EAdams
Member
Double post..? Sorry mods.
Are the Brady bunch actually wrong? (Bear with me)
- Thread starter keeleon
- Start date
- Status
Nitrogen
Member
We let minor children drive automobiles, which kill far more people than guns do.
Anyone see a problem with that? No? then you're all hypocrites
Anyone see a problem with that? No? then you're all hypocrites
BigBadJohn
Member
Why not abuse the 8th amendment and leave the second alone. Let legal gunowners have whatever they want, but make a felony with a firearm a Mandatory 25 yr sentence. no plea bargains, no snitch deals, convicted by a jury? instant 25yrs no parole. Sound ridiculous? So is the total ban the Brady's are eventually going to win if something isn't done.
geekWithA.45
Moderator Emeritus
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.
They are exploiting the simple, widely held (and poorly founded) belief that no one with the color or authority and officiality will lie outrageously in public.
If you need a place to start, try google: Brady Campaign lies will fetch you 55,000 documents. I'll wager some of them are pertinent.
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.
They are exploiting the simple, widely held (and poorly founded) belief that no one with the color or authority and officiality will lie outrageously in public.
If you need a place to start, try google: Brady Campaign lies will fetch you 55,000 documents. I'll wager some of them are pertinent.
BlazingAngel01
Member
Nitrogen I'm with you man.
Travis Lee
Member
So Keeleon, do you approve of the way this story turned out?
This is what the Brady Campaign forced through.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/poe/poe1.html
Simple question. Should a child under 18 who HAS had gun safety training be able to use a firearm to save her own life and those of her siblings, from a murderous lunatic?
I say yes.
Brady says no.
What say you?
--Travis--
This is what the Brady Campaign forced through.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/poe/poe1.html
Simple question. Should a child under 18 who HAS had gun safety training be able to use a firearm to save her own life and those of her siblings, from a murderous lunatic?
I say yes.
Brady says no.
What say you?
--Travis--
U.S.SFC_RET
Member
The brady campaign is very anti-gun. Democrats run on anti-gun. I have heard. No guns from the lips of more than one kennedy.
To the Brady campaign I say this to support your cause.
To any and all anti-gun lobbyist I say this to support your cause.
Stake a big sign on your lawn in big red letters showing your support and being leaders that you are please lead by example. Demonstrate that the police will protect you by posting this sign. Demonstrate the faith in your people that they will never rape nor rob you or find you to be an easy target because you after all are leaders of example. Those of you who sincerely believe that owning a gun that the criminal will simply take it away from you and use it against you go ahead and stake this sign also, you have been lied to.
To the Brady campaign I say this to support your cause.
To any and all anti-gun lobbyist I say this to support your cause.
Stake a big sign on your lawn in big red letters showing your support and being leaders that you are please lead by example. Demonstrate that the police will protect you by posting this sign. Demonstrate the faith in your people that they will never rape nor rob you or find you to be an easy target because you after all are leaders of example. Those of you who sincerely believe that owning a gun that the criminal will simply take it away from you and use it against you go ahead and stake this sign also, you have been lied to.
This is a gun free home
I think many of the Brady Bunch minions are misguided and have been brainwashed into thinking they are doing the right thing.
I think that the above quote spells out what the real players who have picked them up and used them as pawns have in mind.
I'm always open to reasonable debate, even on the subject of the 2A, but when an organisation deliberately (and maliciously, IMO) resorts to outright lies to justify their stance, I have no interest in listening to them. If the Brady Bunch are so upstanding and righteous - why lie?
So, are Brady wrong? Yes
http://guncontrolpolicy.com/commentary/5.html
So, are Brady wrong? Yes
http://guncontrolpolicy.com/commentary/5.html
jlday70
Member
FACT IS... THere are already laws that dictate that Kids, Criminals, and Mentally ill can not possess a firearm the bradys want more, and over regulation...
Enforce the laws we already have don't punish the law abiding citizens by writing more laws.
Enforce the laws we already have don't punish the law abiding citizens by writing more laws.
jfh
Member.
