Airman193SOS
Member
- Joined
- May 21, 2007
- Messages
- 267
It's not so much that I don't understand what the Brady Campaign is all about. I do. I'd imagine that I might feel the same as Sarah Brady or Carolyn McCarthy if my family had been killed or severely injured, and I have a certain empathy with their positions even as I disagree with them entirely.
But I draw the line at outright lying. I submit that most justification for gun control is based on the "Big Lie" political model, but this takes it to a new level.
From the Brady Campaign website:
OK so far. They're entitled to do that, even if we gun owners totally disagree with them. No, the whopper is in the next paragraph:
*Bolding mine
I can safely say that the only reason that they might be concerned about people having guns on Ellis Island or on the National Mall is because Mrs. Brady and her friends have lied to them.
The new rule asserts that the national parks will now conform to the gun laws of the state that they are in. As there is no way to get to Ellis Island without going through New York City or New Jersey, both with nearly impossible-to-get CCW permits and no reciprocity, not to mention the fact that Washington, DC does not allow concealed carry under any circumstances, bringing Ellis Island and the National Mall up as examples is a bright, shining lie, and a despicable one at that.
Some of my friends think that I take gun ownership too seriously, that people are not "out to get me". It's about the time that I start to believe that when I see stuff like this. It is upon such monumental lies that law is made.
It's enough to make my head hurt. How do you fight lies, innuendos, and basic, fundamental dishonesty?
But I draw the line at outright lying. I submit that most justification for gun control is based on the "Big Lie" political model, but this takes it to a new level.
From the Brady Campaign website:
The Brady Campaign filed a complaint in federal court asking the court to strike down a last-minute Bush Administration rule change that allows concealed, loaded firearms in national parks and wildlife refuges.
OK so far. They're entitled to do that, even if we gun owners totally disagree with them. No, the whopper is in the next paragraph:
The suit was filed on behalf of the Brady Campaign and its members, including school teachers in the New York and Washington, D.C. areas who are canceling or curtailing school trips to Ellis Island and the Statue of Liberty and the National Mall in Washington, D.C due to the Bush Administration's rule change.
*Bolding mine
I can safely say that the only reason that they might be concerned about people having guns on Ellis Island or on the National Mall is because Mrs. Brady and her friends have lied to them.
The new rule asserts that the national parks will now conform to the gun laws of the state that they are in. As there is no way to get to Ellis Island without going through New York City or New Jersey, both with nearly impossible-to-get CCW permits and no reciprocity, not to mention the fact that Washington, DC does not allow concealed carry under any circumstances, bringing Ellis Island and the National Mall up as examples is a bright, shining lie, and a despicable one at that.
Some of my friends think that I take gun ownership too seriously, that people are not "out to get me". It's about the time that I start to believe that when I see stuff like this. It is upon such monumental lies that law is made.
It's enough to make my head hurt. How do you fight lies, innuendos, and basic, fundamental dishonesty?