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

[Sage of Seattle]

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.

Oh, that's rich.

You know, I think you're right, -terry. I have yet to find an "anti-gun proponent" who wasn't the very model of civility, logic and compromise. When an "anti-gun proponent" tells me he hopes that I shoot myself with my gun because we disagree over the extent of a firearms law, it must have been a "pro-gun proponent" in disguise; we all know an "anti-gun proponent" would certainly NEVER think such a thing.

By the way, Zoogster, your post 44 (heh) was spot-on and very well said. An excellent summation of the issues as (at least) I see them regarding the history of gun control and how far we've already slid.

 

[OLD DOMENION]

The Brady Bunch is wrong!

Here is a post I agree with:

The strongest pro-gun argument
I understand that anti-gunners sometimes lure here in hopes of finding material to support their “cause”. I rather suspect that this thread won’t be
getting copied for that reason.
If any anti-gunners are reading this—here’s a simple, straight forward question: Why do you find it necessary and even praise worthy to LIE so much?
Perhaps the most important key to judging the rightness of a cause is observing whether or not its adherents tell the truth. Simply put, if you have to lie to defend your cause, there must be something wrong with it. And THAT, to me, is by far the most effective and telling argument against you anti-gunners.
If your cause is so righteous, why can’t you promote it without a consistent pattern of deliberate distortions and outright lies?
Your anti-gun organizations, like Handgun Control, Inc., publish statistics on the enormous number of children killed by handguns. The public reacts with horror, as well they should—IF those numbers were accurate. If one examines them, though, one finds that you define a “child” as anyone under the age of 25; the numbers include, e.g., the deaths of two 20+ year-old drug dealers in a gang shootout; they include the death of a 24-year-old murder suspect shot by a police SHOTGUN (not a handgun); they include the suicide of a 19-yearold after he committed murder; they include the deaths of armed robbers who were shot by store owners defending themselves; and on and on. You know that these statistics are deceptive, yet you continue to present them as meaningful. Why?
You publish statistics on the number of “children” killed in handgun “accidents”, claiming that this happens daily and that “hundreds of thousands” of children die from this cause every year; but, again, examine those numbers and one will find that they include “children” in their 20s and even “accidents” that are deliberate shootings and suicides. The actual number of children under 10 who are killed in genuine accidents in any given year is less than 15, and that has been true for decades—and those accidents almost invariably involve a loaded handgun left lying around by an irresponsible
adult, often a criminal drug dealer or the like. You know all this, but deliberately withhold this information. Why?

 

[ReadyontheRight]

we should try to keep guns out of the hands of those who should not have them, including criminals and children

SO...What LAW do you invoke to stop LAW-BREAKERS? Especially without hurting the LAW-ABIDING?

 

[ReadyontheRight]

...But we can all agree, even here, that GUNS ARE DANGEROUS. Just like CARS ARE DANGEROUS. We seem to have a pretty decent system for making sure people are smart enough to operate those right? ...

I do not agree. You do not need a license to buy a car. You do need a license to operate a car. Kind of like many state laws regarding guns.

If we do set up some mandatory training for gun OWNERSHIP, who gets to set the course requirements? How would we track the documents for training? How can the police check to make sure your training is up to date? If your training lapses, can the police enter your home to make sure your guns are no longer there?

There are much better uses of government power and control than "gun safety" schemes that are merely a good first step toward disarming citizens and turning us into subjects dependent on an all-powerful government.

 

[ReadyontheRight]

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. ...

What the heck do you think they are going to say? Take a look at their actions.