The Brady Bunch were largely successful for a number of years simply because they, and their allies, enjoyed spectacular success in tying social activism to a subset of 'American Values'. Like most such organizations, their POV is largely supported by propagandistic rhetoric.
To really deal with the antigun crowd, we need to be able to understand what propaganda is. Here's a link to a simple introduction of the elements.
For an assignment, re-read 1984, or Animal Farm.
Jim H.
To really deal with the antigun crowd, we need to be able to understand what propaganda is. Here's a link to a simple introduction of the elements.
"...the seven basic propaganda devices: Name-Calling, Glittering Generality, Transfer, Testimonial, Plain Folks, Card Stacking, and Band Wagon. According to the authors of a recent book on propaganda, 'these seven devices have been repeated so frequently in lectures, articles, and textbooks ever since that they have become virtually synonymous with the practice and analysis of propaganda in all of its aspects.' (Combs and Nimmo, 1993)"
For an assignment, re-read 1984, or Animal Farm.
Jim H.
Well, I did kind of get what I wanted out of this by posting. At least some of you were able to agree that some of the things that they have stated on their website are not bad ideas. Unfortunately, we CAN all agree that they are lies. My real intent in posting this was to gauge how capable we are at compromise. Some of us here don't want to hear another word out of the Bradys, which is reasonable considering their past history of lies. Of course the problem is that they don't want to hear another word from us because of our "lies". And if neither side is capable of conceding that the other side might have a point, then their will never be an end to the arguing. I really do think that if we were to actually hold them accountable for the "vision" that they claim to have, that would be as fair a compromise as possible.
Every time I read one of their propaganda letters or blogs that lament the atrocites commited by bad people, I too feel for the families of the victims. When I signed up for he Brady newsletter, I was happy to put a check mark next to "anti violence activist". If you are having a never ending arguement with someone, the best way to throw them off guard is to agree with them. I agree that crimes committed with guns are bad. I agree that accidents that happen with guns are bad. I agree that someone should do something to stop that. I don't agre with the way the Bradys are going about it.
Perhaps we should make a new organization with that very same mission (minus the machine gun/.50BMG bullcrap) of stopping violence committed with handguns, only you know, do it the right way. I know that's kind of what the NRA is for, but unfortunately in the ignorant public's eye, we ARE a bunch of crazy gun nuts that are "against" their precious "anti violence" organization.
Every time I read one of their propaganda letters or blogs that lament the atrocites commited by bad people, I too feel for the families of the victims. When I signed up for he Brady newsletter, I was happy to put a check mark next to "anti violence activist". If you are having a never ending arguement with someone, the best way to throw them off guard is to agree with them. I agree that crimes committed with guns are bad. I agree that accidents that happen with guns are bad. I agree that someone should do something to stop that. I don't agre with the way the Bradys are going about it.
Perhaps we should make a new organization with that very same mission (minus the machine gun/.50BMG bullcrap) of stopping violence committed with handguns, only you know, do it the right way. I know that's kind of what the NRA is for, but unfortunately in the ignorant public's eye, we ARE a bunch of crazy gun nuts that are "against" their precious "anti violence" organization.
bluestarlizzard
Member
this is the way i see it.
the high ups are just hate guns and want to ban them. the idealist want a quick fix for all of societies ills, and think this is the way to go.
the promlem with the idealists is that they are sticking a band-aid on a sucking chest wound. its not going to help and it will get in the way when the docter gets there.
unfortunatly the higher ups hide their aganda behind the idealists and its really really hard to fight an idealist.
the high ups are just hate guns and want to ban them. the idealist want a quick fix for all of societies ills, and think this is the way to go.
the promlem with the idealists is that they are sticking a band-aid on a sucking chest wound. its not going to help and it will get in the way when the docter gets there.
unfortunatly the higher ups hide their aganda behind the idealists and its really really hard to fight an idealist.
Titan6
member
Keelon I can't think of a single thing that we can agree on. The Brady's are a bunch of liars. You might disagree but I can send thousands of pieces of evidence that show that they lie about just about everything. If they lie about everything else why in the world would they tell the truth about their goals? To believe this defies all logic. If you don't have that much common sense I can't help you.
