PDA

View Full Version : Invitation to a Brady event: San Francisco March 27th


Dont Tread on Me
02-11-2009, 1:15 PM
Try not to puke when you read this. I suggest we show up and get some free food and heckling in. Get the word out to the gang robbing people in Oakland restaurants. This is guaranteed to be an unarmed crowed to work!

A Community Response to an Epidemic of Bay Area Gun Violence
JOIN US for a discussion by gun violence prevention experts and a reception honoring
Bay Area organizations dedicated to preventing violence and supporting victims!


Friday, March 27, 6:00 - 8:30 pm
Grace Cathedral
1100 California Street at Taylor
San Francisco

CA Ranked No. 1 for Strongest Gun Laws: The Brady Campaign’s newly released scorecard ranks California’s gun laws with those of the other 49 states. (The complete scorecard results can be viewed at www.bradycampaign.org).

We are pleased to report that with a score of 79 points out of a total of 100, California ranked first in having the strongest gun laws in the nation!

Though we are proud of this ranking and California’s progress, we believe more needs to be done to keep dangerous weapons out of the hands of dangerous people. Most states have weak gun laws that help feed the illegal gun market and undermine California's laws.

The California Chapters of the Brady Campaign educate and mobilize our communities to advocate for sensible responsible gun laws, regulations, and public policies. This year we continue to push for state legislation requiring ammunition regulation and “Owner-Authorized” handgun technology as our top priorities.

Panel Members:
 Dr. Bill Durston, Emergency Room (ER) surgeon, Kaiser South Sacramento ER Department and former
Injury Prevention Chairperson of the California Chapter of the American College of Emergency
Physicians. Dr. Durston recently ran for Congress (CA District 3) narrowly losing to his opponent. He
will speak about the economic public health costs of gun violence to local communities.
 Dr. Rochelle Dicker, Trauma Surgeon and Director of the San Francisco Injury Center at San Francisco
General Hospital. Dr. Dicker is founder of the Wraparound Project, which provides comprehensive aid to
injured youth. She will introduce young participants in these programs who will tell their stories.
 Howard Pinderhughes, Ph.D., Chair of the Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences at UCSF. He
is Principal Investigator of the Bay Area Youth Violence Prevention Network and has conducted research
and assisted in program development in the areas of race relations among youth and adolescent violence
prevention and intervention. He will speak about his research on the easy availability of guns to young
people, the effects of gun violence on Bay Area youth, and prevention of gun violence.
Moderator:
 Ellen Boneparth, Ph.D., President, CA Chapters of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence
Suggested Donation: $25 − Refreshments including hors d’oeuvres and wine will be served. Donations at the
door are welcome and will help defray the cost of the program, and assist the California Brady Chapters in their
educational campaigns and advocacy for gun violence prevention policies.
We welcome your involvement and participation! Please RSVP by March 20th to Rebecca at
rebeccan@gracecathedral.org or call 415-749-6355. Directions and parking information can be found at:
www.gracecathedral.org/welcome/overview/directions.

Cypren
02-11-2009, 1:28 PM
I suggest we show up and get some free food and heckling in.

Raucous heckling and disruption of public speeches is the domain of ill-mannered, self-righteous student radicals who believe the inherent nobility of their cause gives them a free pass to disrespect their opponents and breach societal etiquette. The primary difference between us and our opposition on this issue is that we think as well as feel, which lets us approach it as adults rather than children throwing a tantrum.

Please, by all means, go and voice your opinion. But please don't "heckle" and try to argue by volume and rudeness. It just gives all of us a bad image.

rrr70
02-11-2009, 1:31 PM
I am so there.:D

Will it be ok to wear this t-shirt?
http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q121/smkeater55/politics_1/GunOwnerorVictim.jpg

Dont Tread on Me
02-11-2009, 1:35 PM
But please don't "heckle" and try to argue by volume and rudeness. It just gives all of us a bad image.

I don't think we can lower our image with this audience!