 

[TEDDY]

agenda

the anti gun crowds agenda is to promote socialism.period end of discusion.
if you dont understand that you are already lost.I lived in that time before ww2.young people did not get in trouble because no one wanted a trouble maker around.girls were respected. parents were respected.the cop on the beat was respected.that was his beat he knew every one,and he was on the beat till he retired.you did not run from him as he would be waiting at your house.after your father got done with you you would be a model ciizen.
yes the gangs in the big cities commited crime but for the most part small towns had very little or no crime.
the more crime now the more police the more represion the more laws and soon the country is gone.:banghead:

 

[revjen45]

David Duke says he doesn't advocate lynching African-Americans, sending them "back" to Africa (how can you go "back" to where you have never been? I can't go "back" to Germany or Ireland- never been there), or burning churches. And he will even let them get on the bus and sit in the front- WOW!! Ain't that "White" of him!!?? That doesn't mean that he's telling the truth, that Black People (or anyone else) should trust him, or that his vile ideas have any more validity than those of Josh Sugarmann, Diane Fineswine, Chuckie Schumer, Vindictive Sarah, or Droolin' Jim. Those who would afflict free people HAVE to mislead the drooling masses, because they can't afford to have the despicable realities of what they espouse be known.

 

[Huddog]

My reading is that it is not the Federal Government's job to police firearms ownership. Brady would like this to be the common factor. The Second Amendment says "shall not be infringed" This applies to the Feds directly. I believe that all gun issues are state issues. I know I am living in a fantasy world thinking that the Feds will ever give up control and allow the States to govern on such an issue. After all they can easily drag it into the Federal domain by invoking the commerce clause.

 

[Soybomb]

I know pointing this out will make me REAL unpopular, but we all have to accept that the 2A says nothing about "personal protection".

And the 4th amendment says nothing about searches in your cars. I'm not sure I get your point, the 2nd amendment isn't a list of reasons to have a gun any more than the 1st amendment is a list of acceptable words to say and religions to participate in.

And because it does not specifically say "shall not be infringed" without any qualifiers, then we DO have an argument on our hands.

What is the qualifier on "shall not be infringed?" How would you make that any more clear that there are no qualifiers than that? "shall not be infringed. And we mean really super extra double not infringed, not that infringed a little stuff we know you guys will do in a century or two."

 

[AndyC]

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.

I believe that the reason we pro-gun folk take an inflexible stance and don't want to compromise is because we'd be doing so with an organisation who wouldn't be negotiating in good faith. If Brady & Co were to stop lying and negotiate honestly, then we'd have a chance of compromise - the problem (for them) is that if they stopped lying, they'd no longer exist.

For me the battle continues - as long as Brady & Co exist, the more my heels will dig in over even the smallest, most "reasonable" item on their list.

 

[ReadyontheRight]

My real intent in posting this was to gauge how capable we are at compromise....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 hope we here are not at all interested in any more compromise.

There will always be arguments over this, because the Antis are coming at the discussion from a perspective of feelings, and we are coming at the discussion from a perspective of facts.

Case in point - Mr. Brady was unfortunately shot by John Hinckley with a .22 revolver. Which he had purchased legally months before. He also already owned a .38 revolver - which he fortunately chose not to use. None of the restrictions proposed by "common sense gun laws" would have stopped that idiot from acquiring his weapon. It would have required an outright ban on handguns. But that would only have stopped him from legally acquiring a handgun. He could still acquire one illegally to perform his illegal act (or use the .38 he already owned).

There has already been way too much compromise away from "...the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". New laws make people feel good after atrocities like this.

The fact is...when we compromise, we lose. If the antis compromise, they win - because they are starting from a ridiculous position with no basis in fact.

Just like the camel sticking his nose into the tent. The camel belongs outside. Period. Even if he just gets his head in today, he's going to ask for more tomorrow.

You cannot create a law that will control the unlawful. Laws can only control the law-abiding.

Or you can punish everyone - with unconstitutional laws like the Assault Weapons Ban - but they have zero effect on stopping crime. All they do is make it more difficult and expensive for crime victims to defend ourselves.

How about instead of making up unconstitutional laws, rules and registration schemes that "might" stop a criminal by punishing us all, we more severely punish people that actually commit crimes? I think we can all agree with that, but I do not see that anywhere in the Anti's agenda.

RKBA. No more compromise. Time to raise the Black Flag. Molon Lobe.

 

[precisionshootist]

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

Rule#1 - Never try to "reach out" to a dishonest organization. The only action for us to pursue with the Brady bunch is to defeat them.

