rscalzo
Member
Reaction will never beat action. It's a fact of life. What they did was eliminate the possibility of further damage.
The tide turns in the battle for gun rights as the Brady Campaign withers away
- Thread starter Trebor
- Start date
- Status
Reaction will never beat action. It's a fact of life. What they did was eliminate the possibility of further damage.
Kentucky_Rifleman
Member
RR said:
I honestly don't believe most anti-gunners are evil as much as they are arrogant. They all operate under the delusion that they are better suited to make decisions for the rest of us than we are. Most left-leaning radicals operate under the same delusion. It's that mentality that believes adults are helpless and it is the government's job to save us from our own stupidity. That's not evil (IMHO) so much as hubris.
Excellent point!
I agree about the Brady Campaign, and Sarah Brady. I don't wish any misfortune on the woman, but she is personally a danger to my constitutional rights. I hope the BC withers and dies. I hope Sarah Brady simply gets out of politics (and stays out of my gun vault).
KR
I honestly don't believe most anti-gunners are evil as much as they are arrogant. They all operate under the delusion that they are better suited to make decisions for the rest of us than we are. Most left-leaning radicals operate under the same delusion. It's that mentality that believes adults are helpless and it is the government's job to save us from our own stupidity. That's not evil (IMHO) so much as hubris.
Excellent point!
I agree about the Brady Campaign, and Sarah Brady. I don't wish any misfortune on the woman, but she is personally a danger to my constitutional rights. I hope the BC withers and dies. I hope Sarah Brady simply gets out of politics (and stays out of my gun vault).
KR
killchain
Member
First things first, I'm really glad to see an organization that I sincerely believe is crushing one of my unalienable rights get it's just desserts and fail miserably.
This one bugs the crap out of me.
Half of the readers that read this are going to call me a God-less communist, but here it is.
Nowhere in the United States Constitution goes it say "God given."
The United States Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land and the rights are inherently ours, but nowhere does it say in the Constitution that they are "God given."
http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#god
"It has often been seen on the Internet that to find God in the Constitution, all one has to do is read it, and see how often the Framers used the words "God," or "Creator," "Jesus," or "Lord." Except for one notable instance, however, none of these words ever appears in the Constitution, neither the original nor in any of the Amendments. The notable exception is found in the Signatory section, where the date is written thusly: 'Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven.' "
The whole "God given" thing has stemmed from a bunch of things the government adopted in the 1950's, including the Pledge of Allegiance and placing "In God We Trust" on our dollar.
There are references to God in multiple state constitutions, I'm sure... the one I know in particular, Washington State, refers to a "Supreme Ruler of the Universe." That is particularly up to debate depending on who you are speaking to at the time. To one guy, it could be the Christian "God." To another, it could be Cthulhu.
http://www.leg.wa.gov/lawsandagencyrules/pages/constitution.aspx
"PREABLE: We, the people of the State of Washington, grateful to the Supreme Ruler of the Universe for our liberties, do ordain this constitution."
The Constitution of the United States of America empowers the people with unalienable rights. But it is because it is the Supreme Law of the Land, not because it is "God given." It's the SUPREME LAW. Many people have sworn to uphold and defend it, including me, and that is what it is. THE LAW.
I'm gonna go put on my nomex suit now.
This one bugs the crap out of me.
Half of the readers that read this are going to call me a God-less communist, but here it is.
Nowhere in the United States Constitution goes it say "God given."
The United States Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land and the rights are inherently ours, but nowhere does it say in the Constitution that they are "God given."
http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#god
"It has often been seen on the Internet that to find God in the Constitution, all one has to do is read it, and see how often the Framers used the words "God," or "Creator," "Jesus," or "Lord." Except for one notable instance, however, none of these words ever appears in the Constitution, neither the original nor in any of the Amendments. The notable exception is found in the Signatory section, where the date is written thusly: 'Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven.' "
The whole "God given" thing has stemmed from a bunch of things the government adopted in the 1950's, including the Pledge of Allegiance and placing "In God We Trust" on our dollar.