I for one will not stand by and be all gentleman like while these libtards nibble away at my rights. That is exactly the approach that got us in this mess. You can call me an ill-mannered, self-righteous libertarian and I'll say thank you.

Cypren
02-11-2009, 1:44 PM
I don't think we can lower our image with this audience!

The Brady Bunch aren't the audience I'm concerned about.

I for one will not stand by and be all gentleman like while these libtards nibble away at my rights. That is exactly the approach that got us in this mess. You can call me an ill-mannered, self-righteous libertarian and I'll say thank you.

Headline, San Francisco Chronicle, March 28, 2009: Abusive Gun Owners Disrupt, Harrass Speakers At Policy Meeting

That's the audience I'm concerned about. Remember who gets to report on this stuff, and remember which side they're on. You can disagree without being rude. Being gentlemanly did not get us into this mess; electing representatives who were willing to sacrifice our rights for votes and money did.

yellowfin
02-11-2009, 1:47 PM
No thanks. It's bad enough to have to put up with knowing they exist at a distance. I can talk to people and put forth a gentle pursuasion but I just know too much of that junk shoveled in my direction wouldn't go well after a while.

gravedigger
02-11-2009, 1:54 PM
I suggest we print up some schnazzy raffle tickets and get a permit to sell them! We'll sell the tickets for $1.00 a piece, and tell them that there is a special prize valued at $1,000.00 for the winner! We make a big deal out of it, and right there, on the TV news, when the winner is chosen, standing up there at the podium, we bring out the box containing the prize! When he opens it and finds a brand new AR-15, the look on his face and the reaction of the crowd will be PRICELESS! He gets the gun, the Brady Bunch is publicly embarrassed beyond description, and we keep the raffle money! Thoughts? :D

Dont Tread on Me
02-11-2009, 1:57 PM
That's the audience I'm concerned about. Remember who gets to report on this stuff, and remember which side they're on. You can disagree without being rude. Being gentlemanly did not get us into this mess; electing representatives who were willing to sacrifice our rights for votes and money did.

How do you expect the Bay Area media to report this event assuming no disruption? Will the journalists take the time to speak to a local NRA representative and provide a balanced article? Can you point me to one article in the local media where firearms or owners were reported in a positive way? Was a rifle referenced to without being "high powered?"

I'm inspired by the recent movie covering Harvey Milk's life and my associated readings. It is easier to find a pro gun article in the SF Chronicle than it is to find a social revolution of the type we need achieved through good manners.

rivviepop
02-11-2009, 2:37 PM
Can you point me to one article in the local media where firearms or owners were reported in a positive way?

Well that took all of 5 seconds.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/02/03/BAGMTB4NTL1.DTL
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/06/26/national/w071830D39.DTL

dfletcher
02-11-2009, 3:02 PM
Grace Cathedral? So there's going to be an antigun rally at a location where scenes from the movie "Bullitt" was filmed? Well that's neat.

DDT
02-11-2009, 3:03 PM
Well that took all of 5 seconds.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/02/03/BAGMTB4NTL1.DTL
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/06/26/national/w071830D39.DTL

2005 and Heller.


BTW: I LOVE this quote:
"In a dissent he summarized from the bench, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."

Why yes, I do believe they made a specific choice to prevent government from regulating civilian use of weapons. That's EXACTLY what the 2A SAYS.

Cypren
02-11-2009, 3:07 PM
BTW: I LOVE this quote:
"In a dissent he summarized from the bench, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."

It's terrifying that one of the nine most powerful people in the country is such an authoritarian that the very concept of the Constitution as a document limiting the government is incomprehensible to him. And that three others agreed with him enough to sign onto the opinion. How far we've fallen in two centuries.

7x57
02-11-2009, 3:14 PM
It's terrifying that one of the nine most powerful people in the country is such an authoritarian that the very concept of the Constitution as a document limiting the government is incomprehensible to him. And that three others agreed with him enough to sign onto the opinion. How far we've fallen in two centuries.

