The tide turns in the battle for gun rights as the Brady Campaign withers away

[oldbear]

Sources cited.

]I received a reply on 3/13/2000 from Mayor Brown re: my letter about this incident. He states that:
1. Ms. Feinstein voluntarily relinquished her pistol permit and weapon a long time ago.

DWFan, thanks for posting your sources, the only one I would question is your reference to Dianne Feinstein’s having a concealed weapons permit and caring a S&W 38 special, when the source you cite clearly states Ms. Feinstein had surrendered her CCP “a long time ago.” Please do not come to the conclusion that I in any way support Dianne Feinstein, I lived in the San Francisco Bay Area when Ms. Feinstein was mayor and I have been discussed with Ms. Feinstein's’ underhanded dealings and the lies she has told in her attempt to further her political career and agenda, for years.

The fight to keep and bear arms will not be between those of us who enjoy the shooting sports and those who wish to take away our rights, it will be a fight for the support of the average American, the person who does not own a firearm and no desire to yet does not believe that only the police and military need to be armed. We MUST ALWAYS take the high road in this fight, if we resort to threats, name calling, and (as some members of this forum have) wishing ill to people we will lose this fight, and believe me it is a fight. As many of you know the first rule of any intelligent debate is, “attack the argument NOT the person presenting the argument.” If we lower ourselves to attacking the messenger we may lose the fight.

 

[Ridgerunner665]

The term "God given rights" doesn't have a darn thing to do with religion...

It means it is a birth right...if you were born, you have the right.

 

[Manco]

Sarah Brady’s reaction is very normal and natural,

It might be "normal" but it's also emotional and irrational. Her feelings and bias dominate whatever intelligence and ability to reason she might have. For most such people, the same is true practically all of the time except with less motivation and disregard for the rights of others that Brady demonstrates.

in-fact any other reaction would be abnormal.

I guess I must be abnormal, then. One of my uncles was murdered with a gun, and it was a devastating loss for the family, but I never blamed guns, I blamed the shooter. This is the difference between logical and emotional thinking. The former personality trait may be far more rare than the latter, but I hardly think that makes it abnormal--in fact, it's more like the norm in this forum in comparison to the general public (at least I hope).

 

[Justin]

Guys, this is a discussion about the Brady Campaign and their lack of funding.

Please don't continue to derail the topic with the discussion about the Constitution.

Thanks.

 

[Slamfire]

The Brady Campaign is as relevant as the Women’s Temperance League.. The 18th amendment was implemented with the same words as the Brady Bill. You ought to look at what was said at the time. However the difference between Prohibition and the Brady Bill was that the Democrats were voted out of power after passing the Brady Bill.

That hurt them, right where it counted: in the Campaign contribution pocketbook.

Gun Ban Democrats still hate our guns, and us, but they like power more. They will wait to act, they are waiting for the voting power of gun owners to decline till the next attempt to ban our firearms.

The low contributions to the Brady Bunch just reflects the pain they caused the Democratic Party. Gun ban Democrats were taken to the wood shed, and every time they still down, their butt reminds their brain of what happened.

However, the pain will be forgotten. We need to be watching for the next group of politically well connected gun banners.

That is where the next ban will come from.

 

[Kentucky_Rifleman]

We need to be watching for the next group of politically well connected gun banners. That is where the next ban will come from.

I'd say Bloomburp fits that bill.

While the BC may be on the decline, that man has enough money and power to be a real menace.

He worries me more than the rest of the anti crowd combined.

Worst of all, he has that sanctimonious self-righteousness found in those most treacherous of do-gooders, the crusaders. He's absolutely certain he's right, and the rest of us morons are too stupid or backward to immediately recognize his intellectual and moral superiority.

From my point of view, he has neither.

It's the same caliber of hubris that led Obama, in a rare moment of candor, to his famous quote about rednecks clinging to guns and religion.