There are references to God in multiple state constitutions, I'm sure... the one I know in particular, Washington State, refers to a "Supreme Ruler of the Universe." That is particularly up to debate depending on who you are speaking to at the time. To one guy, it could be the Christian "God." To another, it could be Cthulhu.
http://www.leg.wa.gov/lawsandagencyrules/pages/constitution.aspx
"PREABLE: We, the people of the State of Washington, grateful to the Supreme Ruler of the Universe for our liberties, do ordain this constitution."
The Constitution of the United States of America empowers the people with unalienable rights. But it is because it is the Supreme Law of the Land, not because it is "God given." It's the SUPREME LAW. Many people have sworn to uphold and defend it, including me, and that is what it is. THE LAW.
I'm gonna go put on my nomex suit now.
Officers'Wife
Member
Hi Happygeek,
I lost a good friend to a drunk driver, I am part of a crusade to have greater penalties attached to driving while impaired. I have no desire to stop people from driving or drinking, just want them jailed if they do both at the same time. As for drinking not being Constitutional right... then why did the Constitution have to be amended to forbid the sale and distribution of alcohol? Please remember- the Constitution does not and was not intended to define the rights of the citizen at large, only to define the authority granted to the government. Any authority not granted to the government is retained by you and me. The difference may be slight but it's important.
I lost a good friend to a drunk driver, I am part of a crusade to have greater penalties attached to driving while impaired. I have no desire to stop people from driving or drinking, just want them jailed if they do both at the same time. As for drinking not being Constitutional right... then why did the Constitution have to be amended to forbid the sale and distribution of alcohol? Please remember- the Constitution does not and was not intended to define the rights of the citizen at large, only to define the authority granted to the government. Any authority not granted to the government is retained by you and me. The difference may be slight but it's important.
Hatterasguy
Member
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2010
- Messages
- 1,604
Your not kidding with that amount of money they are raising, they are pretty much DOA.
$2,500 is probably what the NRA spends on paper towls.
$2,500 is probably what the NRA spends on paper towls.
Ruger Redhawk
Member
Check out some of Sarah Brady's lies.
http://home.pacbell.net/dragon13/bradylies.html
In 2002, Sarah Brady and Merrill McLoughlin wrote A Good Fight, published by Public Affairs. The book is about her entire life, including a recent battle with lung cancer.
In this book, Sarah Brady recounts purchasing a .30-06 caliber rifle for her son, taking advantage of the what she claims to be the gun show loophole that her organization seeks to eliminate. Gun advocates pointed out that Brady might have violated Delaware law by buying the rifle without submitting proper paperwork.[5]
http://home.pacbell.net/dragon13/bradylies.html
In 2002, Sarah Brady and Merrill McLoughlin wrote A Good Fight, published by Public Affairs. The book is about her entire life, including a recent battle with lung cancer.
In this book, Sarah Brady recounts purchasing a .30-06 caliber rifle for her son, taking advantage of the what she claims to be the gun show loophole that her organization seeks to eliminate. Gun advocates pointed out that Brady might have violated Delaware law by buying the rifle without submitting proper paperwork.[5]
Ruger Redhawk
Member
If you want to see how sick these people are. Google Sarah Brady.Some of the biggest lies I have read in a long time.They sure know how to twist the truth. The sooner the better the Brady Campaign meets their demise.
oldbear
Member
Sarah Brady’s reaction is very normal and natural
Sarah Brady’s reaction is very normal and natural, in-fact any other reaction would be abnormal. In seconds her life and the life of her family was for all intents and purposes destroyed, her husband, who by all accounts was an intelligent, hard working, and fiercely loyal person was reduced to a vegetative state. Sarah Brady chose to lash out not at the shooter, John Hinckley (Sp?), the mental health system that let Mr. Hinckley down, or Mr. Hinckley’s family but at the implement used a handgun, which is nothing more than an effective tool, a tool so effective that it has been used and misused for centuries. And the continued misuse of firearms has fuelled the call for greater restrictions on firearms ownership if not the outright ban on the ownership of all firearms, except for police and active duty military personal. Is the aforementioned the correct course of action? Of course not, IMHO the judicial system needs to enforce the current laws in effect, “use a weapon in the commission of a crime do hard time, mandatory” As effective a tool as the plea bargain can be in my experience its’ become a cheap cop out for young A.D.A.’s to keep a high conviction rate.