 

[Titan6]

Keeleon- Once again you make your point quite nicely.

I agree with you Titan6, you ARE right,

If you are having a never ending arguement with someone, the best way to throw them off guard is to agree with them.

You see the problem here do you not? Once you sacrifice your integrity there is no getting it back. This is why everything you say is now suspect.

but if someone else thinks you're wrong, how do you propose to change that?

I can not change the world. I can only effect change on certain individuals within my sphere of influence. I do know that If I were to pump out lies and misinformation to fruther my cause than I would be a failure and a hypocrite. Even if I were able to fool people into supporting my cause. Since what we are talking about is an issue that involves higher level thought not everyone is going to understand the cause because there are people in the world who refuse to think. Using emotions in lieu of thought is much easier for most.

When you say they are thinking I disagree. If I can prove clearly that a person is wrong by using facts and logic than that person is not thinking or they are being dishonest. There are no other options. Certainly there are people in the world that are incapable of understanding such arguments, but since these are not difficult topics people who are incapable are actually quite rare. Most of the time I find that people maintain their POV because they "Feel" a certain way.

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.

Of course it matters. But again you are addressing feelings. That I can not change. No one on heaven and earth can change a heart, if that heart does not want to change.

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.

I am not so sure if they have " ALOT" of power. I would say they have been on the decline since the complete failure of their policy implementation with the AWB. I would say they are getting desperate. I would say that the internet with it's easy access to facts and information is helping to destroy them.

I guess what I am trying to say is we really need to stop arguing with the Bradys using logic.

They would like that very much I am sure. They lose every argument on this ground. Are you sure you do not work for them?

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.

Why someone would do that is beyond me. Strikes me as callous and mean. But it is something I would not put it past the Brady's. But again I stand by what I said above. She will feel whatever she feels. Would she "feel" any better if her son had been run over by a drunk driver or stabbed to death? I think not.

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.

Yes one of the "her" is in the legislature from Texas. Her parents were killed in Luby's in Waco many years ago by a deranged gun man that killed many. Want to guess what "her" opinion is? It might be a little different than what you think. She helps decide what I can and can not do a lot more than most people. She does not lie and I trust her implicitly. She also uses her brain for more than anchoring her hair.

 

[Titan6]

ReadyontheRight-

Not to put too fine a point on it but-

Case in point - Mr. Brady was unfortunately shot by John Hinckley with a .22 revolver. Which he had purchased legally months before. He also already owned a .38 revolver - which he fortunately chose not to use. None of the restrictions proposed by "common sense gun laws" would have stopped that idiot from acquiring his weapon. It would have required an outright ban on handguns. But that would only have stopped him from legally acquiring a handgun. He could still acquire one illegally to perform his illegal act (or use the .38 he already owned).

DC already had it's total ban on handguns in place when some how Hinckley was able to sneak past the DC police and shoot RR. So even a total ban does not work.

The fact is...when we compromise, we lose. If the antis compromise, they win - because they are starting from a ridiculous position with no basis in fact.

That is it in a nutshell.

Keeleon Said-

I know pointing this out will make me REAL unpopular, but we all have to accept that the 2A says nothing about "personal protection".

Why would that make you unpopular? And why would you care? The 2A is not about personal protection. It never was. It is about the people having a right to defend themselves against tyranny. Against the government, not other people.

 

[LKB3rd]

SO...What LAW do you invoke to stop LAW-BREAKERS? Especially without hurting the LAW-ABIDING?

It just hit me in all of its simple beauty.
We need to make a law that says criminals aren't allowed to break the law anymore.

 

[keeleon]

Quote:
I agree with you Titan6, you ARE right,
Quote:
If you are having a never ending arguement with someone, the best way to throw them off guard is to agree with them.
You see the problem here do you not? Once you sacrifice your integrity there is no getting it back. This is why everything you say is now suspect.