That was my instant response when I read that. The *entire* *purpose* of the entire Bill of Rights is to take law enforcement tools off the table. Unlimited search & seizure, indefinite arrest without charge, and a whole host of other things are classical law enforcement tools and have been ever since there have been police. They "work," too--for the police and for the state. A core purpose of the Bill of Rights is to take certain admittedly effective an expedient law enforcement tools off the table because they may reduce crime but they also create an immoral society.

And I agree--a justice who doesn't understand that is actually unfit for his position. It's not a disagreement, it is incompetence and should be treated as such.

7x57

bwiese
02-11-2009, 3:23 PM
Grace Cathedral? So there's going to be an antigun rally at a location where scenes from the movie "Bullitt" was filmed? Well that's neat.

Bwaaah!

Seriously, let's not turn into a bunch antiglobal hippie protesters or whatever.

We don't get good press anyway (except when we win in court and $$$$ is paid out) - and we don't need "Survivalists Harass Doctors Against Guns in Cathedral" press.

BTW it would not surprise me anyway if the Bradys haven't already hired agitators in camo to do this anyway.

Let's relax. The other side is dying, and thegun issue is moving on in the press, it's no longer the hot thing it was in late 90s with Lockyer. Why give things added attention, why stir up drama?

7x57
02-11-2009, 3:40 PM
If this was going to be done, you would have to do training similar to that for non-violent protesters. You probably won't have to get beat with billy clubs without striking back, but you would have to be able to do the verbal equivalent.

I wouldn't recommend it for most people even if otherwise a good idea--this would take exceptional class and restraint, and I for one will say right now that I don't have that much.

7x57

nat
02-11-2009, 4:25 PM
I don't think we can lower our image with this audience!

I for one will not stand by and be all gentleman like while these libtards nibble away at my rights. That is exactly the approach that got us in this mess. You can call me an ill-mannered, self-righteous libertarian and I'll say thank you.

This is not a good attitude. They have every right to express their opinions, we should hold all the Bill of Rights ammendments equally.

ZRX61
02-11-2009, 4:32 PM
Raucous heckling and disruption of public speeches is the domain of ill-mannered, self-righteous student radicals who believe the inherent nobility of their cause gives them a free pass to disrespect their opponents and breach societal etiquette. The primary difference between us and our opposition on this issue is that we think as well as feel, which lets us approach it as adults rather than children throwing a tantrum.
.
As law abiding, responsible gun owners it would be far more productive to follow the antis from the event after they have imbibed the wine & call in their licence plates for suspected DUI... :thumbsup:;)

movie zombie
02-11-2009, 4:33 PM
rather than confirm their stereotype of the gunowner, it would be better to be there with handouts and intelligent conversation.

i gotta say that i'm really tired of gunowners being their own worst enemy and then crying because their 2nd amendment rights continue to be eroded.

continue to feed into the stereotype and we all lose.

mz

ZRX61
02-11-2009, 4:37 PM
I wouldn't recommend it for most people even if otherwise a good idea--this would take exceptional class and restraint, and I for one will say right now that I don't have that much.
But a quick jab in the windpipe sure shuts them up :cool:

SwissFluCase
02-11-2009, 5:47 PM
We have got to infiltrate this. We could gain valuable intelligence. Of course, the debriefing process will probably require post-exposure alcohol therapy and cigar treatment at a nearby treatment center with the Calguns support group... It may be traumatic. :cheers2:

Regards,


SwissFluCase

Dont Tread on Me
02-11-2009, 5:49 PM
This is not a good attitude. They have every right to express their opinions, we should hold all the Bill of Rights ammendments equally.

They do and I would indeed fight for their first amendment rights

bwiese
02-11-2009, 6:24 PM
We have got to infiltrate this. We could gain valuable intelligence.

Probably not.
There will not be any pipeline to upcoming legislation we don't know about, just a buncha white coats saying "we don't like guns" and a buncha folks nodding.

It would be more interesting to get the attendance list of the yearly LCAV dinner.

Theseus
02-11-2009, 7:03 PM
I think we should all buy Kilts made using the California Tartan and march...