I understand that the courts are overburdened, and our prisons are overcrowded and often dangerous places, but as a society we must stop making and excepting excuses for criminal behavior and demand that if a person is not willing to abide by the guidelines set by a civilized society then there will be sever and painful consequences to pay.
Two last items: First, do not ever underestimate Sara Brady and folks of her ilk, they may be misguided and misinformed but they are not stupid, and they are patient. Second, I apologize for going long on this but as I hope you can tell this is one of my hot button issues.
Sarah Brady’s reaction is very normal and natural, in-fact any other reaction would be abnormal. In seconds her life and the life of her family was for all intents and purposes destroyed, her husband, who by all accounts was an intelligent, hard working, and fiercely loyal person was reduced to a vegetative state. Sarah Brady chose to lash out not at the shooter, John Hinckley (Sp?), the mental health system that let Mr. Hinckley down, or Mr. Hinckley’s family but at the implement used a handgun, which is nothing more than an effective tool, a tool so effective that it has been used and misused for centuries. And the continued misuse of firearms has fuelled the call for greater restrictions on firearms ownership if not the outright ban on the ownership of all firearms, except for police and active duty military personal. Is the aforementioned the correct course of action? Of course not, IMHO the judicial system needs to enforce the current laws in effect, “use a weapon in the commission of a crime do hard time, mandatory” As effective a tool as the plea bargain can be in my experience its’ become a cheap cop out for young A.D.A.’s to keep a high conviction rate.
I understand that the courts are overburdened, and our prisons are overcrowded and often dangerous places, but as a society we must stop making and excepting excuses for criminal behavior and demand that if a person is not willing to abide by the guidelines set by a civilized society then there will be sever and painful consequences to pay.
Two last items: First, do not ever underestimate Sara Brady and folks of her ilk, they may be misguided and misinformed but they are not stupid, and they are patient. Second, I apologize for going long on this but as I hope you can tell this is one of my hot button issues.
Cosmoline
Member
Gun control isn't dead, but the old model of it probably is. The Million Mom March, HCI, the Brady Campaign, etc. were formed as a frontal assault on the RKBA. For all the momentum the organization had, and all the high profile support, it has been full of fail on the Hill. The AWB evaporated, and only a minority of Democrats have been willing to sign off on gun control legislation.
The next phase of this battle is going to be behind the scenes, not out front. Regulation of the industry, which is actually very small, coupled with import regulations (which don't need Congress) can strangle key supply choke points such as primers and powder.
The next phase of this battle is going to be behind the scenes, not out front. Regulation of the industry, which is actually very small, coupled with import regulations (which don't need Congress) can strangle key supply choke points such as primers and powder.
oldbear
Member
Nowhere in the United States Constitution goes it say "God given."
thank you !!
Gouranga
Member
That's it right there. Everyone responds to grief someway. She is trying to make the whole thing make sense. For their to be a meaning to it. That it was something other than her hubby was too close to the president and his shooting was just a byproduct of a randomly demented mans campaign to kill the President.
I don't despise her, but I do vehemently oppose her opposition to my right to bear arms.
MisterMike
Member
Given a crappy situation, she made a decision to act. However, striking out in blind rage, her efforts were misdirected and ultimately aimed at denying Americans their civil rights. An immoral reaction to a devastating loss.
The problem with feeling good about the gun control movement ,(and the Brady group), withering away is that what is left is the most radical and hard core of the movement. Daly, Bloomberg, Brady and Helmke are about total control, not just gun control. The very laws they propose don't apply to them or their friends. Bloomberg was forbidden by law for running for another term, he simply had the law voided. The Brady story about making a straw purchase is true. Daly spouts gun control while threatening a reporter in public with a lead enema and suspends his own bans when his cohorts find their guns aren't registered on time. Feinstein testified before the Senate that she'd take away all firearms from US citizens while she herself had a CCW permit and was carrying a S&W .38 Special; even carrying it in a city where handguns were illegal.
These people are nothing less than megalomaniacs; totally self absorbed and insulted when their beliefs aren't accepted as fact. They are the core of the anti-gun movement and are still to be respected as an absolute enemy of 2nd Amendment rights....and all other rights. Sarah Brady is neither mis-guided nor acting in grief. She firmly believes in what she is doing and all means justify the end result in her mind. She knows she is morally superior and righteous in all her actions to strip everyone of the ability to defend themselves. In reality, she doesn't want to protect anyone from having to go thru what she did; she wants everyone vulnerable so the same thing that happened to her family can happen to others.
