In a strict sense, could Brady truly be "not anti gun?"

Who cares? With her history of seeking to limit, control, or ban some guns (if not all), she is the enemy of those who believe in freedom with firearms. There are a vast number of people in our society and government who seem to have trouble comprehending the meaning of the phrase "shall not be infringed". And I thing "bear arms" means "own, have, carry" weapons such as those the government soldiers and employees have. After all, we ARE the government, right? Last time I checked, we were................

Well, I'm sure MADD would tell you that they're not anti-alcohol, they're anti DWI. However,

MADD founder Candy Lightner broke ties with the group in the 1980s. In 2002, she revealed the group’s new agenda when she told the Washington Times: "[MADD] has become far more neo-prohibitionist than I had ever wanted or envisioned… I didn't start MADD to deal with alcohol. I started MADD to deal with the issue of drunk driving."

I'm not sure what Greenpeace would tell you about nuclear power, other than that they're against it because of Chernobyl (spend even 20 minutes reading up on exactly the Soviets did at Chernobyl and you'll see why it's such a stupid argument to use against nuclear power in the states), but their co-founder also left the group saying [among other things]:

Going back to the early days in Greenpeace in the 1970s and 1980s, we were totally focused on nuclear war and nuclear testing in the Cold War. We failed to distinguish between the beneficial uses of the technology and the evil uses of the technology.

It became clear to me that there was a logical disconnect. The people who were most concerned about climate change were most opposed to nuclear power. Greenpeace is against fossil fuel, nuclear and hydroelectric power. Those three technologies produce over 99 percent of world energy. What kind of a path to a sustainable future is that?

Click to expand...

There never seems to be any shortage of nanny staters out there on a crusade to take away your rights [or your nuclear power] for the [according to them] greater good. Not sure if anyone has left Handgun Control Inc./Brady Campaign/whatever they've changed their name to now, citing misdirection in the group.

But yeah, Paul Helmke can claim whatever he wants to Steven Colbert. Ultimately, he's misguided, at best. He looks at gang/drug violence and blames guns!? This misguided direction causes him to wage a crusade to take away the rights of law abiding citizens "for the greater good". At worst, he's got a hidden agenda, something along the lines of making it easier for the government to turn totalitarian. Or maybe he's just elitist and thinks that only the very rich and politically well connected should have guns and CCPs.

Paul Helmke is from Ft. Wayne, Indiana and was a former mayor there. He was no good here and is even worse on the national stage. Claims to be a Rep, but sure has a Dem. agenda. Sorry if this is political but it is the facts.

Sure, sure the "not anti-gun for me" idea... is sort of not anti-gun. We call this the National Socialist theory of gun freedom for the fatherland.

All the best Democrats follow this. I can give you a long list of them who oppose gun ownership for the little people in every form and then shoot people for trespass on their property or for other minor offenses. Often this is done with a gun obtained illegally since they passed laws making them illegal. Lucky for them most are powerful and connected and don't have to worry about prosecution.

I hate pointing fingers at the dems back I can't find any repubs who do this.

I'm trying to come up with a way that Helmke could be telling the truth.

Click to expand...

That would be a wated effort - he's made no effort to try to be factually accurate in the past and I don't expect him to start any time soon.

There never seems to be any shortage of nanny staters out there on a crusade to take away your rights [or your nuclear power] for the [according to them] greater good.

Click to expand...

Word.

Guys like Paul Helmke have a strange view of the world. They distort the truth to further their agenda. While they are being dishonest, I think they are so far gone that they don't even know they're being dishonest anymore. It's pretty sad. Don't we have bigger and better things to worry about these days?

Even MADD are a bunch of hypocrites. They took funds from supermarkets who wanted to get more liquor licenses in Mass. Yes...they officially gave their support for hundreds and hundreds more liquor stores to get licensed in exchange for large donations to their group. When the media got a hold of it, they had to back down. Money talks I guess.

When someone is out there doing something "for the good of the people"...or wants to force me to do something "for my own good"....I am automatically skeptical.

I'm trying to come up with a way that Helmke could be telling the truth.

Click to expand...

I'm trying to come up with a way that the moon might really be made of cheese.

I love cheese.

When he says he is "not anti gun" he is telling the truth actually.

He believes that HE should be allowed to have one, he believes that certain "special" classes should be allowed to have one; politicians, judges, celebrities, etc.

He believes that the "common person" should not because they cannot be trusted enough.

So yeah, he's not 100% anti gun. Feel better?

Do a google search for Paul Helmke, he used to run on the Republican ticket.

You used the word "Helmke".

You used the word "truth".

I don't see how you can do it in the same sentence.

It is not in reality about "gun" control; it's about society [people] control that is the real agenda behind all gun control groups.If they can disarm you they can control your life as they see fit.

fcs25 has hit on it. The power behind these groups really *doesn't* care about firearms per se. Their agenda is controlling people. There will still be ample supplies of firearms for their bodyguards and their military. This becomes clear if you look at the history of gun control, which has always focused on minority populations deemed the most dangerous by those in power. That's why we still see draconian gun control in the inner cities all over the rust belt. It's obvious these laws haven't prevented a single homicide. Quite the reverse. But the goal isn't crime prevention or even gun control, the goal is to keep the populations in check by outlawing armed minority groups. Rural white populations, with strong Scotch-Irish heritage, have been very resistant to such attempts ("clinging to Bibles and guns"). Other ethnic groups have no such tradition of lawful gun ownership and have been much more vulnerable to attack. You can hear it in every PSA against "guncrime" with wailing mothers and the incessant drumbeat from clergy, politicians and entertainers that a black man with a gun will equal crime or tragedy. It's been the final nail in the coffin of that most terrifying threat to the power structure--the armed freedman.

So yeah, he's not 100% anti gun. Feel better?

Click to expand...

Exactly... kind of like maybe 90-93% anti-gun. But if you ever wonder, just look at the DC case and where the lawyers came from.