Things I learned from the Brady Campaign and it's supporters...

[Darren007]

I was tooling around Facebook the other day and came across the Brady Campaign's "Brady Campaign to end Gun Violence" page. http://www.facebook.com/bradycampaign?sk=wall

If any of you want your blood pressure to skyrocket and your mind to go numb from the abject stupidity posted on this page, especially the comments from their members, it's a fun read. It's also a wonderfully frightening trip through "lala" land courtesy of the mind of an anti-gun advocate.

A word of warning though. In their info section posted on the page is this lil' nugget...

"Note: This forum is moderated for our advocates to share, organize and discuss the issue.

Trolls who come here to repeat (false) gun lobby rhetoric are not welcome and will be permanently banned from the group. Finally the page is not to be used to disparage or make-fun-of the Brady Campaign or it's supporters. Please be nice even though its the internet."

So if you thought about posting on their page in order to inject some much needed intelligence or sanity, forget about it. You'll be banned and your post(s) deleted quicker than you can say "Loughner style assault clip." (Whatever the hell that is...)

I guess the Brady Campaign is afraid they might lose some of their members to the dark side if they allowed actual debate on their page.

Without further ado I'll post ten of the funnier and in some cases downright scarier member comments here, let the hilarity begin...

1. "Whether they are legal or not is irrelevant from the standpoint of my safety. Time for serious gun control, folks.
If you're going to oppose even reasonable legislation,please take your guns and get the HELL out of my country.... Don't let the door hit you on the way out.. . .

2. "the NRA bribes news organizations not to give prominent coverage or report that shooters have their guns legally."

3. "Instead the Democrats opened the national parks to rocket launchers. Am I missing something?"

(This one was so funny I just have to comment. "Am I missing something?"...WooWooooooo....All aboard the clue train, last stop is you!!! And exactly how many people do you know have rocket launchers? Go ahead...I'll wait.

4. "Male bovine excrement. It was because the militia was the only mechamism for keeping the peace or repelling invasion. Now we have police and a standing military, there are no more state militias, so nobody should be entitled to own a firearm under the second amendment. Any judge who says otherwise is a christofascist who endangers our democracy."

5. Commenting on the right to carry on a college campus was this nugget of wisdom...

"What a great idea, arm a bunch of drunk college students and see what happens. We have lost all sense of right and wrong and the NRA need to be put out of business there is no reason for children and they ARE children to carry guns."

It's no surprise really that a Brady supporter would classify college students as children. After all, in order to pad their numbers when citing statistics the Brady Campaign classifies anyone 25 and under a child.

6. To give you some context, this next comment was in response to this Question Posted = So what are the legitimate reasons for owning a gun? I can only think of 2 or 3 and the answer given by the Brady Campaign which is the following = "Being a police officer or security expert, recreationally shooting targets, hunting, having one in the home for self defense..."

The following comment was posted and while rather lengthy, it's a stunningly honest look at how an anti-gun person thinks...

"Not sure being a police officer counts. They're issued weapons, if they have any other weapon it's often a "throwdown" and should be considered evidence of malfeasance. In fact, we should give all of them except SWAT rubber bullets, along with tazers and mace.

Security expert? You mean some guy working for a private company? I don't think I want any private company to be able to arm its workers - remember Pinkerton.

Hunting maybe, but that doesn't justify a handgun, nobody hunts with a handgun. And I think if you hunt it and kill it, you should eat it.

Home defense maybe, although it isn't very good home defense - when you're not there it's just something else to steal, and then it becomes a problem for society as an unregistered weapon.

I don't see any need to shoot "recreationally". That's not recreation, it's practice for killing. That's why the targets are often silhouettes.

Personal defense maybe, if a person for some reason has to place themselves in danger on a regular basis (e.g. tow truck driver). But in that case I think the weapon should be prominently displayed to discourage any sort of assault, rather than hidden so that assault is invited."

7. "I'd say mental illness is pretty common among the military, if not before they join up certainly after they're involved in a war. PTSD."

8. the gun lobby is insane, and they'be bought off or threatened to kill enough politicians that you can't pass sensible laws. THis has to stop.

(Yep look out for that squad of dedicated NRA hit-men :barf

9. "I'll do everything I can to make this country more like the member nations of the EU, especially the freest country in the world - the Netherlands. We should follow their example."