I hope you are not insinuating that I was lying to prove my point. I very much appreciate your candor, and I too feel very strongly in being honest all the time, because all you have is your past actions to dictate how people will percieve your future choices. Perhaps, I worded it wrong, but I don't mean to say we should just give up and agree with the Bradys. What I mean is that I think we should step back from the argument and look at the points that we can agree on to bring us together. You have your bullheaded opinion, and they have theirs, and unfortunately, neither of you is really willing to give an inch. So I guess that means whoever lives longest, wins, right?

Titan6, I don't agree with everything you say, and that's fine, but I CAN agree that you make a lot of valid points, Just like I am capable that seeing at it's core, the Bradys might have some valid points as well. Of course, you back up your "valid" points with honor and integrity, and the Bradys back up their's with lies and misdirection. But that doesn't make either of them any less valid. The only "point" I am trying to make is that if both sides only think they are right, then nothing can ever get accomplished.

Why would that make you unpopular? And why would you care? The 2A is not about personal protection. It never was. It is about the people having a right to defend themselves against tyranny. Against the government, not other people.

It is unpopular, because the argument I have seen on here most often is that it protects the right of each man to protect himself, his loved ones and his property. I am not going to argue that that was not the intent of the 2A, but unfortunately the way it is written, allows the people who disagree with it a "logical"way to misinterpret it. If it were to say:

A well armed man, being necessary to the security of himself, his loved ones and his possessions, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Then there would be no argument whatsoeverr other than, "I don't like guns".

I'm not sure I get your point, the 2nd amendment isn't a list of reasons to have a gun

What is the qualifier on "shall not be infringed?"

The comma is the qualifier. The way it is written, is in a cause:effect manner. It is not 2 seperate ideas, BECAUSE of the way it is written. "Because a militia is important for security, THEN the rights to guns shall not be infringed". If you only spout 1 half of the WHOLE statement, then you aren't any better then the Bradys who only spout the first part.

Titan6 is again correct in stating:

The 2A is not about personal protection. It never was. It is about the people having a right to defend themselves against tyranny. Against the government, not other people.

Whether you feel one way or the other on the matter, if you are going to use the 2A as your lone basis of argument for being able to carry to protect yourself, then you are going to lose. They know this, and that is how THEY are phrasing it. Apperently some of you have decided to not actually read my posts, and think I am some kind of Brady plant. I don't really know what to say to that, but I will say, you can :banghead: till your head is bleeding because YOU are right, but that doesn't change the fact that they don't, and will continue to abuse people's emotions to "prove you wrong".

We need to make a law that says criminals aren't allowed to break the law anymore.

That's what I've been saying for years. And honestly that is really ALL that needs to be said on this topic.

 

[Soybomb]

The comma is the qualifier. The way it is written, is in a cause:effect manner. It is not 2 seperate ideas, BECAUSE of the way it is written. "Because a militia is important for security, THEN the rights to guns shall not be infringed". If you only spout 1 half of the WHOLE statement, then you aren't any better then the Bradys who only spout the first part.

I believe that is a very flawed way to read that statement and the people that read it in that fashion really need to challenge their views on the subject and see if they hold up. This document http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.pdf might be a good place to start reading. Page 19 on discusses this.

 

[keeleon]

For the record, that is not how I read it, so please don't attack me personally. I am just pointing out the logic that is used by the people that feel that way. As i stated earlier "Know thine enemy".

 

[Soybomb]

For the record, that is not how I read it, so please don't attack me personally. I am just pointing out the logic that is used by the people that feel that way. As i stated earlier "Know thine enemy".

I'm only half sold on your sincerity as devil's advocate to be honest. You've mention the pro-gun side's lies and still haven't told me what they were. You haven't detailed why you believe gun owners should be wanting a compromise.

 

[Sage of Seattle]

For the record, that is not how I read it, so please don't attack me personally. I am just pointing out the logic that is used by the people that feel that way.

This isn't a personal attack, but you haven't been pointing out the logic that is used by people who feel that way -- you have stated many times that they, in fact, DO NOT HAVE and DO NOT USE logic of any kind. And I believe that you've been putting forth the argument that pro-second amendment types like on THR should "abandon reason for madness" and simply argue based on emotion because our opponents do so.

Is this not the case?