I do not.
How do you compromise with a liar and a thief? You do not.
I don't like being called a liar either. If anyone ever wishes to prove to a reasonable person that anything I have posted is untrue than I welcome such examination. The problem is that we do not lie. Therefore we win every argument.
You are still missing the point. There is no grey area here. There is no compromise. There will be no end to the arguing. The price of freedom is eternal vigil. The moment we let our guard down we are done.
I do not. If they died disarmed because they did not want to carry than that is their own fault and they do not deserve pity. If they went down fighting than I am proud. If the state disarmed them than I am angry at the state and take action. Sitting around feeling bad does no one any good. The world is a hard place. Get used to it.
?
This is called lying. I think I see what the problem is.
Like what?
Perhaps, but you do not "sound" convinced.
Really? How do we do that? In my world that would be a society where the criminals are too afraid to assault people and kill them. People are educated and live comfortable meaningful lives where they don't feel they need to beat their neighbor to death. How about you? Got any good ideas?
You don't seem to know anything about the NRA either. Their mission is not stop handgun violence. Why don't you check out their website and see what you can turn up?
I do not.
How do you compromise with a liar and a thief? You do not.
I don't like being called a liar either. If anyone ever wishes to prove to a reasonable person that anything I have posted is untrue than I welcome such examination. The problem is that we do not lie. Therefore we win every argument.
You are still missing the point. There is no grey area here. There is no compromise. There will be no end to the arguing. The price of freedom is eternal vigil. The moment we let our guard down we are done.
I do not. If they died disarmed because they did not want to carry than that is their own fault and they do not deserve pity. If they went down fighting than I am proud. If the state disarmed them than I am angry at the state and take action. Sitting around feeling bad does no one any good. The world is a hard place. Get used to it.
?
This is called lying. I think I see what the problem is.
Like what?
Perhaps, but you do not "sound" convinced.
Really? How do we do that? In my world that would be a society where the criminals are too afraid to assault people and kill them. People are educated and live comfortable meaningful lives where they don't feel they need to beat their neighbor to death. How about you? Got any good ideas?
You don't seem to know anything about the NRA either. Their mission is not stop handgun violence. Why don't you check out their website and see what you can turn up?
Last edited:
I do. The others have already educated you on "the olden days" when children did go in and buy guns. I think you're looking at the criminal problem all wrong too. The background check system doesn't keep criminals from getting guns obviously, its wasted money on a feel-good do-nothing system. If you want to do something treat the problem and not the symptom and work on keeping real criminals in jail. Let the druggies out of jail and lets use the empty space to keep the really dangerous people like murders and rapists out of society. To make the problem even worse the background check system is flaws and innocent people are denied a purchase or have their purchase delayed. There's even a thread on the very first page of this forum right now about it http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=336773
Once again we're back to the warm and fuzzy laws. A parent without the common sense to keep their firearms out of reach of small children isn't going to "smarten up" because of a new law telling them to. Legislation just can't fix dumb. On the whole gun owners are safe with their guns and there are very few gun accidents in the US. I would challenge someone who supports legislation regarding storage or training to show me the difference it made in states that already have that requirement versus those that do not.
I an unwilling to compromise on the 2nd amendment any more than I am willing to compromise on my other rights. I will not compromise my protection from unreasonable search and seizure so we can be safer from "the terrorists." I will not compromise my right to free speech so that I don't have to see someone burning a us flag. I will not compromise my right to keep and bear arms to pacify someone that doesn't like those right. I have no need to compromise, it is my right and it is the law. If you wish to change that, amend the constitution.
Could you tell me what lies you're speaking of? I can produce a huge list of lies, misleading statistics based on flawed methodologies, and biased research the gun control crowd use all the time. The data I use to support my position comes from the FBI, state handgun permit licensing agencies, etc. What are the lies?