10. "There is no such thing as a "law abiding citizen". Background checks, even when done properly (which is rarely) only determine whether a person has ever been succesfully convicted of a crime. They do not test whether a person is sane, stable, mature, responsible, or in any other way "law abiding". We must not permit the gun nuts to use this term unopposed; the proper term is "previously unconvicted citizen"


By the way, several of the comments including #10 were posted by a guy who insists (in other posts) that he is against fascism. Re-read the first and last sentence of his post (#10)....The irony is just amazing.

 

[Hiker 1]

"I'll do everything I can to make this country more like the member nations of the EU, especially the freest country in the world

This makes me laugh. As though that yokel is going to do anything other than rant on Facebook and at Starbucks with his other la-la land buddies. Oh yeah, and his $25 donation to the Brady campaign.

 

[Doc Intrepid]

That's some pretty sad stuff.

A total abdication of any personal responsibility for one's physical security....., and these would be the same folks screaming about the lack of law and order if the police didn't arrive in time to stop the (fill in the blank) killing/raping/plundering.



BTW, whats a "christofacist"?



("...Any judge who says otherwise is a christofascist who endangers our democracy.")

 

[Darren007]

Hiker 1, The guy who posted that is the same guy who posted comment #10. That particular person was one of the more outspoken members on that page. The stupidity he posts could have filled a 1000 page book and then some. I mentioned towards the end about his preoccupation with fascism. Instead of a picture of himself for his profile pic, he has a a picture of a poster that reads "FASCISM. The ten early warning signs of a fascist state."

If you read through the "10 signs" listed and then read his posts, it's scary how this guy's views and comments easily fit into one of the supposed categories exposing a fascist state. That is to say, his mind set and his comments are exactly what opens the doors to fascism. He's so hell-bent in his hatred for guns that even if you were to point this out to him, the irony would be lost on him.

Doc Intrepid, I'm not sure exactly what a "christofascist" is either. I'll venture a guess and say it's perhaps someone who uses christianity to supposedly furthur a fascist agenda. What that has to do with the 2nd amendment is beyond me though...


Just for further clarity. I know most, if not all of the members here on TFL know the insanity that is the Brady Campaign, including myself. I was also well aware, as I'm sure most of you are, that most anti-gun advocates are sincere if not misguided in their attitudes towards guns.

What I wasn't aware of was just how bad the image of gun ownership was in the majority of their supporters. I knew that they could be just as passionate about being anti-gun as we are pro-gun, but I was not expecting what I read on their page. I was simply speechless at the majority of their comments. I said it before and I'll say it again, it was downright frightening what people were posting on there. It doesn't even come close to what I see even the most ardent supporter of the 2nd amendment post in support of gun ownership. I felt like I just stared into the eyes of the beast...and it was looking right back at me.

 

[Hiker 1]

I wonder where this level of fear and irrationality comes from. I bet a shrink could make a great case study.

 

[psycho nut]

Crazy doesn't need a reason.

 

[Kreyzhorse]

I usually check out their regular site a couple of times a week. It isn't as funny as their facebook page, but it's still the same anti gun propaganda but with better writing. Although even then it's hard to take them too serious when they are calling magazines things like "big bullet blasting boxes" and assault clips.

The Brady campaign has clearly lost a lot of ground lately but that doesn't make them useless. I read their pages, keep up with their latest attempts at banning guns (they are really going for the death by a thousand cuts these days) and arming myself with knowledge. Join the NRA too if you haven't. While they aren't perfect, and in a lot of ways they use some of the same tactics as the Brady group, they are a good foil against the facebook nuts.

 

[Cascade1911]

+1 to Kreyzhorse. If you want to continue exercising your Second Amendment rights then please support the NRA. Also, if there is a state organization I would suggest supporting them as well (NYSRPA in New York). Though I have not always been a fan of the NRA they are the only thing that really stands between us and the loss of our right to keep and bear arms.

 

[mrbro]

Darren. That kind of demonization is not uncommon, and we are sometimes guilty of it ourselves. The thought process goes something like "I am a good person with good intentions, I am a smart person, I believe A to be true, therefore anyone that believes A to be false must be a stupid bad person with evil intentions". The more that the truth of A becomes a core value, the more intense the demonization can become.