 

[Zoogster]

My real intent in posting this was to gauge how capable we are at compromise

How is something a compromise when only one side has anything to lose?

How about I as a total stranger sue you for your home/property, vehicles, and all of your possessions, and I agree to maybe end the lawsuit when you agree to come to a "compromise"?
If I lose, well you can keep what is already yours (minus all the legal expenses and hassle.) If I win, it is all mine.
Come on, lets be civil here, we can reach a compromise.
:::taps foot:::
Come on, here I am willing to have an open dialog, discuss this matter and compromise, all you have to do is reach out and make the effort (like you have many times already conceading various things.)
Everyone is going to see just how unreasonable you are being.





That is pretty much the antis definition of "compromise".
Many freedoms that were all the "compromise" they wanted at the time have been given up, only to have them move the line in the sand further. There is no end to thier "compromises".

 

[keeleon]

That is a good articel Soybomb, and I will try to read the whole thing even if it does make my head hurt. However, even it still helps what I said sort of. It states that the 2A protects a man's rights to bear arms for the purposes of a militia. It is a stretch to take that to mean the NAtional Gaurd, considering it was written when a "militia" was simply free men coming together and fighting side by side. So it does in fact bestow individual rights. However the reason for those individual rights is to organize a militia for the security of the state, not for the protectio nof oneself (as expressed in the 2A). So I am just stating that if you use the 2A as your defense for being able to carry to defend yourself and your family, then you CAN be defeated with logic.

I'm only half sold on your sincerity as devil's advocate to be honest. You've mention the pro-gun side's lies and still haven't told me what they were. You haven't detailed why you believe gun owners should be wanting a compromise.

Well, because they aren't actually lies. Unfortunately if the Bradys state that they are lies, and then use emotion to back it up, then the public relying on their emotions, believe them. And the real problem is that they do believe them whole heartedly, just as muc has you believe they are wrong. Don't expect them to see the good points of your argument, if you won't bother to look at theirs.

http://www.bradycenter.org/xshare/pdf/reports/criminals-best-friend.pdf

They clearly state and cite that the NRA lies about it's motives. How can you not believe that?? I mean it's in a .pdf, on the internet!

And I believe that you've been putting forth the argument that pro-second amendment types like on THR should "abandon reason for madness" and simply argue based on emotion because our opponents do so.

Well, how well has logic worked for us when talking with them so far? Is taking another approach not an option? There is no reason to abandon logic. I am simply suggesting maybe someone smarter than myself can come up with a way to infuse emotion with logic. I think Oleg Volk does a pretty good job of that with some of his posters. Like the one of the family just standing there with a rather subtle OWB pistol. I think the ones with the kids with ARs are a little over the top, but if you present the image of a peaceful, serene, happy family that just happens to not be defenseless, then it is easier to swallow for some fence sitters.

I liken it to "tricking" kids into learning. I work in an elementary school, and the kids love going to the computer lab. They always want to play the "gmes", because to them, games = fun. Of course since all the games we have are educational, then they are in fact learning. But if you were to tell them, "Let's go to the computer lab to learn", they would not be nearly as excited. I guess it does sound underhanded when I put it that way, but I am not suggesting lieing. I don't lie to the kids that they are learning, I just telll them they are going to play games. They really could care less if it's Mortal Kombat or Reader Rabbit, because remember games = fun.

How is something a compromise when only one side has anything to lose?

Well, I guess you're right, and I will go back to living in a world in constant arguement where nothing gets settled. I'm just trying to figure out a different approach to solve a never ending debate.

I will however leave by saying that I seriously doubt Sarah Brady is sitting in her crystal palace rubbing her fingers together and cackling about how much power she can accumulate. She is just a human like the rest of us. An illogocal human that is letting her emotions dictate what she thinks she needs to do for the betterment of the world.

Wouldn't it be a lot simpler if she actually were an evil witch though, and we could storm down her gates and put an end to her malignant rule. Then the darkened skies would clear and peace would once again rule the land.