You do realize that just because someone believes they may be right and is really intent on their position, it doesn't mean that they aren't wrong. It sounds as though you believe as though compromise is the only reasonable solution in a conflict even if there are right and wrong answers. Sometimes there are concrete answers. No matter how much the defense attorney tries to insist his client is innocent, it doesn't mean there is truth to what he says and a compromise is the only reasonable solution.
I believe you've fallen victim to the same problem they have then, violence isn't about guns. If you want to stop violence the answer isn't gun control laws. You need to start looking at the actual causes of violence (again, treat the problem not the symptoms). If you're just looking at guns, you've just glanced at the surface and haven't really tried to dig into the problem.
Titan6
member
This is disturbing also:
Why? It is true that cars are much more dangerous than guns by and large but driving on public roads is a privelege not a right.
You answered your own question. You can stop right there and consider your point for a while. Everything you ever need to know about gun control is in that paragraph.
You would do better to scream at a wall for a while. Because doing this:
has already been done. They lose every time.
Why? It is true that cars are much more dangerous than guns by and large but driving on public roads is a privelege not a right.
You answered your own question. You can stop right there and consider your point for a while. Everything you ever need to know about gun control is in that paragraph.
You would do better to scream at a wall for a while. Because doing this:
has already been done. They lose every time.
There's a difference between what the Bradys say and what they do. I don't see anything about how a 30 day wait period is going to prevent criminals, children or crazy people from getting guns. I don't see how a pistol grip and flash suppressor means a weapon is any more dangerous than a rifle without.
The end conclusion I come to is the Brady group is either misguided to the point of incompetence (ex: "it's the part that goes up") or have another agenda they aren't posting on their website, and I don't think those two options are mutually exclusive.
The end conclusion I come to is the Brady group is either misguided to the point of incompetence (ex: "it's the part that goes up") or have another agenda they aren't posting on their website, and I don't think those two options are mutually exclusive.
That is what the Bradies do best, they have seperate speakers take seperate stances and positions. They and some similar organizations are funded predominantly by some of the same sources. Some can call for bans on one thing or another without all of them calling for a ban on everything. Some complain of various types of weapons.
Others on easy access to firearms (and the definition of "easy access" will always change each time they gain ground.) Originaly just prohibiting some people and it being a crime if they broke the law was enough. Then you had the gun owner protection act which actualy prohibits a database from being created, maintained etc by government on gun ownership, a late night amendment voted just by voice when many wee not present was added that also banned civilian transfer of machineguns made after may 1986. Well guess what, the machinegun ban is enforced, yet ATF has openly stated they maintain records and databases on ownership. Follow the laws they like, ignore those they don't.
Then you had the NICS added by the brady bunch, no longer was just making it a crime enough. Now to insure the law is followed citizens need to ask permission to even purchase a gun.
That pretty much undoes the original purpose of the second amendment, to allow citizens to resist tyranny. Well if people need to ask a tyrant permission to own a gun to use against him, you can be sure his answer is going to be "no".
Every one of the founding fathers was a criminal at the time they wrote the Bill of Rights. You think they would have supported restrictions on any free man in society?
Then came the assault weapons. Then you have Lautenburg, suddenly just felonies are not inclusive enough, misdemeanors must count too. Well it might protect someone right?
They want to ban weapons too powerful. They want to ban weapons too affordable (saturday night specials). They want to ban weapons too scary, assault weapons, sniper rifles etc.
The thing is a "sniper rifle" is a deer rifle. An "assault rifle" is the best plinker, and general purpose arm.
They were designed and field tested and modified to be more durable and subjected to more improvements than many firearms.
They have called for a ban on all weapons of military origin. Well even bolt action rifles are of military origin. Most new small arms technology was designed by private citizens to sell to the military, police or other large market at the time.
The most common cartridges were also developed for use in war.
You should have heard a recent argument they made. They said FMJ type rounds had greater penetration than necessary and put police officers and others at risk.
Yet in other arguments that have said hollowpoints and other expanding ammunition causes extra unnecessary damage and are only designed to kill.