I realize I'm only one generation away from folks who held rattlesnakes while they were talking to Jesus, but I hold 2 MAs, 2 BAs, and 2 BSs.

How am I suddenly dense for liking my guns and my religion?

KR

 

[parsimonious_instead]

In some ways, I'm more afraid of complacency if a lot of pro-gun candidates are elected this year and a pro-2a candidate wins the presidency in 2012.
For the most part, our side is winning all around. Federal decisions like Heller, rule changes like National Parks and Amtrak, states increasingly allowing concealed carry, the growing popularity of open carry, etc... I'm seeing a positive trend here, but I'm concerned about a loss of momentum.
As I'm too fond of saying, "when you have the enemy on the run, you don't let them melt into the forest, you pursue and annihilate."

 

[Buck Snort]

...'' 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.

How much brain power does it take to understand that if one has genuine freedom OF religion then one has the right to opt out of it altogether. Geeze Louise, that's a simple NO BRAINER and yet I see people parroting that foolishness on a regular basis. One simply cannot make the arguement that our forefathers intended that we be FORCED to exercise religious belief of some sort and that agnosticism or atheism were unacceptle forms of freedom!! HO-CHEE-MAMA!!

 

[Cel]

In some ways, I'm more afraid of complacency if a lot of pro-gun candidates are elected this year and a pro-2a candidate wins the presidency in 2012.
For the most part, our side is winning all around. Federal decisions like Heller, rule changes like National Parks and Amtrak, states increasingly allowing concealed carry, the growing popularity of open carry, etc... I'm seeing a positive trend here, but I'm concerned about a loss of momentum.
As I'm too fond of saying, "when you have the enemy on the run, you don't let them melt into the forest, you pursue and annihilate."

parsimonius_instead~ +1. We CANNOT, under any circumstances, start getting lazy because of a few victories.

 

[arizona_cards_11]

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.

Rights, by their very nature, cannot be 'inalienable' if their existence is contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of a certain polity.

 

[DWFan]

oldbear, you are absolutely right. She supposedly did surrender her permit "a long time ago" as of 2000. But how long is "a long time ago"? Strange that Mayor Brown doesn't give at least the year for something so important. However, Feinstein's statements to both CBS 60 Minutes and to the US Senate were in February and April of 1995, respectively. If you are familiar with that area, when was a gun turn-in put in effect in San Fransisco? The article on Shumer (the last link) says that one of Feinstein's security told of her turning in a "cheaper model" (perhaps her original .38) while keeping a .357 Magnum so she still would have been in possession at that time.
Not that any of that really matters. The woman's hypocrisy on several issues is a fact. What does matter is that we continue to fight the fight with truths and facts against their opinions and inuendo. The media will not help us but, at least for the present, the internet is still unregulated and the word must continue to be spread. We'll never totally eliminate those who would deny the 2nd Amendment to all but themselves, but we can expose them for the raving liars that they are.

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Lest We Sympathize

For those who believe that Mrs. Brady is somehow justified in her rabid pursuit of the elimination of "assault weapons," it is worth remembering that her husband was shot with a small calibre revolver. A revolver, moreover, that had been in the shooter's possession for years.

None of the actions taken or proposed by the Brady Campaign has ever been consistent with or appropriate to that fact.

They never sought to ban small calibre revolvers. And none of the proposed or implemented waiting periods would have had any effect on the original incident.

The original shooting was nothing more than a springboard for an agenda to proscribe the manufacture, transfer, or ownership of the most effective tools that might be employed to resist forms of tyranny.

In some earlier posts, I think I've actually stated it better. By all means [post=3193095]have a read[/post] and see if [post=3621606]those remarks[/post] give [post=3622362]any more clarity[/post].

 

[Kentucky_Rifleman]

In some earlier posts, I think I've actually stated it better. By all means have a read and see if those remarks give any more clarity.

ArfinGreebly, you really need to learn to express yourself more fully ; you're a ball of repression...

I retract my earlier statement.

Sarah Brady is evil.

KR