 

[Titan6]

This isn't a personal attack, but you haven't been pointing out the logic that is used by people who feel that way -- you have stated many times that they, in fact, DO NOT HAVE and DO NOT USE logic of any kind. And I believe that you've been putting forth the argument that pro-second amendment types like on THR should "abandon reason for madness" and simply argue based on emotion because our opponents do so.

Exactly. Stated better than I could.

I am capable that seeing at it's core, the Bradys might have some valid points as well.

Okay. Get on with it. Personaly I can't think of a single valid point and you have not provided any. So Provide some. If they have merit I will support them.

I hope you are not insinuating that I was lying to prove my point. I very much appreciate your candor, and I too feel very strongly in being honest all the time, because all you have is your past actions to dictate how people will percieve your future choices.

Not insinuating. Merely trying to reconcile two opposing statements made by the same person.

Perhaps, I worded it wrong, but I don't mean to say we should just give up and agree with the Bradys. What I mean is that I think we should step back from the argument and look at the points that we can agree on to bring us together.

What points? You have not named any and I can think of none. Instead you want us to appeal to a base instinct... appalling really. What would I have in common with them? The want to deny me my freedoms and and I don't want them to. How does compromise help my position? They are losing now and we are beating them back on most fronts.

Whether you feel one way or the other on the matter, if you are going to use the 2A as your lone basis of argument for being able to carry to protect yourself, then you are going to lose. They know this, and that is how THEY are phrasing it.

Surprisingly most of the legislative success has been on this front. Should we abandon this tactic now as well? As were you told early on in this thread you need to some real research on this subject. Part of the reason you are drawing so much ire is because you are poorly informed and maybe naive. At least I hope so as the alternative is dishonest.

Apperently some of you have decided to not actually read my posts, and think I am some kind of Brady plant.

I have read all your posts. I don't know if you are Brady plant and care not anyway. I think your ideas are bad and immoral. I have no idea who you are so this nothing personal, but I do really hate your ideas. If you insist on posting them I will insist on refuting them. In many ways I would prefer you were a Brady plant. To think that one on this side has such ideas is disappointing at best. But we need to discuss such ideas to show why they are bad. So don't give up until you are convinced you are wrong or can prove to me clearly why this should be so.

I don't really know what to say to that, but I will say, you can till your head is bleeding because YOU are right, but that doesn't change the fact that they don't, and will continue to abuse people's emotions to "prove you wrong".

As you well know they can not "prove me wrong". They have no proof. They can effect people's emotion until such time as people are ready to think. I am not interested in effecting people's emotions. So we are talking about the same thing here. If I were to follow their tactics than I would be a mindless idiot.

"they don't" what? think? feel? This is more of the same circular argument that you have been positing.

 

[Titan6]

However the reason for those individual rights is to organize a militia for the security of the state, not for the protectio nof oneself (as expressed in the 2A).

Read it again. It does not say "the state". Once you figure out why it does not say that than you will be one step closer.

I'm only half sold on your sincerity as devil's advocate to be honest. You've mention the pro-gun side's lies and still haven't told me what they were. You haven't detailed why you believe gun owners should be wanting a compromise.

Well, because they aren't actually lies. Unfortunately if the Bradys state that they are lies, and then use emotion to back it up, then the public relying on their emotions, believe them. And the real problem is that they do believe them whole heartedly, just as muc has you believe they are wrong. Don't expect them to see the good points of your argument, if you won't bother to look at theirs.

http://www.bradycenter.org/xshare/pd...est-friend.pdf

They clearly state and cite that the NRA lies about it's motives. How can you not believe that?? I mean it's in a .pdf, on the internet!

Attacking your enemy and calling them liars is not the same as having ideas that one can find common ground on. So bring me an idea that can be agreed upon instead of prattling on about nothing.

Well, how well has logic worked for us when talking with them so far?

Great. It exposes them for what they are every time; liars and thieves. They lose.

Is taking another approach not an option? There is no reason to abandon logic. I am simply suggesting maybe someone smarter than myself can come up with a way to infuse emotion with logic.

Again Why? For What purpose? It does nothing to help the cause.

I think Oleg Volk does a pretty good job of that with some of his posters.