It would not be a jump for them to even cite the Hague convention which bans them in war because they are so bad. If they are so evil they are not even allowed in war why are they not too evil to use on our streets?
So if FMJ are too dangerous, and expanding ammunition is too dangerous, what is the perfect brady bullet? A hug? I wonder if the CCW firearms some have are loaded with hugs.
They oppose concealed carry and even are responsible for putting up signs in Florida scaring people into thinking there was a blood bath waiting to happen when shall issue concealed carry was new.
Handguns are the prefered weapon of choice for criminals and people being sneaky. We don't need handguns either right? Do we really need to support people hiding and being dishonest with weapons they can conceal. An honest person doesn't need such a weapon right?
Yet some of them have permits for concealed carry themselves. They are special, the ability to protect themselves or family from other people is a unique situation for them, and you are different of course.
The truth is they have a logic that if you follow is good for banning any type of firearm.
They pick and choose thier battles at the moment, and usualy they are careful to not say too much at one time. The purpose is to garner support from different people with different positions. To have different people that say enough different things that what is said will cover some of what various segments of the population want to hear, without saying too much to sound extreme at one time.
The goal though is severe restriction or a ban on most weapons.
The purpose of the Second Amendment is to allow people to stand up against a corrupt or tyrannical government.
If the Brady bunch has its way you will only be able to do that after a several month waiting period, asking permission from the government, not on a prohibited list of numerous increasing felonies, misdemeanors, or even non crimes like being deemed unfit or unsafe for this or that.
You then will only qualify for a shotgun, and only using birdshot, and no expanding or non expanding ammunition. You can only carry or store it broken down into several pieces, seperate from ammunition and both ammunition and the firearm will require a license that must be renewed often.
It must be a single shot, but if you are really good you can qualify for a sxs or over under.
At home it must be stored in a pre approved safe a government agent must come, enter your home and inspect for approval. It then must be stored in that with a child lock on it, broken down into seperate components.
People that demonstrate extra special needs, like companies involved in manufacturing for the police or military, and a select few mere mortals can qualify for permits that allow a few other types of weapons.
However since the firearms companies and ammunition makers should be liable for all actions taken by those abusing firearms (another of thier positions), not many will exist anymore. That is another belief of the Bradies. So I am not sure who will make those firearms. I doubt they will want to do business with mere civilians though if wrong actions civilians take might seriously cut into profits or even put them out of business. I doubt many auto manufacturers would sell cars to the average person if they were liable for every accident commited in a vehicle either.
Then of course horrible toxic lead ammunition would be banned, but most other metals will be banned as too evil, capable of piercing too much armor or babies or something. Some will be too toxic, some too evil, etc.
So I am not sure what ammunition will be made out of, but it can't expand or penetrate too well, must be safe, and who knows what else they will come up with.
Some safe biodegradable plastic that is only dangerous to the animals being hunted from a couple feet or less? That should reduce hunting accidents, which of course is the purpose of owning a firearm, well one not meant for killing children and babies, or enemy soldiers. To hunt (once again position of those types.)
Of course long before that has been accomplished, knives, swords and other bladed and blunt objects will be dealt with too for our safety. As we have seen in the UK and Australia, once guns are heavily restricted it won't stop there.
Big knives or swords will be restricted or banned, or require a permit, people must be 18 to purchase them, and various individuals will say "nobody needs a big knife with a point, chopping can be done with flat tipped knives." So many knives will be manufactered with flat tips only.
Airguns become the new menace, holding the evil position firearms no longer do. They quickly become severely restricted. The must be very weak, unconcealable, and only owned by adults as well.
Airsoft and any other firearms that look real require permits. Those permits require you to belong to some acting club, or drama, cinema, theatre, etc to obtain. (Kids in the UK need to belong to such an accredited place to get airsoft.)
Then they need to carry them in locked containers and are guilty of a crime if they expose them in public.
Here is some of the laws for airsoft:
http://www.practicalairsoft.co.uk/uk-law.asp
You will find many of the rules and restrictions are greater for airsoft in the UK than they are for actual firearms in much of the USA. That airguns virtualy unrestricted here are treated like firearms. Even mere airsoft toys are treated worse than firearms many places.