They are considered classy!

wildhawker
02-11-2009, 7:40 PM
I don't see the purpose of expending energy convincing the inconvincible. Vindication is rarely, if ever, achieved with an approach such as this.

If you're looking to further our cause, volunteer to help setup a Calguns booth or [positively] introduce someone to the sport. If it's to feel better for 15 minutes while 7 million people watch the "gun fanatics" disrespectfully heckle these upstanding citizens (who paid good money to hear their side discuss their perspective uninterrupted), then call it what it is.

I appreciate the passion, trust me. We're all here because we care. However, I implore you (all) to consider the unintended consequences before doing something like this.

OrovilleTim
02-11-2009, 7:44 PM
we believe more needs to be done to keep dangerous weapons out of the hands of dangerous people

Do they want to make sure dangerous people have safe weapons in their hands or something?

Snapping Twig
02-11-2009, 8:49 PM
Grace Cathedral...

Isn't their 501C3 tax exemption stipulated on being NON political. Doesn't the left constantly whine about seperation of Church and State?

This is a common function for Grace Cathedral to hold leftist political rallies.

I wish there was justice.

Buuuut...

Getting back to gun violence, how 'bout morons with gangsta kids do some parenting? Hmmm?

tombinghamthegreat
02-11-2009, 9:12 PM
This is revolting and a sad event. I hope this upcoming incorporation case is ruled on before hand....then they will have something to worry about.

ZRX61
02-11-2009, 9:14 PM
We have got to infiltrate this. We could gain valuable intelligence.
Highly doubtful there will be any intelligence on display..;)

dwtt
02-11-2009, 9:33 PM
Maybe someone can go and convince them to hold another gun buyback event paying $250 per gun, no questions asked. I was out of luck in the Oakland buyback.

berto
02-11-2009, 9:36 PM
I think some of the TL locals might like some wine and snacks. They could even give street level dissertations on gun violence.

7x57
02-11-2009, 9:50 PM
Maybe someone can go and convince them to hold another gun buyback event paying $250 per gun, no questions asked. I was out of luck in the Oakland buyback.

$250 per gun? Time to lay in a supply of hi-points. Or maybe some non-functional internet auction junk. Apparently, I can trade them for the money to buy some good guns. :43:

7x57

SwissFluCase
02-11-2009, 9:56 PM
$250 per gun? Time to lay in a supply of hi-points. Or maybe some non-functional internet auction junk. Apparently, I can trade them for the money to buy some good guns. :43:

7x57

Maybe some beat up Mosins.... No waiting "one gun a month" BS.

Regards,


SwissFluCase

7x57
02-11-2009, 10:02 PM
Maybe some beat up Mosins.... No waiting "one gun a month" BS.


The cover of the Jan 10 Shotgun News has Mosins for $59.95 if you buy ten or more. Ignoring shipping, you're in for $599.50 and get back $2500.

Gee, do you think the Feds would construe that as "doing business" instead of "getting the guns off our streets?" Probably, so you can't use a C&R license, which means the FFL's fee is going to cut into the profits. Well, FFLs need to make their boat payments too. :D

ETA: There is also an ad for 5 single-shot air rifles for $79.95. Are the antis stupid enough to pay off for an air rifle? That's a 1500% profit. :43:

7x57

SwissFluCase
02-11-2009, 10:19 PM
ETA: There is also an ad for 5 single-shot air rifles for $79.95. Are the antis stupid enough to pay off for an air rifle? That's a 1500% profit. :43:

7x57

That's right!! You sir are a genius! When they show the day's haul, it seems like there are always a bunch of airguns in the pile.

We could also order a bunch of exempt junk, like unsafe to fire Martini Henry rifles and other garbage that shows up in Shotgun news for $39.95.

Of course, we could only show up with one or two pieces to avoid arousing suspicion, but if we ordered a diverse enough variety of junk we could have friends and family turn in weapons as well.

Again, it depends how much cash is on the line. If they are giving away tickets to some lame concert, I'll pass. I'm sure my time is worth more than any profit that could me made by this, but it is the principle of improving our collections of updated state of the art arms with the anti's money that is just so sweet.

