Brady Campaign submits gun control strategy to Obama transition team

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by Redneck with a 40, Jan 7, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. KBintheSLC

    KBintheSLC Member

    Jul 30, 2007
    Stalingrad, USA
    Wow... I am dumbfounded at how much twisted and manipulated "data" they present to make their case.

    Regarding so-called assault weapons... "criminals prefer them 8 to 1 over law-abiding gun owners".
    Thats news to me... I always thought the data clearly states that criminals prefer pistols since they can be concealed. I don't even remember the last time a battle rifle was used in a crime around here.
  2. John828

    John828 Member

    Apr 4, 2008
    I haven't read the whole thread, so someone probably already mentioned this. Their entire argument is fear based. There is no room for logic or facts in an emotionally based argument. I am surprised by your surprise KB.
  3. withdrawn34

    withdrawn34 Member.

    Oct 8, 2008
    It's also completely missing the point! The question isn't even valid for what they want idiots to believe it is...

    Their intended question was what kind of guns would they have realistically. Instead, they asked what they'd prefer.

    Go ahead, ask most of us what guns we'd "prefer," and we'd probably rattle off fantasies of full battle artillery, anti-ship guns and other very large and cool weaponry. But would we REALLY own them? No. We'd own more down to earth weaponry.

    Most criminals prefer the low-end semiautomatic, small handguns a few .38 revolvers. That's fact, and its been that way for years. It doesn't make sense to buy a black rifle that's louder, significantly more difficult to conceal, and harder to use for the normal method of killing on the street - close up and without warning. It also cannot be held one-handed sideways... and is much more expensive than a cheap, unreliable pistol, even on the black market.

    Anyway, it's like asking someone what they would dream to be vs. what they really see themselves doing in the future. I'd love to be a benevolent emperor of an alien planet filled with awesomeness and beautiful women.

    What I see myself being is decidedly more humble.

    That whole thing also makes my blood boil as well. Where the *hell* are they getting such facts from? If anything, they are perverting numbers to fit their fear-based agenda. Their sources seem hidden or in a way that one must jump through loops - or worse, they reference OTHER Brady articles. Huh? I'm not going to prove 2+2 = 4 by saying that 4 = 2+2. They're both the same thing, just written differently. Circular logic

    But as we learned with the Patriot Act, sheeple will bow down and roll over to anything as long as you scare them enough. This is what we must be ever vigilant about, and hope we have people in congress who actually think with their brains rather than react like animals to artificial stimuli.
  4. carlrodd

    carlrodd Member

    Dec 20, 2005
    let me remind the individual who stated that guns can/should be regulated, just as driving privileges are, and the brady bunchers who keep talking about "sporting" this and "sporting" that, of just one thing.....the most important thing:

    the root of our gun ownership is not in recreation. the sporting element to gun ownership is peripheral. we also do not own guns as a means of making life easier, i.e. being able to drive a car in an effort to get somewhere more quickly.

    WE OWN GUNS AS A MEANS TO RESPOND TO TYRANNY. never forget it. now, more than ever before, our right to ensure that the government that serves US does not wholesalely disregard OUR will needs to be preached to everybody.....because they seek right here, right now, to knowingly disregard our will to the greatest extent that they can manage. AR-15s, AKs, Galils, SKSs, mini-14s, FNs, extended mag 12-gauge pumps, PTRs and so on and so forth.......all of these are beautiful, unique, masterful works of form and function. but we own them because they are efficient killing tools.

    these tools are and always have been the very last measure of security against the unchecked subjugation of free people, by government. think that's extreme or ridiculous?...crack open a history book...better yet....watch the news.

    i have more of a problem with gun owners that believe gun ownership has everything to do with "sporting", and nothing to do with patriotism and the safekeeping of liberty, than i do with rabid gun grabbers. there's hope for the gun-grabbers. the former are off on some strange, distant planet.

    don't get too sleepy in these times. you might doze off and wake to a world you don't recognize.
  5. Hanzerik