We have 2 very good friends that are at the opposite end of the political spectrum from us. We don't discuss it, there is no point. What we do is try to be the example that breaks the stereotype they have been exposed to. Since they are intelligent, educated people, it makes them re-evaluate some. An informed, intelligent, caring, conservative, gun owner is not supposed to exist. Yet, they now know they do exist.

 

[vito]

I live in IL, one of the only remaining states (along with Wisconsin) that has no provision in law for concealed carry. A bill to allow concealed carry is actually being discussed in the state legislature, and you would not believe (or maybe you would) the guest "editorials" appearing in Illinois newspapers. All of the old hysterical rantings about shootouts in the streets, barfights turning into gunfights, etc., etc., if legal carry comes about. Despite the evidence in the rest of the country, the anti-gunners never give up on their cherished ignorance and fear and distrust of normal citizens. Their trust in the government, and their willingness to be passive victims waiting for the government to protect them, seems to be the same characteristic that makes them support the current President and his ever-expanding role of government philosophy.

 

[gaseousclay]

Darren. That kind of demonization is not uncommon, and we are sometimes guilty of it ourselves. The thought process goes something like "I am a good person with good intentions, I am a smart person, I believe A to be true, therefore anyone that believes A to be false must be a stupid bad person with evil intentions". The more that the truth of A becomes a core value, the more intense the demonization can become.

We have 2 very good friends that are at the opposite end of the political spectrum from us. We don't discuss it, there is no point. What we do is try to be the example that breaks the stereotype they have been exposed to. Since they are intelligent, educated people, it makes them re-evaluate some. An informed, intelligent, caring, conservative, gun owner is not supposed to exist. Yet, they now know they do exist.

well said. without this turning political, I have noticed that anti-gun people fall under many different stripes, and to paint them all the same doesn't do us any good. education is key to turning the anti-gun person into a pro-gun person imo.

 

[cambeul41]

For "christofascist," see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto-fascism.

 

[Spats McGee]

Well, that WAS an educational read.

IMO, many of the posts are woefully ill-informed, or just downright silly. I gotta say, though, that I'm really bothered by the college-age girl who said, "I'm a college student and I'm concerned about my safety in and around campus. I've thought about buying a gun, but I've been told a cell phone is better. I don't want to do the wrong thing. What should I do?" The response (edited by me for brevity) is, "A gun isn't likely to help, unless you plan on keeping it loaded and at the ready for someone to jump out of the bushes. The criminal always has the element of surprise to his advantage. Instead, use the buddy system and always be aware of your surroundings. Have your phone handy, with 911 on speed dial if you feel uncertain." Maybe the girl asking isn't ready to carry a gun. Maybe she never will be. That's OK. But, really. . . "a cell phone is better?!?!?" And the response, . . . well, the buddy system is a good idea, but "have your phone handy, with 911 on speed dial?" It's also a good idea to have 911 on speed dial. But even if the caller hits the speed dial button while the BG is still in the process of jumping out, the phone (or at least my phone) needs the button to be held down for 1 second before dialing begins. The response makes not one mention of anything that the girl could actually use to defend herself. Pepper spray, keys, wasp killer, air horns, taser, . . . ANYTHING. . . . Following that advice is going to get that poor girl killed, with 911 on the line and on the way to clean up the mess. . . Rant over. Thanks for reading. [/rant]

Edited to add: By the way, who the hell said that owning guns and cell phones were mutually exclusive? OK. Rant over. Again. [/rant]

 

[Doc Intrepid]

"That kind of demonization is not uncommon, and we are sometimes guilty of it ourselves. The thought process goes something like "I am a good person with good intentions, I am a smart person, I believe A to be true, therefore anyone that believes A to be false must be a stupid bad person with evil intentions". The more that the truth of A becomes a core value, the more intense the demonization can become."

Some of the Brady posters may also wear out 3 or 4 keyboards a year, pounding on them while working themselves into an escalated lather. A small percentage of any population is going to come across as rabid - and if the object of their concern were to magically vanish, they would merely find another topic to become rabid about: it is in their nature to be rabid.

More probably, in keeping with the aphorism "A Liberal is a Conservative who hasn't been mugged yet", many Brady true believers have never been victimized personally, nor do they know anyone who has. They look at the world as they wish it were, rather than as it is - and having never been introduced to Mr. Violence, and knowing no one who has, its pretty easy to mischaracterize people for whom violence is a concern as paranoidal whack jobs. Their lives appear to be utterly safe, unicorns frolic in the gardens, and from their perspective people who mutter about "wolves" are delusional.