Anything shooting over 1 foot pound is considered a lethal weapon in the UK. That makes even many airsoft guns in the US shooting .2g plastic balls deadly weapons.
Airguns in Australia are treated as firearms as well. An air pistol requires a firearm license.
"Killing or injuring any bird or protected animal unless authorised
£5,000 fine"
Uh oh, don't go shooting at a invasive bird, you will be commiting a criminal offense.
An airgun shooting over 12 pounds (or 6 pounds in a pistol) is considered too powerful without licenses, even for killing pests, or merely plinking on private property in the UK.
Yet there is still people in both locations still crying that more needs to be done, it is not enough. For the children!
At the same time many criminals can still obtrain firearms.
What is interesting is some of the same sources of funding that backed those who led the ban in Australia are behind anti gun groups in America.
The soundbytes put out there are just that. They put enough out there that some people someplace will agree with some of them, and incrementaly groups like the Bradys closer to thier goal.
Others on easy access to firearms (and the definition of "easy access" will always change each time they gain ground.) Originaly just prohibiting some people and it being a crime if they broke the law was enough. Then you had the gun owner protection act which actualy prohibits a database from being created, maintained etc by government on gun ownership, a late night amendment voted just by voice when many wee not present was added that also banned civilian transfer of machineguns made after may 1986. Well guess what, the machinegun ban is enforced, yet ATF has openly stated they maintain records and databases on ownership. Follow the laws they like, ignore those they don't.
Then you had the NICS added by the brady bunch, no longer was just making it a crime enough. Now to insure the law is followed citizens need to ask permission to even purchase a gun.
That pretty much undoes the original purpose of the second amendment, to allow citizens to resist tyranny. Well if people need to ask a tyrant permission to own a gun to use against him, you can be sure his answer is going to be "no".
Every one of the founding fathers was a criminal at the time they wrote the Bill of Rights. You think they would have supported restrictions on any free man in society?
Then came the assault weapons. Then you have Lautenburg, suddenly just felonies are not inclusive enough, misdemeanors must count too. Well it might protect someone right?
They want to ban weapons too powerful. They want to ban weapons too affordable (saturday night specials). They want to ban weapons too scary, assault weapons, sniper rifles etc.
The thing is a "sniper rifle" is a deer rifle. An "assault rifle" is the best plinker, and general purpose arm.
They were designed and field tested and modified to be more durable and subjected to more improvements than many firearms.
They have called for a ban on all weapons of military origin. Well even bolt action rifles are of military origin. Most new small arms technology was designed by private citizens to sell to the military, police or other large market at the time.
The most common cartridges were also developed for use in war.
You should have heard a recent argument they made. They said FMJ type rounds had greater penetration than necessary and put police officers and others at risk.
Yet in other arguments that have said hollowpoints and other expanding ammunition causes extra unnecessary damage and are only designed to kill.
It would not be a jump for them to even cite the Hague convention which bans them in war because they are so bad. If they are so evil they are not even allowed in war why are they not too evil to use on our streets?
So if FMJ are too dangerous, and expanding ammunition is too dangerous, what is the perfect brady bullet? A hug? I wonder if the CCW firearms some have are loaded with hugs.
They oppose concealed carry and even are responsible for putting up signs in Florida scaring people into thinking there was a blood bath waiting to happen when shall issue concealed carry was new.
Handguns are the prefered weapon of choice for criminals and people being sneaky. We don't need handguns either right?
Do we really need to support people hiding and being dishonest with weapons they can conceal. An honest person doesn't need such a weapon right?Yet some of them have permits for concealed carry themselves. They are special, the ability to protect themselves or family from other people is a unique situation for them, and you are different of course.
The truth is they have a logic that if you follow is good for banning any type of firearm.
They pick and choose thier battles at the moment, and usualy they are careful to not say too much at one time. The purpose is to garner support from different people with different positions. To have different people that say enough different things that what is said will cover some of what various segments of the population want to hear, without saying too much to sound extreme at one time.
