Are the Brady bunch actually wrong? (Bear with me)

[keeleon]

I hate to think that there are people in the world that tell cancer victims to quit going to their doctor, a couple "detox" enemas and some power crystals are all they need. I'll probably never convince the proponent of that treatment that they're wrong, but if I can convince the people that would have followed their advice to seek real medical treatment, I'm happy. We still have communists that run in most elections. People are still racist. None of these groups will go away, but we can do our best to expose their poor arguments to others. We should never bend to their wills.

I admit, I have nothing to counter this. I AM young and naive. I do need to do more research, and I thank you all here on this website for helping me every day get the information I need. I just get very frustrated that emotion is such a powerful tool, and that it can be used in the face of logic and actually win in some people's minds.

Saying "we should keep all of the people we don't trust locked up until we can trust them" is about as realistic as "if only we could get rid of all the guns in the world..." Neither of them are really possible for various reasons. That is why, you may disagree with me, I think that violent criminals probably shouldn't be allowed to have guns. The Brady campaign also claims this is one of their goals. Which is why I suggested we approach from the angle of compromise instead of "all or uothin'!" As has been proven here aptly, however, they don't really want compromise, they also want "all or nuthin'!

I'm not going to argue anymore, because as I have stated, I don't actually believe in a lot of the things I was saying, I was merely trying to be fair and balanced, and look at how the other side can perceive certain aspects.

I also did not mean to imply that people are "children" and need to be tricked into thinking something. I was just stating an observation that depending on how you refer to something can drastically change how people view it. If a fence sitter sees "LIVE FREE OR DIE!" vs. "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!", they might be inclined to think with their heart over their mind. If we say "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!" followed by "teach them proper gun safety", that in fact, does mean we are agreeing with the Bradys, just not on every issue, which is called a compromise.

 

[USAFNoDAk]

If the Brady's were really all that concerned with gun safety, they wouldn't be against the Eddie Eagle program being taught in schools. Nor would they be against gun safety training being taught in schools.

As a matter of fact, you'd think they'd push gun safety in schools as hard as other liberals push safe sex education in schools. That's not the case with the Brady Bunch, however. I look at them this way. They may not be for outright bans on ALL firearms, but they want a big say in which ones us little people can have. Also, they'd like to make it so hard to purchase and possess a gun, that more and more people will just throw up their arms in frustration. This will result in less people owning guns. The fewer the numbers in a crowd, the easier they are to control. As The Who sang, "We won't get fooled again!" Has the Brady Bunch fooled you?

 

[USAFNoDAk]

If the Brady's are so smart and know what will curb violent crime, why can't they point to a definitive drop in crime with causal relationship to any background check or waiting period which they've proposed and gotten enacted into law? Where's the proof that their schemes will work? We've already tried, and are still trying, several of them. It should be easy for them to point out (if it were indeed the truth):

"We pushed for a national background check and waiting period, which were passed into law in 1991. Since then, violent crime, including violent crimes which were committed while the perpetrator(s) used a gun, have declined significantly."

They simply cannot do this. Remember how Bill Clinton and Sarah Brady tried to spin it? They bragged about how many people were prevented from purchasing a gun. Their claim got rediculous at around 800K. What they didn't tell you were several things.

1. Many of those who were prevented had simple misdemeanors or traffic tickets and local authorities were abusing the background checks and preventing those people from purchasing a firearm from a licensed dealer.

2. The data base had lots of names that were duplicates, misspelled or inaccurate. This meant that many people who should have passed the background check, were denied.

3. Some of the people who were innocent, but were initially denied, were counted as "felons" who had been stopped from purchasing a gun by the Brady Law. Later on, they were able to rectify the mistake(s) in the data base and did indeed purchase a gun. However, the number of folks who accomplished this was never subtracted from the overall number of "felons" who were denied.

4. Out of 800K "felons" who supposedly tried to purchase a gun, less than a dozen were ever prosecuted for the felony they committed. Yes, it's another felony for a convicted felon to even attempt to purchase a gun, whether from a private seller or a licensed dealer.