One good Deliverance episode and their personal world-view might change, but don't hold your breath.

As noted above, our best bet is to remain informed, vigilant, organized, and politically active. And - as mrbro points out admirably above - conduct ourselves so as to lead by example.

 

[TXAZ]

One good Deliverance episode and their personal world-view might change, but don't hold your breath.

That's sort of graphic this early in the morning

The real issue for many who take extreme views (not unlike some ultra rightwingers or NY Senator "EXTREME" on subjects like ***** or *******) is that some people need to have a cause that makes them feel like they have a purpose in life. Some do it because they saw a tragedy on TV or in their personal life or someone else.

The best way to deal with these approaches is to gently show reality that is verifiable when so confronted.

Otherwise, if you try to match wits with someone who is armed with half the facts, .... the result is a half wit.

 

[chris in va]

I actually agree with a few of those bolded posts. Unfortunately the end means is to get rid of guns altogether, so I can't say everything is kosher as a whole.

 

[gaseousclay]

More probably, in keeping with the aphorism "A Liberal is a Conservative who hasn't been mugged yet", many Brady true believers have never been victimized personally, nor do they know anyone who has. They look at the world as they wish it were, rather than as it is - and having never been introduced to Mr. Violence, and knowing no one who has, its pretty easy to mischaracterize people for whom violence is a concern as paranoidal whack jobs. Their lives appear to be utterly safe, unicorns frolic in the gardens, and from their perspective people who mutter about "wolves" are delusional.

to play the devil's advocate, how is this any different than the paranoid gun owner that lives in the middle of nowhere USA who stockpiles guns and ammo because he thinks the government is going to take them away? I don't see how some guy living in a rural community can really experience violent crime to the same extent that those in the inner city experience it. to those individuals who live in crime infested neighborhoods, it's in their best interest to take guns out of the hands of criminals. yes, they could arm themselves but to do so is also to invite trouble to your doorstep, especially when gangs are concerned. being surrounded by violent crime is enough to make anyone anti-gun, so I get why some people act the way that they do.

I used to live in a high crime neighborhood where sexual assualts, robberies and drive-by shootings were commonplace. I never carried a weapon with me but I also never experienced an attack either. now that I live in a safer neighborhood I want a handgun or some type of firearm for protection. it's ironic that I feel the need for protection when I live in a low-crime neighborhood. political affiliation has nothing to do with how one chooses to be for or against gun ownership imo

 

[silentargus]

10. "There is no such thing as a "law abiding citizen". Background checks, even when done properly (which is rarely) only determine whether a person has ever been succesfully convicted of a crime. They do not test whether a person is sane, stable, mature, responsible, or in any other way "law abiding". We must not permit the gun nuts to use this term unopposed; the proper term is "previously unconvicted citizen"

I nearly had to scrape my chin off the desk with a spatula after reading that one. That anybody could think in such a manner is frankly terrifying.

 

[WhiskeyTango]

I liked them on facebook to be able to post comments and defend people like us, the gun totin godless psychotic child killing terrorist that we are. And after about three comments and 10 minuets they blocked me from posting comments. I was VERY civil in my remarks, things as simple as explaining to them that there is no such thing as an "assault clip", and if they were going to speak out against something they should at least no what it was called, and how I have been carrying for 12 years and never once did my gun jump out of my holster and shoot any children or elderly people. Then I joined their discussion forum under a anti gun alias and that too only lasted about 10 minuets. How many of you would welcome some anti gun nutjob into the TFL Forum just to have the opportunity to set them straight? I guess they don't feel the same way.

 

[mrbro]

Doc, you may have hit on the basis for the difference in perspective. Some see striving to make the world the place they believe it should be as a responsibility that comes with their intelligence and education. Some see the world as a place where danger is real and the protection of oneself and others is a responsibility due to their wisdom and experience. In meeting their responsibilities each demonstrate behavior or beliefs that the other finds threatening. The inability, or unwillingness, to understand each others position leads to the venomous diatribe. You see this behavior in every issue where 2 sides have extreme positions that one holds dear or sacred.