Regards,


SwissFluCase

MP301
02-11-2009, 10:39 PM
rather than confirm their stereotype of the gunowner, it would be better to be there with handouts and intelligent conversation.

i gotta say that i'm really tired of gunowners being their own worst enemy and then crying because their 2nd amendment rights continue to be eroded.

continue to feed into the stereotype and we all lose.

mz

Movie Zombie = the voice of wisdom!

Some of "us" are our own worst enemies. And yes, some of "us" are part of the reason our rights have eroded. Understand that anything we do that shows a negative light in regards to our gun rights fuels the fear, ignorance and hatred of guns and gun owners. Lets not forget that they have the advantage of the media. So why would anyone even think about giving them more ammo to screw us more?

In a lot of ways, the anti's have played the game a bit better then us....willing to take our rights little by little...chipping away toward their ultimate goal.... the only way to stop this is to reverse the trend...take these rights back little by little...

Im not knocking the knuckle draggers, though, because they will be the first line of defense if things were to ever get ugly. Kinda like sending in the Marines when diplomacy stops working....But with the progress we have made with Heller and hopefully Nordyke....and other actions, trends and cases, we are still operating on the legal playing field and making a lot of important progress. DO NOT SCREW UP THIS TREND!

Remember, (just as when the Anti's make a bone head move), it is important not to let your emotions dictate your actions. If you find it too difficult to curb your passions, then leave that part of it to those of us who can keep our feelings in check.

We are all in this together and we cant play into their hands. And on the outside chance we need a plan B, then keep your powder dry!

7x57
02-11-2009, 10:49 PM
When they show the day's haul, it seems like there are always a bunch of airguns in the pile.


Why did I even bother to ask if they were that stupid?


We could also order a bunch of exempt junk, like unsafe to fire Martini Henry rifles and other garbage that shows up in Shotgun news for $39.95.


Yah, that's the stuff. Really, we shouldn't turn in weapons that are safe to fire, just on the principle of the thing. That's like selling an innocent puppy to Cruella de Ville because the price is good. :mad:

<flip, flip> Say, can I also turn in one of these Soviet Communist Party membership books IMA has for $10? I'm sure they won't pay out for the book, but if they'll take it the symbolism is totally worth $10.

It's interesting all the ideas you can get from SN. What about turning in guns with a nice "mayor-approved" duracoat finish in primary colors? "Honest, officer, it *really* *is* a gun, not a NERF dart pistol."


Of course, we could only show up with one or two pieces to avoid arousing suspicion, but if we ordered a diverse enough variety of junk we could have friends and family turn in weapons as well.


I don't know. Maybe I could pull up with a carload of junk guns and if they ask questions (say, what does "no questions" mean anyway?) I can sob and tell how they're helping me break my gun addiction. You know, my wife promised to come back if I quit hoarding guns, my dog doesn't growl at me anymore, and I even bought lollipops for an orphan on the way there. I'm a CHANGED MAN! :Angel_anim:

Oh, wait, I'm not a good liar when I'm nauseous. Never mind. :puke:


it is the principle of improving our collections of updated state of the art arms with the anti's money that is just so sweet.


Yeah. Basically, if I don't get a functional gun out of it at their expense, I don't play.

7x57

Gryff
02-11-2009, 11:18 PM
Plenty of time to buy Thunder Ranch t-shirts (http://www.thunderranchinc.com/store.html).

http://www.thunderranchinc.com/images/Store/Supplied1207/TshirtSomePeople.jpg

SwissFluCase
02-12-2009, 12:12 AM
look what I found on the SF Craigslut http://sfbay.craigslist.org/sfc/pol/1031516885.html

Oh, that's going to start a lively debate on Craigslist! :43:

Regards,


SwissFluCase

minuteman
02-12-2009, 1:34 AM
Well now that the golden state is Brady's favorite, it makes me wonder how is this state is ranking in violent crime and homicide.

N6ATF
02-12-2009, 8:36 AM
Clicked best of craigslist on that one.

