoken. They are not misleading and I will not retract them late friday afternoon when noone is listening. I at no-time try to use a misleading catch phrase and then repeatedly drill it into peoples heads before later denying it. See the difference?
NO... But then it has been said that the enemy never considers themselves cruel or evil.

RE: Sheehan. What she is doing by waving her son's death in people's faces to forward her cause both denigrates him as a soldier and dishonors the life he gave for his country. Sheehan's son joined the Army voluntarily. From what I have read he volunteered to go to Iraq. He believed in the war. Sheehan's husband was so disgusted by what his wife was doing in the name of their son that he divorced her.

All indications are that the son would probably not approve of how his mother is using his death to further her political agenda.

Eleven Mike
October 18, 2006, 02:00 PM
Not that I actually support her (I have never really listened to her) but I would never call her emotions involving the loss of her son into question and think doing so is in poor taste.

If she really feels strongly about losing her son to a war she feels is unjustified (a feeling I share) then she has every right to say what she thinks and to use the attention she receives to make her point.

How is that different than people like Rush and Hannity going out and spewing what they are told (whether they believe it or not) just for the cash.

I also hate people falling into the trap of the "two word" culture the neo-caons have tried to impose on people. Use you search engine on the words "professional protester" and her name and you will see that every right wing rag printed stories using that same phrase the same day and kept using it to this day. Talk about manuipulation.

That's an interesting point, considering that Limbaugh has made a staple out of showcasing the same behavior from the MSM. A few examples: The way "gravitas," in 2000, suddenly became a common English word to describe Dick Cheney's affect on the Republican ticket. Just a few months later, Limbaugh ran another "montage" of various people on the MSM calling Katherine Harris a "partisan political hack." So, yeah, both sides have a way of thinking alike and talking alike. How much of that is intentional is probably hard to pin down.

But then, let's grant you the assertion that Limbaugh and Hannity are only in it for cash, and don't care about what they believe, even though that is almost certainly not the case. Are they as bad as a seditious publicity-whore like Shehan, who uses her grief to make specious charges against the Commander-in-Chief of troops still in the field, and to gain an audience with a vocal enemy of American interests like Chavez, and uses her son's name for causes he may not support while claiming to honor his memory? Doubtful.

But by saying such things about her, am I questioning that her grief and loss are very real and gut-wrenching for her personally? Of course not. Should that shield her from all criticism when she makes a fool of herself and allows herself to be used by the media to obstruct the government's efforts to end the violence in Iraq and bring the troops home safely? Not at all.

Gordon Fink
October 18, 2006, 03:57 PM
I do agree with them on some issues, for example background, mental health checks and limits on high capacity magazines.

And once again, why?

~G. Fink

benEzra
October 28, 2006, 08:28 PM
I do agree with them on some issues, for example background, mental health checks and limits on high capacity magazines.
The capacity limits they propose are lower than that of civilian carbines available in the early 1860's.

Do you own a gun that holds more than 6 or 10 rounds, or a shotgun that holds more than 3 to 5 shells?

I do. My wife does. And I wouldn't particularly appreciate it if Sarah Brady tried to take them away.

4v50 Gary
October 28, 2006, 08:41 PM
I'm sure Feinstein was among the supporters of the Brady Campaign. She has a .25 ACP.

If you enjoyed reading about "Brady Campaign - Do you support it?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!