    Hanzerik Member

    Feb 13, 2007
    That document is a truck load of horse****. Bunch of facts that they have pulled out of their butts and manipulated to suit their needs.
  6. Redneck with a 40

    Redneck with a 40 Member

    Jul 26, 2006
    I have a couple of questions : 1) They want to repeal the "Protection of Lawfull Commerce in Arms Act", so gunshot victims can sue.:barf::mad: If I get hit by a drunk driver, do I get to sue Budweiser? If I shoot myself in the hand with a nailgun, do I get to sue Porter Cable? If I wreck my car period, and get seriously injured, do I get to sue the car maker? OF COURSE NOT! This really pisses me off!:fire:

    Second, if guns cause crime, why do they mention the dis-proportionate problem in the black community? Don't you think if guns caused crime, it would be more indisriminate and balanced among the population? They just shot themselves in the foot, its cultural, socio-economic problems that breed crime, not to mention the 67% illegitimacy rate, among blacks. What garbage!
  7. Golden Hound

    Golden Hound Member

    Apr 26, 2008
    So that they can call you a racist if you disagree with them.
  8. Mohawk

    Mohawk Member

    Dec 13, 2008
    Cornville, AZ
    Nice thread. Picking apart the Brady Bunch's Wish List. Not a very hard thing to do. I wonder what our "Wish List" would look like. I know that in my small desert town, if you had a gun rights meeting you'd get 12 guys with 13 different ideas. I'd like to see the NRA's wish list and compare the two.
  9. akodo

    akodo Member

    Aug 31, 2005

    and then this safety course could have a shooting test and a written test.

    Someone who gets an 80 on the written test and an 80 on the shooting test could own a gun, but someone who has their abusive ex-husband stalking them and gets a 79 on the written test and a 79 on the shooting test, they don't get to keep their constitutional right to bear arms.
  10. HK G3

    HK G3 Member

    Jan 21, 2008
    The Grand Canyon State
    So... in other news, the Brady Bunch has a panel of criminals on its advisory comittee??

    Who'da'thunk it :evil:
  11. mike101

    mike101 Member

    Jul 12, 2006
    SOUTH Jersey
    "I agree with Timradcliffe345 - The only proposal that makes any sense to me is closing the gun show loopholes. Sorry guys, if this offends you, but it's the criminals that cause all the problems with guns - we all agree that law abiding citizens aren't the problem."

    The FBI puts the number of crime guns traced back to gun shows at about 1.7%. Closing the evil "gun show loophole" isn't going to accomplish anything.
  12. BADUNAME37

    BADUNAME37 Member

    Aug 10, 2008
    Closing the gun show loopholes is another one of these "feel good" laws that are passed that will most likely have no effect, or very little, on criminals buying guns.

    If a criminal wants a gun (just like if they want drugs or anything else), they will get them.

    Unlike a law-abiding citizen, the criminal is not worried if s/he is breaking the law.
  13. novaDAK

    novaDAK Member

    Apr 16, 2006
    A 21 year old is not a kid. He/She can purchase and consume alcohol, and could have/has served his or her country for 3 years.

    That's how the Brady bunch gets their "children killed with firearms" stats...they include everyone up to age 25 so that gang murders skew the statistics in their favor.
  14. ShooterMcGavin

    ShooterMcGavin Member

    Jan 11, 2007
    This irritates me. Notice how they have worded it? "guns traced back to gun shows". That doesn't mean "bought at a gun show". It certainly includes those guns stolen from someone who bought at a gun show. I'd also bet that suicides are included in that number.
    I don't know about across the country, but there is NO GUNSHOW LOOPHOLE HERE. To become a member of the gun club, you must undergo a background check. All gunshow sales are limited to members, who have already had a background check. There is no reason to require the NICS check for every firearm sold at the show!!

    Spoken with complete truth!!!
  15. edSky

    edSky Member

    Oct 7, 2008
    Central Arkansas
    That document is sickening in that all they are doing is playing games with statistics. They present numbers that look compelling but they are manipulating them to their advantage.

