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

[Doc Intrepid]

WhiskeyTango,

I don't think that all of the gun-banners are deluded - some of them have arrived at the conclusions they hold relatively honestly.

Sarah Brady, for example, while I don't agree with her, had her husband shot in the head which pretty much took away his career and their life together, albeit he survived. I can recognize where that sort of trauma might cause genuine change to someone's perspective.

I know several people who are basically against gun ownership, and aside from that they're hard-working folks who are not deluded. They focus, though, on the unintended consequences and tragic results from gun ownership, ranging from gang violence to accidental shootings in the home.

I think mrbro hit it dead on in terms of the fundamental differences, at least in terms of what I find profoundly disturbing in their outlook:

"...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."

What I find troubling in the anti-gun position is that while they acknowledge there are legitimate threats in society, they implicitly (and sometimes explicitly) hold the opinion that these threats are the state's responsibility to deal with, not the individual citizen's. 'We pay the police to make our communities safe, (ergo) there is no need for individual gun ownership..."

It is such a fundamental difference in perspective, and so strongly held, that their paradigm is unlikely to be changed by any argument, no matter how logical.

"The potential issues that threaten me in the US in 2011 are NOT my problem to deal with. I pay my taxes, and it is the state's responsibility to ensure my safety. Moreover, if guns were banned, there would be fewer potential issues that threaten me and society in the first place."

There is just so much wrong that that basic attitude that one doesn't really know where to begin. It goes to the very heart of the gulf between liberal thinking ("the state should provide _{security, safety, food, welfare, etc.}___ to it's citizens") and a conservative perspective ("individual responsibility to provide for your own well-being is the foundation on which the Republic is built").

The matter is unlikely to be resolved anytime soon....and I agree with Spats that only constant attention is likely to keep 2A rights secure...

 

[WhiskeyTango]

What I find troubling in the anti-gun position is that while they acknowledge there are legitimate threats in society, they implicitly (and sometimes explicitly) hold the opinion that these threats are the state's responsibility to deal with, not the individual citizen's. 'We pay the police to make our communities safe, (ergo) there is no need for individual gun ownership..."

It is such a fundamental difference in perspective, and so strongly held, that their paradigm is unlikely to be changed by any argument, no matter how logical.

See I would call that deluded. Wanting to change something for the better, but going about it by making the problem worse, does not make any sense to me. Blaming the water in a bath tub for the drowning of a child, instead of the negligent parent, to me would be delusional. I'll add that I forgot to say in my little rant that not keeping a close eye on these people will result in us waking up one day and finding out that they somehow managed to pass a bill that requires bio-metric scanners on all firearms, you know, so the bad guys can't use them.:barf:

 

[Tom Servo]

While it's true that the 2A landscape has changed since the 1990s, I worry that those very changes may forge in the anti-gun forces a determination the likes of which we've not yet seen.

As the OP shows, they have access to the same technologies we do, most notably internet networking. They can get their message out to the entire world with minimal work and money, just as we can. Therefore, the playing field should be level.

Yet over the last few years, we've seen the Violence Policy Center shrivel to a withered husk of its own self. The Joyce Foundation is spending less money than ever on overt gun-control "research," and the legal community now largely accepts the idea that the 2nd Amendment applies to the common man.

Even if they were to rally their few remaining forces under one banner, we've got the upper hand by a large margin. I submit that we should spend less time fighting the gun control crowd and more time recruiting folks on the fence to our side.

 

[C Philip]

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.

I agree, carrying an unloaded gun is rather useless.

The unwillingness to engage in the civil discussion of opposing viewpoints is truly sad, and I think a sign that they know their appeals to emotion will lose to logic and actual evidence.

 

[Spats McGee]

. . . .Even if they were to rally their few remaining forces under one banner, we've got the upper hand by a large margin. I submit that we should spend less time fighting the gun control crowd and more time recruiting folks on the fence to our side.

I do not entirely disagree. Convincing those fence-sitters is a very important task right now. All I was really getting at is that I do not think it's a good time to sit on our laurels, believing that "gun control can't happen here."

 

[Tom Servo]

All I was really getting at is that I do not think it's a good time to sit on our laurels, believing that "gun control can't happen here."

Oh, it could happen. I'm keeping an eye on the Bradys and their ilk, but it's not keeping me up at night.

My point was that we're on firmer footing than we've ever been, and that some of the resources we used to spend fighting the antis on every front can now be put to more positive use.

 

[Spats McGee]

Seems to me like a pretty good position to take, Tom Servo.

 

[Davey]

I saw a post on their Facebook page that said basically he wanted the 4th amendment repealed so that once the 2nd gets done away with police could go into everyone's home and take all the guns away.