Ok, so we both like Oleg. The man is truly an artist. Notice how all of his posters have a caption. This is to make sure the idea is clearly expressed.

Like the one of the family just standing there with a rather subtle OWB pistol. I think the ones with the kids with ARs are a little over the top,

Yes, because they are really bad guns right?

I liken it to "tricking" kids into learning. I work in an elementary school, and the kids love going to the computer lab. They always want to play the "gmes", because to them, games = fun. Of course since all the games we have are educational, then they are in fact learning. But if you were to tell them, "Let's go to the computer lab to learn", they would not be nearly as excited. I guess it does sound underhanded when I put it that way, but I am not suggesting lieing. I don't lie to the kids that they are learning, I just telll them they are going to play games. They really could care less if it's Mortal Kombat or Reader Rabbit, because remember games = fun.

Surprisingly, there are very few people of voting age enrolled in elementary school. My kids minds do not work this way. They do not need to be tricked. They are extremely smart and love school.

But when yo talk the way you do about treating people like children you really are up against the wall here. You sound just like every other elitist anti-gun socialist I have ever run across.

I will however leave by saying that I seriously doubt Sarah Brady is sitting in her crystal palace rubbing her fingers together and cackling about how much power she can accumulate. She is just a human like the rest of us. An illogocal human that is letting her emotions dictate what she thinks she needs to do for the betterment of the world.

Sarah Brady no longer works with the Brady Bunch. She has retired in failure.

Wouldn't it be a lot simpler if she actually were an evil witch though, and we could storm down her gates and put an end to her malignant rule. Then the darkened skies would clear and peace would once again rule the land.

There are no witches. Peace does rule the land, but only because America has 300,000,000 guns. Change that equation and who knows?

 

[Soybomb]

That is a good articel Soybomb, and I will try to read the whole thing even if it does make my head hurt. However, even it still helps what I said sort of. It states that the 2A protects a man's rights to bear arms for the purposes of a militia. It is a stretch to take that to mean the NAtional Gaurd, considering it was written when a "militia" was simply free men coming together and fighting side by side. So it does in fact bestow individual rights. However the reason for those individual rights is to organize a militia for the security of the state, not for the protectio nof oneself (as expressed in the 2A). So I am just stating that if you use the 2A as your defense for being able to carry to defend yourself and your family, then you CAN be defeated with logic.

How? If you're conceding it is an individual right as all the evidence does point to, what logic do you use to say "well yes its an individual right, but only for certain causes." The 2nd amendment protects the public's right to keep and bear arms for militia purposes, personal protection, hunting, collecting, to turn into lamps, etc. It is not limiting. Walk me through the logic you would use to show me why this individual right that shall not be infringed, in fact can.

Well, because they aren't actually lies. Unfortunately if the Bradys state that they are lies, and then use emotion to back it up, then the public relying on their emotions, believe them. And the real problem is that they do believe them whole heartedly, just as muc has you believe they are wrong. Don't expect them to see the good points of your argument, if you won't bother to look at theirs.

http://www.bradycenter.org/xshare/pd...est-friend.pdf

They clearly state and cite that the NRA lies about it's motives. How can you not believe that?? I mean it's in a .pdf, on the internet!

So they aren't lies, but you're just calling them lies? I want to see some real pro-gun lies. I will listen to every argument an antigun person makes, and probably have heard them all by now. I will put their arguments to the test though and show them the flaws with those arguments. Isn't poking holes in all of their arguments with real facts exactly what we should do?

Well, how well has logic worked for us when talking with them so far?

I view the brady group and others like them as my opponent. I probably won't convince them, but the general public is listening to both of us. Lets be honest most people don't really care much either and are going to be fence sitters. I want the guy listening to look at both sides and determine who is providing the best evidence to support their position. Given the state of firearms laws in the US, I'd say we're doing pretty well and are probably on the right track. Do you think we're failling?

Well, I guess you're right, and I will go back to living in a world in constant arguement where nothing gets settled. I'm just trying to figure out a different approach to solve a never ending debate.

You're never going to be free of nuts even if you want to. 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.