The goal though is severe restriction or a ban on most weapons.
The purpose of the Second Amendment is to allow people to stand up against a corrupt or tyrannical government.
If the Brady bunch has its way you will only be able to do that after a several month waiting period, asking permission from the government, not on a prohibited list of numerous increasing felonies, misdemeanors, or even non crimes like being deemed unfit or unsafe for this or that.
You then will only qualify for a shotgun, and only using birdshot, and no expanding or non expanding ammunition. You can only carry or store it broken down into several pieces, seperate from ammunition and both ammunition and the firearm will require a license that must be renewed often.
It must be a single shot, but if you are really good you can qualify for a sxs or over under.
At home it must be stored in a pre approved safe a government agent must come, enter your home and inspect for approval. It then must be stored in that with a child lock on it, broken down into seperate components.
People that demonstrate extra special needs, like companies involved in manufacturing for the police or military, and a select few mere mortals can qualify for permits that allow a few other types of weapons.
However since the firearms companies and ammunition makers should be liable for all actions taken by those abusing firearms (another of thier positions), not many will exist anymore. That is another belief of the Bradies. So I am not sure who will make those firearms. I doubt they will want to do business with mere civilians though if wrong actions civilians take might seriously cut into profits or even put them out of business. I doubt many auto manufacturers would sell cars to the average person if they were liable for every accident commited in a vehicle either.
Then of course horrible toxic lead ammunition would be banned, but most other metals will be banned as too evil, capable of piercing too much armor or babies or something. Some will be too toxic, some too evil, etc.
So I am not sure what ammunition will be made out of, but it can't expand or penetrate too well, must be safe, and who knows what else they will come up with.
Some safe biodegradable plastic that is only dangerous to the animals being hunted from a couple feet or less? That should reduce hunting accidents, which of course is the purpose of owning a firearm, well one not meant for killing children and babies, or enemy soldiers. To hunt (once again position of those types.)
Of course long before that has been accomplished, knives, swords and other bladed and blunt objects will be dealt with too for our safety. As we have seen in the UK and Australia, once guns are heavily restricted it won't stop there.
Big knives or swords will be restricted or banned, or require a permit, people must be 18 to purchase them, and various individuals will say "nobody needs a big knife with a point, chopping can be done with flat tipped knives." So many knives will be manufactered with flat tips only.
Airguns become the new menace, holding the evil position firearms no longer do. They quickly become severely restricted. The must be very weak, unconcealable, and only owned by adults as well.
Airsoft and any other firearms that look real require permits. Those permits require you to belong to some acting club, or drama, cinema, theatre, etc to obtain. (Kids in the UK need to belong to such an accredited place to get airsoft.)
Then they need to carry them in locked containers and are guilty of a crime if they expose them in public.
Here is some of the laws for airsoft:
http://www.practicalairsoft.co.uk/uk-law.asp
You will find many of the rules and restrictions are greater for airsoft in the UK than they are for actual firearms in much of the USA. That airguns virtualy unrestricted here are treated like firearms. Even mere airsoft toys are treated worse than firearms many places.
Anything shooting over 1 foot pound is considered a lethal weapon in the UK. That makes even many airsoft guns in the US shooting .2g plastic balls deadly weapons.
Airguns in Australia are treated as firearms as well. An air pistol requires a firearm license.
"Killing or injuring any bird or protected animal unless authorised
£5,000 fine"
Uh oh, don't go shooting at a invasive bird, you will be commiting a criminal offense.
An airgun shooting over 12 pounds (or 6 pounds in a pistol) is considered too powerful without licenses, even for killing pests, or merely plinking on private property in the UK.
Yet there is still people in both locations still crying that more needs to be done, it is not enough. For the children!
At the same time many criminals can still obtrain firearms.
What is interesting is some of the same sources of funding that backed those who led the ban in Australia are behind anti gun groups in America.
The soundbytes put out there are just that. They put enough out there that some people someplace will agree with some of them, and incrementaly groups like the Bradys closer to thier goal.