5. Some states already had background checks and/or waiting periods before the Brady Law took effect. This was never mentioned in their public blatherings about how effective the Brady Law was in stopping "criminals" from getting guns.

6. What about all the felons and criminals who buy or bought guns on the street in the "illegal black market"? How could the Brady Law stop them from purchasing a gun?

7. If a felon or criminal tried to purchase a gun from a licensed dealer, which is the only time they'd show up in Brady Law stats, as long as they weren't prosecuted, they were left free to go buy a gun "off the street", outside of the Brady Law. These people would then not have been prevented from purchasing a gun. You could only say that they were prevented from purchasing a gun from an FFL. To say that they were flatly denied from purchasing a gun, is not necessarily based upon the truth. Yet this is what the Clintons and the Brady's were saying.

Again, if you stopped 800K "felons and criminals" from buying a gun, and this was really true, violent crime rates including those committed when the perp(s) used a gun, should have dropped like a stone. The Clintons and the Brady's would have been trumpeting those stats from the highest news outlets. Yet, they did not. Do you wonder why? Because it was all smoke and mirrors to make the general public believe that background checks and waiting periods can actually reduce crime. Where's the proof in the pudding? There is none. It was all a big lie. Clinton was and still is a big liar. We all know that.

Background checks are worthless when it comes to reducing violent crime. Same with gun registration.

 

[USAFNoDAk]

geekWithA45 wrote:

Keeleon:

You need to do your homework.

You need to dig out -who- runs the Brady org, who -funds- the brady org, and to take a look at their history of -activities- and -statements made when they had public sympathy-.

You will find that they were very open about their goals. For example, it's pretty well documented that the "assault weapon ban" was a stalking horse for more comprehensive gun bans.

You will find outright, bald faced lies and intentional distortions of fact, law and history in their documents and "public information".

Do NOT take my word for it.

Open your own eyes, and see it for yourself, because doing it for yourself brings the strongest confirmation possible. Read their documents, and compare it to other points of data from neutral sources. It's not too hard, their veneer of deception doesn't run too deep, you hardly need dig much past the topsoil.

Their claims simply don't add up, but they are counting on the fact that most people will take their word for it, and not look any further.


You know something, many things that convicted felons say are rational and logical too. Many of them would make extremely good salesmen if they could be honest and work a hard days work in their lives. Instead, they become great con men. So, just because someone says something logical and rational, doesn't mean they aren't out to strip you of something valuable that belongs to you. Verstehen Sie, Bitte?

 

[USAFNoDAk]

Saying "we should keep all of the people we don't trust locked up until we can trust them" is about as realistic as "if only we could get rid of all the guns in the world..." Neither of them are really possible for various reasons. That is why, you may disagree with me, I think that violent criminals probably shouldn't be allowed to have guns. The Brady campaign also claims this is one of their goals. Which is why I suggested we approach from the angle of compromise instead of "all or uothin'!" As has been proven here aptly, however, they don't really want compromise, they also want "all or nuthin'!



I'm guessing that 99% of law abiding gun owners agree that violent felons shouldn't have guns. But to be a violent felon, officially and legally, you have to be convicted. If you are convicted, you should go to prison for a very long time. Non violent felons should not be put in prison for a very long time. Once a "violent" felon has done his time, should he be released? Well, how can you tell if he is going to be violent again? If there is some evidence that he will be, don't let him out. If you do, he will get a gun or some other weapon, regardless of background checks. If he is no longer a threat, and you release him, why shouldn't his rights be restored? What if he wants to go straight and work honestly the rest of his life? He may have to live in a tough, crime infested area for awhile. Should he not be able to defend himself? These are very pertinent questions. I'd rather see a law where once you have been convicted of a violent felony, and done a very long stretch in the pen, if and when you are released, you can have all of your rights restored. However, if you commit another act of violence and are convicted for it, you go back in the joint for life with no parole, whether you use a firearm or not. It shouldn't matter if you use any weapon.