    So instead of saying what percentage of Hispanics between 15 and 25 die from firearm-related deaths, they use 15-24 and show the percentage of the second-leading cause of death. What about 14-26 year olds?

    What about among 13-year-olds? What about as compared to 24 other countries? Why those 25 countries? Why not 25 other countries?

    Total BS and manipulation of statistics. Bah!
  16. HexHead

    HexHead Member

    Dec 15, 2008
    I need to send some money to the NRA.
  17. jorb

    jorb Member

    Apr 29, 2008
    I read the original link yesterday. It hasn't gotten any better overnight. At times like this I remember what a teacher of mine once (or a hundred times) said. "Figures don't lie, liars fugure."
  18. Mr.510

    Mr.510 Member

    Dec 29, 2007
    Belfair Washington
    Do something about it!

    Start by joining the National Rifle Association. Every person on this forum should already be a member. It's $20 a year and includes a great gun magazine: American Rifleman (which isn't all rifles, BTW). If you are already a member, don't send more money. The NRA does not need more money, it needs more members! I've been bugging my fellow gun owners at work about joining the NRA. One guy was just like I used to be: He said he really did need to join but had just never gotten around to it. So I sat him down at my computer and signed him up.... on my dime. He was like, "What do you mean you'll pay for my membership?" And I said, "When you see how much good the NRA does sign up somebody that was like you... on your dime." Seven months later we have five new NRA members at our shop. Buying another 30 round mag or box of ammo "in case it gets banned" rather than spending five minutes and $20 to help keep them from getting banned in the first place makes no sense at all to me. I know some gun people don't like the NRA but it's by far the best shot we've got at defending our 2nd amendment rights. If you don't like something about the NRA join another group... and the NRA! :)
  19. colorado_handgunner

    colorado_handgunner Member

    Nov 26, 2008
    Florence, SC
    As far as the gunshow loophole and other background checks, here in Colorado you are required by state law to do background checks for any type of firearm purchase (handgun, rifle, or shotgun) for any sale, gunshow or retail. I have bought two guns in the 6 months since I moved out here and have not really found it to be a problem.

    The items dealing with record keeping for dealers are also reasonable, I think. The removal of the manufacturer shield is frightening though.

    The CCW in parks is one that I can see both ways, in support for CCW and in support of states having their own jurisdiction.

    Microstamping would be a pain in the short term, but likely would become just as painless as serial numbering in the long term (although, if a criminal policed their brass, it would not be very effective). The firearm would just need to stamp the gun serial number. However, reloading would make tracking difficult for law enforcement, so their is the risk of this putting a serious dent in the reloading of cartridges, which is bad. However, microstamping would definitely be better than the Ammunition Act.

    Assault rifle ban is always bad. There is definite use for them outside of "sporting" and it is called personal defense (ie: SHTF scenario).

    One handgun per month is a stupid idea, but would be good for my wallet!:eek:

    Ultimately it comes down to using common sense with accurate facts, something gun control folks never seem capable of doing.:banghead:
  20. divemedic

    divemedic Member

    Nov 18, 2007
    Near Ocala
    Don't fall into the trap of the Antis. All they want is for you to think the laws are harmless, when they are really a back door scheme to make guns a thing of the past.
  21. slim76

    slim76 Member

    Jan 9, 2009
    "Hell" Paso
    Don't compromise with fascists

    If you want to go along, turn your guns in now. Let the rest of us present a united front to the opposition. We can't keep letting people nickle and dime our rights away. There should NEVER have been background checks. That wasn't a "reasonable" idea, it was a sad, self loathing compromise of people who think that there is something wrong with owning the guns they own.

    There is no reason for a law abiding citizen to submit to a background check to own a firearm. Law abiding citizens are not the problem, criminals are. Do you think background checks are going to keep criminals from getting guns? Do criminals have trouble getting drugs which are totally and completely banned? No. They have no trouble getting drugs in even the smallest town in the U.S.

