Brady Campaign - Do you support it?

Do you support the Brady Campaign?

  • Total voters
    609
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
Would a picture of Rumsfeld with Saddam or Bush with the Bin Laden family or Cheney with Momar mean we cannot support our govt?
Click to expand...

Sheehan isn't working for the State Department the last time I checked, and doesn't have to go around posing with nasty rulers in the interest of diplomacy. She does it because she personally likes their politics. Her son is not the issue. It's her use of her son's bloody shirt for a political cause. She is in this respect the same as Sarah Brady. They rely on their association with tragedy to silence critics. In Brady's case, she's used her husband's head injury to ride roughshod over every one of our rights. I hate her for that, and will raise a toast when she dies a badly needed death. Sheehan I don't personally hate, but I know the breed and don't trust it. When anyone starts telling you to support their cause because of a dead relative or "the children," it's a good idea to scrutinize their motives.
 
You want me to respect or honor the woman who's responsible for the BRADY BILL?! She's not from some upright, respectable opposition. These people are out to put us six feet under, folks. They'll do it bit by bit if they have to, but they're dedicated to the cause of making the American gun owner EXTINCT. They'll do it with their husband's brains and their children's bloody shirts because they have no honor.
 
I'm going to keep this anger that PlayboyPenguin has built in me (a human doesn't know how to safely operate a weapon until their 18th birthday, then they are suddenly perfectly fine). That may be a thread for later. Instead, I'm going to address this:

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

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

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

I think I will just stick to the legal definition of adulthood. A lot less arbitrary.
 
Okay, that tells me all I need to know about this conversation. I am done being involved in it.
Click to expand...

Apparently not.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sounds familiar, doesn't it?
 
Apparently not.
Click to expand...
I meant I am done discussing Sheehan with Cosmoline. He obviouly has strong feelings about that subject that I do not want to get into.

Nope. Giving a 9 year old a license would either never or extremely rarely save his/her life
Click to expand...
And how does that differ? Seems to me a child with a firearm is more of a danger in the vast majority if situations. Seems to me alot of abductions occur on the way to school. If they could drive themselves there they would not be so vulnerable.
 
bigun15,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It sucks now, but it will be over soon. Think of it like boot camp.
 
I meant I am done discussing Sheehan with Cosmoline. He obviouly has strong feelings about that suject that I do not want to get into.
Click to expand...

I don't have strong feelings about Sheehan, but I agree it's off topic. I do have strong feelings about Sarah Brady and her campaign against the right to keep and bear arms. I have no sympathy for the person after what she's done and what she continues to do.
 
I don't quite get the spite at Cindy Sheehan. There are lots of war protestors, some of whom are veterans, some relatives of soldiers, some not directly connected at all.

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

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

Cosmoline, I think you lower yourself when you talk about celebrating death. And I think it reflects poorly on all of us. It seems to me that a big part of the mission of this site is to show the world that we are a rational and noble bunch. I think toasting the death of a woman undermines that.
 
I just got an argument from a guy claiming that a lot of responsible gun owners support the Brady Campaign, and that their goal is not to disarm America, but simply allow reasonable ownership.
Click to expand...

He was lying.

I'm sure that has been said already in this thread, but I really cant read more than the little bit I've seen.....my blood pressure couldn't take it.
 
I've had to live under Sarah Brady's law for many years now, and I find my nobility has run out. I absolutely, totally detest that person. Thanks to her we must become supplicants to a federal lord merely to purchase a firearm. The fact that she used her husband's brains and blood to lubricate her bill's passage in DC adds to my hatred of her.
 
Cosmoline, I understand what you're saying.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lord knows there are alot of people in politics and organized religion these days that I would have to hold in a giggle if I heard they had been hit by a bus so can I really throw any stones?
 
That is why they subversively try to tear her down with labels like "professional protester"
Click to expand...

You wouldn't mean like:

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

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

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

I too ask, WHY? :confused:

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

And once again, according to her, it wasn't about her husband; she only became anti-gun when a child obtained a weapon that someone left in a vehicle apparently owned by family or friends. The child wasn't hurt, but she got involved to reduce access to the firearms. This was the statement she made in a TV interview (60 Minutes if memory serves) during the period drumming up support for the Brady Bill, one of the "we're not out to ban guns" pieces. According to her own statements, her husband's injury did not drive her to this; it's just something she uses to support her ambitions.
 
PlayboyPenguin said:
My attacks were not subversive at all. They are forthright and directly spoken. They are not misleading and I will not retract them late friday afternoon when noone is listening. I at no-time try to use a misleading catch phrase and then repeatedly drill it into peoples heads before later denying it. See the difference?
Click to expand...
NO... But then it has been said that the enemy never considers themselves cruel or evil.

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

All indications are that the son would probably not approve of how his mother is using his death to further her political agenda.
 
Not that I actually support her (I have never really listened to her) but I would never call her emotions involving the loss of her son into question and think doing so is in poor taste.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Similar threads

D
  • Locked
My Challenge to Facebook Brady Campaign
Replies
13
Views
1K
DCoats
D
D
  • Locked
CCRKBA Asks FEC To Investigate Brady Group for Possible Campaign Law
Replies
0
Views
341
Desertdog
D
F
  • Locked
Brady Campaign calls for ban on HUNTING ammunition.
2 3
Replies
61
Views
3K
Eric F
E
J
  • Locked
Brady Foundation Report
Replies
2
Views
555
mljdeckard
mljdeckard
S
  • Locked
The Brady Campaign, And Nbc's Katie Couric, Try To Re-write History
Replies
24
Views
2K
Bartholomew Roberts
B
Back
Top