-terry
Member
Does anyone know what the Brady's opinion of gun control in Britain is? Do they approve? Do they think that this is the model to copy? Do they have stats that show why they approve (if they do)?
whitetiger7654
Member
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2007
- Messages
- 234
Maybe the Brady's would like to tell us how to do this. Last I checked banks, vaults, and every other type of security system in the world has been broken into at least once.
Mr. Designer
Member
I believe the following.
-terry
Member
One of the main obstacles to discussion with anti-gun proponents are people like Titan6 who are so intransigent, unreasonable, and stubborn as to make any kind of discourse just a matter of people raising their voices to be heard.
Titan6
member
I am completely inflexible. I mean every word I right. If I make a mistake I admit. If I give bad information I fix it. I never lie. Feel free to examine all 2875 posts. If any anti wants to debate I am more than happy to discuss.
The only rules I allow are simple:
- No lying
- "Feelings" are irrelevant, only facts matter
- Logical arguments, supported by facts wins all
Wonderful post, Zoogster. I couldn't have said it better myself. For those of you who have apperently not read all of my posts, let me reiterate that I very much dislike the Brady organization. I too believe that everyone should be able to own whatever they want and be held accountable for their own actions. You do not have to try and "save" me from their propaganda. I am fully aware, that that is what it is.
I am also aware that we live in a society where they have ALOT of power. I just feel why not find a way to use that power against them. A 100lb man can take down a 250lb man a lot easier with Aikido than with Karate. There are a lot of ignorant people out there, people that VOTE on these issues. If they follow their emotions over logic (which many do), then they will choose the Brady's "innocent" solutions over our "bloody" ones.
I guess what I am trying to say is we really need to stop arguing with the Bradys using logic. We need to take a different approach and start talking about the "emotional" side as well. Cold hard facts don't do you any good when talking to a mother whose son was just killed by a felon wit ha gun. She does not want to listen to them. There are many of "her", and they are a large selection of the people that decide what WE can and can't do.
I know pointing this out will make me REAL unpopular, but we all have to accept that the 2A says nothing about "personal protection". Regardless of how you read it, and your opinion of an "organized militia", it does NOT say:
And because it does not specifically say "shall not be infringed" without any qualifiers, then we DO have an argument on our hands. And saying "I'm right. My facts are right. You're lying and wrong" may make you feel better, but it does not help to sway the opinions of the MILLIONS of other US citizens that decide what it really means. I agree with you Titan6, you ARE right, but if someone else thinks you're wrong, how do you propose to change that? And don't say it doesn't matter, because if their is one other voting American out there that feels just as strongly in the opposite, then it does matter to ALL of us.
I am also aware that we live in a society where they have ALOT of power. I just feel why not find a way to use that power against them. A 100lb man can take down a 250lb man a lot easier with Aikido than with Karate. There are a lot of ignorant people out there, people that VOTE on these issues. If they follow their emotions over logic (which many do), then they will choose the Brady's "innocent" solutions over our "bloody" ones.
I guess what I am trying to say is we really need to stop arguing with the Bradys using logic. We need to take a different approach and start talking about the "emotional" side as well. Cold hard facts don't do you any good when talking to a mother whose son was just killed by a felon wit ha gun. She does not want to listen to them. There are many of "her", and they are a large selection of the people that decide what WE can and can't do.
I know pointing this out will make me REAL unpopular, but we all have to accept that the 2A says nothing about "personal protection". Regardless of how you read it, and your opinion of an "organized militia", it does NOT say:
And because it does not specifically say "shall not be infringed" without any qualifiers, then we DO have an argument on our hands. And saying "I'm right. My facts are right. You're lying and wrong" may make you feel better, but it does not help to sway the opinions of the MILLIONS of other US citizens that decide what it really means. I agree with you Titan6, you ARE right, but if someone else thinks you're wrong, how do you propose to change that? And don't say it doesn't matter, because if their is one other voting American out there that feels just as strongly in the opposite, then it does matter to ALL of us.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