 

[gaseousclay]

There is just so much wrong that that basic attitude that one doesn't really know where to begin. It goes to the very heart of the gulf between liberal thinking ("the state should provide _{security, safety, food, welfare, etc.}___ to it's citizens") and a conservative perspective ("individual responsibility to provide for your own well-being is the foundation on which the Republic is built").

the difference though is that we live in a nation strife with discrimination and inequality, so I see some of these state run services as being necessary. I support the idea of helping those who can't fend for themselves. I do realize that not all of these state run services are perfect and that they are often abused, but it's better to help people than to live in a country where a lot of people would rather help themselves.

 

[BlueTrain]

I think the landscape of the 2nd admendment has changed since the 1790s.

 

[MLeake]

gaseousclay, on the one hand, I agree with you, but there's a huge BUT...

.... I am all for VOLUNTARY charities. I am not so enthused about government run charities, which essentially compel citizens to give to and support goals they may not only not share, but which they might adamantly oppose.

I'd rather see better tax breaks given for charitable donations, and less government money spent on charities. Encourage people to give to causes they actually support, rather than take their money and spend it where the government deems suitable.

Call me crazy, or a right-wing extremist....

 

[Tom Servo]

I saw a post on their Facebook page that said basically he wanted the 4th amendment repealed so that once the 2nd gets done away with police could go into everyone's home and take all the guns away.

I want the Brady Campaign to make that their official position. In fact, I'd almost consider donating if it would help them publish said position in major newspapers.

Middle America's reaction to that would be priceless.

 

[ZCORR Jay]

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.. . ."

All I can say to that is make me get out of your country.

 

[8shot357]

Brady Campaign's

Hmmm!

Makes my blood boil, and I can't say what I want to in public!

Not to spread hate though, but...........

BTW, I do remember the event leading to this.

 

[Davey]

Newcomb is a poster that said the 2A allowed people to form a militia in case of conflict.

Priscilla Newcomb: the 2nd amendment was written to secure the right to form a militia in case of an imminent threat to national security. it's not about anyone's right to own and use lethal weapons

I countered with Heller.

Apparently the SCOUTUS is worse than Al Qaeda.

Mike Summitt: "Newcomb is right, SCOTUS is wrong. The SC 5 are a greater threat to the American way of life than Al Quaeda. They are criminals, and should be removed from office and prosecuted."

Wowsers.

 

[chasep255]

Every now and then I feel like making my blood boil so I check out the Brady campaign's website. I like the page where they go through why assault weapons are evil.

http://www.bradycampaign.org/legislation/msassaultweapons

A pistol grip which facilitates spray-fire from the hip without losing control. A pistol grip also facilitates one-handed shooting;

Well no... I would actually think it would be easier to fire from the hip without one since you would have to twist your wrist less. The "one handed" part is just stupid.

A barrel shroud which enables the shooter to shoot many rounds because it cools the barrel, preventing overheating. It also allows the shooter to grasp the barrel area to stabilize the weapon, without incurring serious burns, during rapid fire;


Well the first part about it cooling the barrel is simply wrong. It probably traps more heat on the barrel. The second part about it allowing you to grip the barrel is surprisingly somewhat correct. Also on a side note according to Caroline McCarthy a barrel shroud "it is a shoulder thing that goes up".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rGpykAX1fo

A threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor which allows the shooter to remain concealed when shooting at night, an advantage in combat but unnecessary for hunting or sporting purposes. In addition, the flash suppressor is useful for providing stability during rapid fire;

A flash suppressor does not really help you stay concealed at night. Also it is a muzzle brake or compensator which "provides stability durring rapid fire" and not a flash suppressor. In fact many people get a brake or comp when they can't have the flash suppressor (ie. Me).

A threaded barrel designed to accommodate a silencer which allows an assassin to shoot without making noise;


Well suppressors (not silencers) are already restricted.

A barrel mount designed to accommodate a bayonet which allows someone to stab a person at close quarters in battle.

Ummm... Yeah... I always hear on the news of criminals bayoneting each over.


The funny thing is that these quotes come from the brady's official website and not some idiotic member posting on facebook. You would think that they would hire someone who knows what they are talking about. I guess these reasons are convincing and logical to most of their members.

 

[Davey]

Al my rational postings based on logic were removed. Shame.

 

[chadstrickland]

Man alive....I have got to so go and mess with these people...I now have a new found source of entertainment ...I will make endless amounts of email address and face book profiles just to mess with these people...days at work will be so much more enjoyable

 

[Rob228]

Man alive....I have got to so go and mess with these people...I now have a new found source of entertainment ...I will make endless amounts of email address and face book profiles just to mess with these people...days at work will be so much more enjoyable

Or, introduce an anti-gunner from your work place to shooting.

 

[Darren007]

Al my rational postings based on logic were removed. Shame.

Mine too Davey. I knew they would be, as well as getting banned. They banned me 10 mins after my first post.

I made sure though in one of my posts to let "Mike Summit" know how I felt about him, and attempted to point out to their other members that people like him do their cause no favors.