By the way, why don't we make convicted felons go through a background check to buy a knife? Has there never been a convicted felon who was released and later killed or severely injured some victim with a knife? Of course there has. If it saves one life, wouldn't making released felons go through a background check to buy a knife be worth it? (note: I'm being absurd to illustrate a point here).

 

[USAFNoDAk]

In order to ensure a safe police state; the right of the people to keep and bear arms must be infringed.

Or,

"A well regulated people, being necessary to a secure State, the right of the state militias, to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed".

 

[Bezoar]

If the brady bunch has their way we will end up worse then the United Kingdom. IF you looked closer at some of their ideas on "proper training", most sergeants in the USMC who train recruits how to use a rifle, WOULD NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT TRAINING.
Actually the idea of no criminals to have guns is nice. However current laws here in michigan and elsewheres can bounce you inot the bad criminal list if you have to many parking tickets within a certain number of years prior to application. Even if you get labelled a bad parent for not taking your kid to see the fictional "hannah montana" concert you can kiss getting a gun goodbye.

 

[RedLion]

I think their doing us a service.

Right now I'd be doing my math homework if it wasn't for them!!!!

 

[TCB in TN]

Saying "we should keep all of the people we don't trust locked up until we can trust them" is about as realistic as "if only we could get rid of all the guns in the world..." Neither of them are really possible for various reasons.

Makes more sense to lock them up than to infinge upon my rights because of someone else's mistakes!

That is why, you may disagree with me, I think that violent criminals probably shouldn't be allowed to have guns. The Brady campaign also claims this is one of their goals. Which is why I suggested we approach from the angle of compromise instead of "all or uothin'!" As has been proven here aptly, however, they don't really want compromise, they also want "all or nuthin'

What they want, should have NOTHING to do with infringing upon my rights!

 

[Titan6]

Keeleon- You keep missing the point.

I just get very frustrated that emotion is such a powerful tool, and that it can be used in the face of logic and actually win in some people's minds.

They do not win minds.

-and-

If we say "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!" followed by "teach them proper gun safety", that in fact, does mean we are agreeing with the Bradys, just not on every issue, which is called a compromise.

That is not one of their goals. They do not want kids to have guns at all. Their idea of gun safety is for a child to never be allowed access to guns. This is very dangerous for a number of reasons that are evident for anyone that examines the evidence.

If you can show me a single incident where the Brady's have actually supported kids having guns on their own in the past decade, even under stricitly controlled circumstances I might consider giving them the benefit of the doubt. So show me a sponsored shooting match, hunting trip, fun shoot or whatever. Then maybe... I will give it some more thought.

I'm not going to argue anymore, because as I have stated, I don't actually believe in a lot of the things I was saying, I was merely trying to be fair and balanced, and look at how the other side can perceive certain aspects.

If you had presented more than one point I would agree. Instead you tried to present ideas that we are going about things the wrong way. The SCOTUS is getting ready to hear the biggest civil rights case in decades so now especially is not a good time to cloud peoples minds with bad information and illogic.

 

[Skirmisher]

There was a times in the 80's when Detroit had a media blitz on banning all handguns. I was in the audience of one TV show where the main personality was a preacher advocating handgun bans. During a commercial break, the host asked the the audience to raise their hands if they had ever been shot by a criminal. I raised my hand and you could hear the moans throughout the audience. The host then asked who had ever used their gun to defend themselves in an attack. Again I raised my hand and this time the audience cheered. The host then asked me to speak after the break.

After telling story of my shootout with an armed robber in a convience store the preacher proceeded to say that he only wanted to ban guns from criminals and not to take mine away. Since he wanted a complete ban everyone in the listening audience knew what a stupid thing he just said. There was no ban of handguns in Detroit and we were successful in getting a shall issue reform in our CCW laws.

 

[dpms7625]

The last thing we need is the government with any more power then they have at this present time every time the government gets involved with any thing they mess it up lets look at some of there work no gun zones that was a good one the assault weapons ban who did they ban them from the good people not the crimnals Obama clinton kennedy palosi ect. they are government and its scary stand strong and stand together.