SwissFluCase
02-12-2009, 8:46 AM
Well now that the golden state is Brady's favorite, it makes me wonder how is this state is ranking in violent crime and homicide.

I don't know, but just look at the news. It's dripping with blood.

Regards,


SwissFluCase

vrand
02-12-2009, 8:58 AM
Clicked best of craigslist on that one.

:cheers2:

motorhead
02-12-2009, 9:17 AM
i know it's bad but i can't help thinking about bags of snakes or rats. and stinkbombs, lots of stinkbombs. i'm sure i'm not the only one induging thes evil fantasies.

tiki
02-12-2009, 9:20 AM
We have got to infiltrate this. We could gain valuable intelligence.

Intelligence at a Brady function? Ha ha ha. Thats funny.

Cypren
02-12-2009, 9:21 AM
I don't know, but just look at the news. It's dripping with blood.

But that can't be! We all know that guns are the cause of all crime due to the evil radiation they emit to stimulate good, honest, hardworking citizens into becoming bloodthirsty murderers. Sarah Brady told me so herself! :rolleyes:

FUSIBLE
02-12-2009, 10:26 AM
Well here CA DOJ sheet is available for some analytical research. But violent crimes have not gone down considerably. We all know 80's and part of the 90's bad times for violent crimes. But there has to be a reason why they were so high. I have to look into how unemployment rates were for CA at the time and many other factors per city. But I will look into finding out on my own, well for my own knowing as to why these trends happen. If you look on the left hand side where the List of contents are, click on Data Tables you'll see that we have not had less than 2,000 homicides since 1975. LINK (http://ag.ca.gov/cjsc/publications/candd/cd07/preface.pdf)

It hasn't gotten any better and we still rank high on most dangerous states (http://os.cqpress.com/Crime%20State%202008_Most%20Dangerous.pdf) to live in.

7x57
02-12-2009, 11:28 AM
But that can't be! We all know that guns are the cause of all crime due to the evil radiation they emit to stimulate good, honest, hardworking citizens into becoming bloodthirsty murderers. Sarah Brady told me so herself! :rolleyes:

Yes. But don't forget to interpret the statistics correctly.


If you don't pass more gun control and the crime rate goes up, it's because you didn't pass more gun control.
If you don't pass more gun control and the crime rate goes down, it would have gone down more if you had passed more gun control.
If you do pass more gun control and the crime rate goes down, it is because of your gun control regardless of whether the trend started before your new gun control bill, regardless of comparisons with similar states, or anything else.
And finally if you pass more gun control and the crime rate goes up, then the reason is you didn't pass enough gun control.


In the eyes of the true-believers, gun control is a non-falsifiable theory.

7x57

Cypren
02-12-2009, 11:56 AM
In the eyes of the true-believers, gun control is a non-falsifiable theory.

The same can be said about virtually any political position, although from my personal perspective supporters of authoritarian/collectivist ones tend to be the most determined toward blind belief. But rationally, those of us who support libertarian/individualist policies are quite capable of the same:

If the government passes higher taxes/more restrictions, and the economy suffers, it was due to the government
If the government passes higher taxes/more restrictions and the economy booms, it did so in spite of the restrictions
If the government relaxes taxes/restrictions, and the economy suffers, it was due to the long-term impacts of their previous bad policy
If the government relaxes taxes/restrictions and the economy booms, it was immediately due to the new policy regardless of existing trends

(You can reverse these to get the authoritarian/collectivist argument for raising taxes and increasing regulations, incidentally. Sound like the recession arguments we've seen lately?)

I guess my point is just that we all have blind faith in something. I realize that Calguns has a moderately diverse cross-section of political views, although we seem to trend fairly strongly individualist, and our blind faith is in the idea that individuals will, in aggregate, always make better choices for themselves than society will as a whole. That principle is very hard to validate empirically and relies on extremely subjective notions of what "better" means and unprovable assertions about what might have happened in alternate circumstances. But we cling to it anyway.

Everyone has a religion of some sort. Many just choose not to call it that.