These people are nothing less than megalomaniacs; totally self absorbed and insulted when their beliefs aren't accepted as fact. They are the core of the anti-gun movement and are still to be respected as an absolute enemy of 2nd Amendment rights....and all other rights. Sarah Brady is neither mis-guided nor acting in grief. She firmly believes in what she is doing and all means justify the end result in her mind. She knows she is morally superior and righteous in all her actions to strip everyone of the ability to defend themselves. In reality, she doesn't want to protect anyone from having to go thru what she did; she wants everyone vulnerable so the same thing that happened to her family can happen to others.
Last edited:
DWFan~ +1. Spot on. The anti-gunners, especially the more well known or powerful ones are NOT stupid. They know what they are doing. They know they are spouting nonsense. Their followers will continue to believe it and it is up to us, freedom minded individuals, to persuade them otherwise. It's the "Do as I say, not as I do" mentality in full effect.
killchain
Member
I'm not trying to attack what you said. I just feel that an informed populace is a strong populace, and that the "God given" term can portray your argument for inalienable rights as uninformed to anyone who disagrees with you.
To the anti's... our rights are inalienable.
All of them!
[EDIT: I can't spell. Haha.]
sv51macross
Member
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2009
- Messages
- 380
DWFan, can you post sources? (Bloomberg-germ limits)(Brady straw purchases)(Feinstien carrying illegaly)
DustyVermonter
Member
I think all of these gun hating politicians should have their personal security start carrying around num-chuks instead of guns. See how many anti-gun speeches they'd feel like making then
arizona_cards_11
Member
Please, someone explain. If my 'rights' stem from a document written by men 200+ years ago, why are they inalienable?
Ridgerunner665
Member
If you read the document...I think it makes it perfectly clear that they are God given rights. They don't "stem" from the document, or the men that wrote it...
The document was intended to make it so greedy, power hungry, control freaks (aka politicians) couldn't make our "rights" illegal.
Our rights to speak and have means to protect ourselves and our families (among other rights...but these are the 2 most important ones)...God gave us the intelligence and will to do these things...not the men who wrote the Constitution.
And the government idiots will have one hell of a time trying to take away my intelligence and will...even if they do make my rights illegal.
sv51macross..here ya go...
For Daly: http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlo...ley-threatens-to-shoot-the-messengernamely-me
For Brady: http://www.allsafedefense.com/news/Outdated News/SarahBuysRifle.htm
For Bloomberg: http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/23/council-to-debate-term-limits-change/
For Feinstein: http://www.stentorian.com/2ndamend/dianne_f.html
Here's another one; our buddy Chuck Shumer:
http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/kouri/050924
For Daly: http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlo...ley-threatens-to-shoot-the-messengernamely-me
For Brady: http://www.allsafedefense.com/news/Outdated News/SarahBuysRifle.htm
For Bloomberg: http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/23/council-to-debate-term-limits-change/
For Feinstein: http://www.stentorian.com/2ndamend/dianne_f.html
Here's another one; our buddy Chuck Shumer:
http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/kouri/050924
killchain
Member
Because the document in question has been established by the standing government to be the Supreme Law of the Land. It says so in the document itself, and it was drafted and ratified by the existing standing government at the time. And since the People elect the standing government... technically the government is the People.
The First Amendment specifically states that the government cannot establish anything based on a religious premise. I bolded the text I am referring to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Text
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
...so implying that the government in place were thinking their inspiration was directly influenced by a religion is flawed.
But the government can not stop you from saying that your rights are "God given" either.
Nowhere in the Constitution of the United States of America does it specifically state that your rights are God given.
BHP FAN
Member
...'' or prohibiting the free exercise thereof''
this bears repeating,since it seems no one reads that far anymore.Remember people it's freedom of religion,not freedom from religion.
this bears repeating,since it seems no one reads that far anymore.Remember people it's freedom of religion,not freedom from religion.
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
So just how many chickens you got their in your basket of eggs?
If this is the case, there are some pro-gun folks who are in deep trouble as well.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
