Brady Newsletter

[LegalAlien]

"Now we need to keep up the momentum and take the next logical step

Brady logic.

How do you eat an elephant???. . . . . One bite at a time.


Deny the Brady's the next bite!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Robert Hairless]

There's no specification of the bill so my comments will be general rather than about this bill specifically.

Don't be surprised to learn that Sen. Lautenberg has anticipated every move you might take to circumvent the resulting law.

Expect that law to create a new category: "unlicensed dealer" or something similar. The category will include anyone who sells a gun in, around or resulting from the gun show. Expect that it will then apply to any gun that you sell in any way that can be tracked to your attendance at that show. Expect that it will apply to sales you make in the parking lot or at MacDonald's. Expect also that it will include a requirement that the gun show sponsor record your attendance at the show, including your identifying information (address, drivers license, and so on).

What this means, for example, is that if you meet an old friend who is leaving the show while you enter it, and he asks whether you would take $50 for that old gun he saw you shooting a couple of years ago, you become an "unlicensed dealer" if you decide to sell it--or any other gun--to him at the range the following week or month.

Don't make the fatal mistake of thinking that bills such as these--whatever comes down the pike in the next few years--are the beginning of a "slippery slope." They will be the slope itself, and all the rest will come very quickly.

It's therefore disheartening to see people in gun forums who think they see the other side's point. They don't see any such thing because they've already accepted the slide down that slope. Anyone who has read any of my other messages should be aware that I am not a "No Compromise" person. I believe firmly in negotiation and trying to accommodate other people's needs. But bills like these and directions like this do not fall into that very broad negotiable area.

You are about to be taken for a ride. Don't get aboard this bus. It won't take you anywhere you'll enjoy visiting and you won't be able to get off it or return.

Unfortunately, gun owners who keep wasting their votes to "send a message" contribute to the likelihood of such bills and their eventual passage. Send a message, lose your guns.

 

[mike101]

The Brady Bunch doesn't care that gun show guns are used in less than 1% of crimes involving guns. Just like they don't care that rifles (including the evil black ones) are used in less than 3%. They are out to disarm the population. They deny this, of course. Then they turn around and throw their full support behind the DC gun ban.

I got an email from them. They want me to contact my senators, Sen. Frank Lautenburg, and Sen. Bandito "Federal Investigation" Menendez, and offer my support.

If you sign on to their blog, they consider you a member.

 

[USAFNoDAk]

"Give me a ping, Vasili. One ping only, please."

"Give me a ping, Vashili. One ping only, pleashe."

There. That sounds more like Sean Connery.

 

[USAFNoDAk]

Now we need to keep up the momentum and take the next logical step: make sure that everyone who wants to buy a gun gets a background check.

Please show us, Senator Lautenburg and Ms. Brady, where violent crime rates went down as a DIRECT RESULT of background checks. Please don't include any states, cities, municipalties, etc. where there were already background checks and waiting periods in place, unless you are going to show us where those background checks and waiting periods also DIRECTLY RESULTED IN A SIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN VIOLENT CRIMES, UNRELATED TO OTHER FACTORS. They won't be able to do it. I guarantee it!

Background checks, like all other gun control schemes, are all about feeling like you're doing something. In the case of the Bradys and their ilk, they get to feel like they are doing something along the lines of pushing us gunowners further down the slippery slope towards the point were we MIGHT be able to own a .22 and a double barrel shotgun, if the government doesn't perceive such ownership to jeopardize public safety, that is.

 

[JaxNovice]

"Give me a ping, Vashili. One ping only, pleashe."

Love it!

 

[USAFNoDAk]

Glad you saw the humor in it, JaxNovice. You never know when you "joke" about something someone else wrote, and whom you don't know from Adam, how they will take it. Glad to see you have a good sense of humor.

 

[Dorryn]

Visit our website to download talking points and issue briefs on this important subject.

"Visit our website and download talking points and issue briefs, so you will never have to think for yourself."

There, I fixed it.

From Wikipedia, emphasis mine:

Proof by assertion is a logical fallacy in which a proposition is repeatedly restated regardless of contradiction. Sometimes this may be repeated until challenges dry up, at which point it is asserted as fact due to its not being contradicted (argumentum ad nauseam). In other cases its repetition may be cited as evidence of its truth, in a variant of the appeal to authority or appeal to belief fallacies.
This logical fallacy is sometimes used as a form of rhetoric by politicians. In its extreme form, it can also be a form of brainwashing. Modern politics contains many examples of proof by assertions. This practice can be observed in the use of political slogans, and the distribution of "talking points," which are collections of short phrases that are issued to members of modern political parties for recitation to achieve maximum message repetition. The technique is also sometimes used in advertising.