    What background checks will be used for is to profile and weed out those people who by whatever arbitrary criteria the government decides are not fit.
    For example, have a period of depression when moms and pops divorced back in junior high? Experienced PTSD during / after your service to country? Do you go to Church? Realize that there are people who would like to classify religion as a syndrome of mental defect. It could be any reason, that sounds "reasonable". And then...Sorry, you don't qualify. No guns for you.

    There is no gunshow loophole, there are just people making private gun sales. Forget the word gunshow, it doesn't matter.

    You actually think that we can make nice with people whose entire goal is to entirely strip us of our right to bear arms, even if they have to do it inch by inch. Wake up.:)
    Last edited: Jan 11, 2009
  22. moooose102

    moooose102 Member

    Oct 21, 2007
    West Michigan
    gee, i wonder what the restriction would be for going to the bathroom while you are at the range. lets see, drive back home 40 miles, lock all of your guns in a triple lock safe, lock all of your ammo in a seperate triple lock safe, go to the bathroom ONLY after you have called and waited for the police to come into your home to verify everything is locked up properly, then, and only then would you be allowed to go to the bathroom. but, since you were at the range, and actually using a gun, you would HAVE to give a sample to the police and have a drug screen done.

    you know, i honestly can simpathize with the brady family for their father being shot. it would be a sad day in anyones life to have something of that nature happen to them.

    but there is ABSOLOUTLY NO LAW IN ANY LAND that will keep ANY firearm out of a criminals hands. the propper way to address the problem is to make the punishment for using a gun in a crime so severe that no one, even remotely in their right mind, would do it. any other (not in their right mind) would simply be shot on site.

    i also wonder how she would react if one of her kids were at a national park and was attacked by a mountin lion. what kind of legislation would she want from that. a 30 day waiting permit for claws and teeth for animals only after the animal went through a psycriatric exam?
    the whole brady bunch is EXACTLY what is wrong with this country. special intrest (less than 50%) running the country and ruining it for the majority of us.
    Last edited: Jan 11, 2009
  23. Redneck with a 40

    Redneck with a 40 Member

    Jul 26, 2006
    If we do get national microstamping, god forbid, make absolutely certain you pick up all you're brass, whether you load or not. Criminal Joe can visit the shooting range and scatter you're brass all over a crime scene, then the police will be knocking on you're door. Is this paranoid? I think not. This is why microstamping scares me, and pisses me off.
  24. Armed N. Free

    Armed N. Free Member

    Dec 7, 2008
    Western PA
    Oh my aching head!

    Is it rational to reason "where there are no laws, there is no crime"? Uh....what? There must be a biblical reference in there somewhere but I ain't smart enough to remember it, and probably shouldn't here:D

    I'm pretty sure I've hit more people with my car than with my gun, but Brady doesn't want my cay (yet) and when I'm intoxicated I can still kill with my car but probably not with my gun (my drinking team has a shooting problem).

    What's up with the guns? Oh yeah, they want to be the only ones that have 'em. Remember the DC politico anti gunner that shot the pool guy assuming he was a BG? (vague memory on my part, parental induced Alzheimer's).

    Politicians are incrementalists - they don't want us to go into shock all at once. We're like frogs in a stew pot. They turn up the heat a little at a time while we adjust our body temp as we slowly cook! Anyone here ever sight in a new piece? You draw in the rounds one click at a time right? Kind of like a loaf of bread vanishes - a couple of slices at a time until its time to go back to Wally World for more bread (& cheap ammo) at 1 in the morning (packing my 40 of course because of all the wacko car jacking drug addicts in the parking lot at that time of the night):evil:

    Just my .02 worth (or .01 worth after taxes)
  25. Flyboy

    Flyboy Member

    Apr 19, 2004
    Oklahoma City, OK
    Ted Kennedy found his way onto the list for a little bit. He was able to get off the list by means of his relationship with Tom Ridge, then-Secretary of Homeland Security. Us mere mortals would have a much tougher time.

    Are you okay with denying peoples' unalienable rights based upon their inclusion in a database prepared with no due process and no accountability?
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice