PDA

View Full Version : Brady Campaign - Gun Advocates Posing As “Victims” Of “Bigotry”


GrizzlyGuy
02-10-2010, 6:05 PM
From the Brady Blog (http://blog.bradycampaign.org/?p=1807). I can't bring myself to quote the whole thing (would soil the forum) so here is an excerpt:

Some adherents of this mantra have taken it to bizarre extremes, in fact, likening their position to African-Americans in the Civil Rights movement. No, not kidding. Look at this latest stemwinder by Joe from Idaho. (Note to Joe, Brady blog posts under the NewsWatch label are by Brady staff other than Paul Helmke. Paul posts under his own name.)

In order to think this way, the key assumption such gun advocates have to make is that their guns and gun use are functionally identical to race, or sexual orientation — such that one’s status as a gun advocate is essentially an immutable characteristic.

From that flows the conclusion that anyone who disagrees with the effects of their gun advocacy — such as forcing families and children to accept semi-automatic pistols or assault weapons in the local Starbucks or other restaurant — is the same as those who refused service to African-Americans at a Woolworth’s lunch counter.

7x57
02-10-2010, 6:39 PM
Hey, who said they could read Calguns the way we read their facebook pages? :D

7x57

Shotgun Man
02-10-2010, 6:46 PM
Some adherents of this mantra have taken it to bizarre extremes, in fact, likening their position to African-Americans in the Civil Rights movement. No, not kidding. Look at this latest stemwinder by Joe from Idaho. (Note to Joe, Brady blog posts under the NewsWatch label are by Brady staff other than Paul Helmke. Paul posts under his own name.)

In order to think this way, the key assumption such gun advocates have to make is that their guns and gun use are functionally identical to race, or sexual orientation — such that one’s status as a gun advocate is essentially an immutable characteristic.

From that flows the conclusion that anyone who disagrees with the effects of their gun advocacy — such as forcing families and children to accept semi-automatic pistols or assault weapons in the local Starbucks or other restaurant — is the same as those who refused service to African-Americans at a Woolworth’s lunch counter.

Being free happens to be an immutable characterstic.

CABilly
02-10-2010, 7:01 PM
From that flows the conclusion that anyone who disagrees with the effects of their gun advocacy — such as forcing families and children to accept semi-automatic pistols or assault weapons in the local Starbucks or other restaurant — is the same as those who refused service to African-Americans at a Woolworth’s lunch counter.

The funny thing is that the Bill of Rights actually protects both of those. Sorry, Bradys!

PEBKAC
02-10-2010, 7:02 PM
Well of course they won't get it if they don't understand the concept of rights. :pinch:

LAWABIDINGCITIZEN
02-10-2010, 7:08 PM
"...forcing families and children to accept semi-automatic pistols or assault weapons in the local Starbucks..."


Their cause is so crumbling that they have to resort to desperate pleas like this.

It's time to buy yet one more "ugly" firearm in celebration!


:p

Shotgun Man
02-10-2010, 7:10 PM
From that flows the conclusion that anyone who disagrees with the effects of their gun advocacy — such as forcing families and children to accept semi-automatic pistols or assault weapons in the local Starbucks or other restaurant — is the same as those who refused service to African-Americans at a Woolworth’s lunch counter.

They've already outlawed the so-called assault weapons. WTH are they complaining about?

bwiese
02-10-2010, 7:14 PM
...such that one’s status as a gun advocate
is essentially an immutable characteristic.

Well that's certainly the case for me, and quite a few others here too.

Lone_Gunman
02-10-2010, 7:15 PM
I am so sick of these morons. I know our wins are going to come in the courts but can't we start trying to effectively fight in public forums as well?
How about a couple of billboards that say "A woman who is raped and murdered is morally superior to one who defends her self. Right?"

Or maybe one that asks "Is a woman who is raped and murdered morally superior to one who defends her self?" And then under that it could say "Gun rights. It's about our safety."

Seriously, anything to have the public debate on our terms and not on theirs.

PEBKAC
02-10-2010, 7:27 PM
Kind of OT-ish, but has anyone ever very publicly taken the Bradies to task about the fact that "assault weapon" does not really mean anything and driven that point home? Most people I have heard in hearings against "assault weapon" laws are very eloquent in their pointing out that "assault weapon" features are just cosmetic and "assault weapon" bans are dumb generally and ineffective, but never really attack the fact the term exists in the first place very vigorously much less accused the opposition of making it up to scare the public...I have yet to hear anyone very publicly tell them "That term means nothing except the obvious, namely any weapon used to assault someone, and any suggestion that it means anything else is intellectual dishonesty of the highest degree."

Thinking back to the Washington hearing, I wonder if they pro-AWB people were equivocating just a little bit between their made up definition and the actual definition when they had that child's mother on the stand in favor...

Part of their strength seems to come from that term which they can haul out when they can't be caught saying what they want to say (assault rifles) because it would be so factually inaccurate that even people on the fence might catch it.

Lone_Gunman
02-10-2010, 7:48 PM
PEBKAC- that's what I'm talking about. We are allowing them to define the fight in the public arena. WE need to define the fight. WE have the moral high ground.

7x57
02-10-2010, 8:22 PM
Most people I have heard in hearings against "assault weapon" laws are very eloquent in their pointing out that "assault weapon" features are just cosmetic and "assault weapon" bans are dumb generally and ineffective, but never really attack the fact the term exists in the first place very vigorously much less accused the opposition of making it up to scare the public

Possibly because we actually invented it. :p

7x57

PEBKAC
02-10-2010, 8:37 PM
Possibly because we actually invented it. :p

7x57
Gah. That would explain it. Can you point me in the right direction with regards to sources on the history of the term? My search-fu is failing me so far. :pinch:

Sgt Raven
02-10-2010, 8:52 PM
Kind of OT-ish, but has anyone ever very publicly taken the Bradies to task about the fact that "assault weapon" does not really mean anything and driven that point home? Most people I have heard in hearings against "assault weapon" laws are very eloquent in their pointing out that "assault weapon" features are just cosmetic and "assault weapon" bans are dumb generally and ineffective, but never really attack the fact the term exists in the first place very vigorously much less accused the opposition of making it up to scare the public...I have yet to hear anyone very publicly tell them "That term means nothing except the obvious, namely any weapon used to assault someone, and any suggestion that it means anything else is intellectual dishonesty of the highest degree."

Thinking back to the Washington hearing, I wonder if they pro-AWB people were equivocating just a little bit between their made up definition and the actual definition when they had that child's mother on the stand in favor...

Part of their strength seems to come from that term which they can haul out when they can't be caught saying what they want to say (assault rifles) because it would be so factually inaccurate that even people on the fence might catch it.


How many times do I have to point out it wasn't the Brady's or the anti's that invented the term Assault Weapon. AW was a term made by gunnies for a rifle that looked like a Assault Rifle but was a dressed up semi auto rifle.

vantec08
02-10-2010, 8:59 PM
the only way to get the brady bunch's Mind Right is to require THEM to have their post to their forums scanned by the government first, then pay a fee (tax) on them.

7x57
02-10-2010, 9:05 PM
Gah. That would explain it. Can you point me in the right direction with regards to sources on the history of the term? My search-fu is failing me so far. :pinch:

Well, I didn't track down all the details, but I recall seeing enough to be convinced. From memory, a publisher (Gun Digest?) put out a book of "assault weapons." I haven't seen it, but my suspicion is that being gun guys they knew that the military-pattern semiautomatic carbines in the book were not "assault rifles," so they either invented a cool-sounding name or used one already around. Marketing, if you will.

I don't know how the anti-gunners got ahold of it, but I seem to recall hearing that Josh Sugarman of the VPC gets paid to do important stuff like read gun mags to find out what we're up to, so it could easily have happened that way. In any case, they recognized it as an ideal tool. The truth, which nobody seems to mention, is that the same terms that sell well to a certain kind of gunny also scare non-gunnies, and pretty much for exactly the same reasons.

I think this is playing out all over again with "tactical folder" knives. Tactical == cool for the same reason that tactical == scary.

OK, lets see how I did. Ah...Wikipedia's article on Josh Sugarman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josh_Sugarmann) says he gets accused of inventing the term--sounds like my little guess was pretty good if he introduced it to the anti-gun world. It links to this VPC page (http://www.vpc.org/studies/hosesix.htm) on "bullet hoses" (warning: a kitten dies each time you click on that link), which quotes Duncan Long's book Assault Pistols, Rifles and Submachine Guns. And the Wikipedia page on "assault weapon" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon) mentions The Gun Digest Book of Assault Weapons as popularizing the term. Amazon doesn't have any more copies, but they still have the page (http://www.amazon.com/Digest-Book-Assault-Weapons-Fifth/dp/087341778X). It reviewed rather disappointingly.

Looks like memory wasn't doing too badly.

7x57

Lone_Gunman
02-10-2010, 9:14 PM
the only way to get the brady bunch's Mind Right is to require THEM to have their post to their forums scanned by the government first, then pay a fee (tax) on them.

What? Tell me you are joking. That is not a road Americans should EVER want to go down. If it could be done to them it could be done to us.

BRANCHER
02-10-2010, 9:34 PM
“Assault Rifle” was coined by a great gun banner… Adolf Hitler. Brady Campaign seems to grab so much from him why not this. The fact that Armalite Rifle (AR-15) has the same initials made it that much easier. We say our AR and they say Assault Rifle… and everyone buys into it. Heck I even have...

Sgt Raven
02-10-2010, 9:43 PM
Looks like memory wasn't doing too badly.

7x57

7x57 don't make me pull out my Mel Tappan books. :p

7x57
02-10-2010, 9:55 PM
7x57 don't make me pull out my Mel Tappan books. :p

:confused:

7x57

Sgt Raven
02-10-2010, 10:01 PM
:confused:

7x57

You never read Survival Guns by Mel Tappan? :confused: :eek: :rolleyes:

7x57
02-10-2010, 10:09 PM
You never read Survival Guns by Mel Tappan? :confused: :eek: :rolleyes:

Apparently, a gap in my reading. Should I?

My ideas on "survival" are basically "if you're worried, move to a small rural town in agriculture country and adopt the native culture whether you like it or not."

7x57

nick
02-10-2010, 10:09 PM
You never read Survival Guns by Mel Tappan? :confused: :eek: :rolleyes:


:popcorn:

wjc
02-10-2010, 10:14 PM
I don't know how the anti-gunners got ahold of it, but I seem to recall hearing this VPC page (http://www.vpc.org/studies/hosesix.htm) on "bullet hoses" (warning: a kitten dies each time you click on that link), which quotes Duncan Long's book Assault Pistols, Rifles and Submachine Guns. And the Wikipedia page on "assault weapon" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon) mentions The Gun Digest Book of Assault Weapons as popularizing the term. Amazon doesn't have any more copies, but they still have the page (http://www.amazon.com/Digest-Book-Assault-Weapons-Fifth/dp/087341778X). It reviewed rather disappointingly.


nuts...I think I just killed a kitten.

Syntax Error
02-11-2010, 12:17 AM
Man, the way they write their blog posts is so condescending and "holier-than-thou" it makes me pissed off.

rabagley
02-11-2010, 12:33 AM
Here's a quote from the end of the spiel that I find enlightening.

It is a hatred for the effects of guns in the hands of dangerous people who never should have had them in the first place, bound to the deep empathy we have for victims and survivors of gun violence who will never get their loved ones back, and fueled by a fierce determination to reduce as many of those horrific stories as we possibly can.

Why so specific? He doesn't seem to care about violence if there wasn't a gun involved. With a few tiny changes, I can agree 100% with the themes of his little essay:

It is a hatred for the effects of gunsweapons in the hands of dangerous people who never should have had them in the first place, bound to the deep empathy we have for victims and survivors of gun violence who will never get their loved ones back, and fueled by a fierce determination to reduce as many of those horrific stories as we possibly can.

All of the gun owners I know are against violence and against crime. I don't ever want to use my gun to injure or kill a person. Ever. But if I am ever put in a situation where I have to use it I will. That use will only be to defend myself or my family from an attack.

The myopia of the hoplophobes is truly amazing.

rabagley
02-11-2010, 12:40 AM
Man, the way they write their blog posts is so condescending and "holier-than-thou" it makes me pissed off.

I'll bet it's the combination of "holier-than-thou" and 100% wrong that's really causing your blood pressure to spike. If they were arguing for gun rights in "holier-than-thou" voice, I doubt you'd mind so much.

This reminds me of an obnoxious quip I've used from time to time: People who think they know everything really annoy those of us who do...

GrizzlyGuy
02-11-2010, 3:36 AM
Man, the way they write their blog posts is so condescending and "holier-than-thou" it makes me pissed off.

What's really annoying is that they don't allow comments on their blog. I was hoping to engage them in a friendly debate and toss some info from this article (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=3785576#post3785576) and related history at them.

Oh well, at least I learned something from this thread: that we originally came up with the 'Assault Weapon' term. I thought it was just a bastardization and misuse of 'Assault Rifle', which AFAIK, the Germans coined as a term to describe their full-auto Sturmgewehr.

PEBKAC
02-11-2010, 8:09 AM
Well, I didn't track down all the details, but I recall seeing enough to be convinced. From memory, a publisher (Gun Digest?) put out a book of "assault weapons." I haven't seen it, but my suspicion is that being gun guys they knew that the military-pattern semiautomatic carbines in the book were not "assault rifles," so they either invented a cool-sounding name or used one already around. Marketing, if you will.

I don't know how the anti-gunners got ahold of it, but I seem to recall hearing that Josh Sugarman of the VPC gets paid to do important stuff like read gun mags to find out what we're up to, so it could easily have happened that way. In any case, they recognized it as an ideal tool. The truth, which nobody seems to mention, is that the same terms that sell well to a certain kind of gunny also scare non-gunnies, and pretty much for exactly the same reasons.

I think this is playing out all over again with "tactical folder" knives. Tactical == cool for the same reason that tactical == scary.

OK, lets see how I did. Ah...Wikipedia's article on Josh Sugarman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josh_Sugarmann) says he gets accused of inventing the term--sounds like my little guess was pretty good if he introduced it to the anti-gun world. It links to this VPC page (http://www.vpc.org/studies/hosesix.htm) on "bullet hoses" (warning: a kitten dies each time you click on that link), which quotes Duncan Long's book Assault Pistols, Rifles and Submachine Guns. And the Wikipedia page on "assault weapon" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon) mentions The Gun Digest Book of Assault Weapons as popularizing the term. Amazon doesn't have any more copies, but they still have the page (http://www.amazon.com/Digest-Book-Assault-Weapons-Fifth/dp/087341778X). It reviewed rather disappointingly.

Looks like memory wasn't doing too badly.

7x57
I'd say your memory is fine. Thanks for the summary. :D

boxbro
02-11-2010, 8:26 AM
“Assault Rifle” was coined by a great gun banner… Adolf Hitler. Brady Campaign seems to grab so much from him why not this. The fact that Armalite Rifle (AR-15) has the same initials made it that much easier. We say our AR and they say Assault Rifle… and everyone buys into it. Heck I even have...

Godwin's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law).

Milsurp Collector
02-11-2010, 8:54 AM
I got this when it was published in 1982, twelve years before the 1994 assault weapon ban.

http://i49.tinypic.com/1p80i0.jpg

yellowfin
02-11-2010, 9:34 AM
In order to think this way, the key assumption such gun advocates have to make is that their guns and gun use are functionally identical to race, or sexual orientation — such that one’s status as a gun advocate is essentially an immutable characteristic.

...And the disagreement with this is, what exactly? It is indeed an immutable part of me. Aren't ones thoughts and beliefs part of oneself? Mine are. That's what religion is made of (I have that too, and a big part of that is family responsibility, patriotism is also included) and that's something you supposedly can't be discriminated against on account of, correct?

aileron
02-11-2010, 9:39 AM
What I get out of this, is they notice the parallels are real. If it catches on to the masses that the parallels are very real. Then they are in deep trouble because it will start to become very obvious to the general public that what they are doing is acting out in prejudice towards a group of people in this country.

Now that won't sit well with most, and the antis will start to look like prejudice loons to the masses. That will be the end of them, and even the press could get caught up in the distrust that would surely follow.

So open carry has a very positive side to it; if its strategically done.

vantec08
02-11-2010, 9:42 AM
so Lone - - - the 1st amendment is more important than the 2nd. Ok. Loud n clear.

sbrady@Michel&Associates
02-11-2010, 10:03 AM
I just want to point out that not all "Bradys" agree with the views expressed in that blog. All this Brady can say in response is: wow!

Kestryll
02-11-2010, 10:05 AM
I just want to point out that not all "Bradys" agree with the views expressed in that blog. All this Brady can say in response is: wow!

:rofl::biggrinjester::rofl2:

Well played!!!

yellowfin
02-11-2010, 10:47 AM
I got this when it was published in 1982, twelve years before the 1994 assault weapon ban.

http://i49.tinypic.com/1p80i0.jpgIn '82, the Hughes Amendment wasn't in effect so people could very likely own select fire rifles, so "assault rifle" would be factually accurate for some of what was depicted.

7x57
02-11-2010, 10:54 AM
I just want to point out that not all "Bradys" agree with the views expressed in that blog. All this Brady can say in response is: wow!

Do we need a new "real Brady" campaign opposing the false Bradys that have hijacked the image of Bradys everywhere? :D

7x57

five.five-six
02-11-2010, 10:58 AM
Kind of OT-ish, but has anyone ever very publicly taken the Bradies to task about the fact that "assault weapon"

they don't go out in public, if it is not a tightly controlled press conference, they stay hidden from the light in some dark crevice or under a damp rock

Theseus
02-11-2010, 11:01 AM
...And the disagreement with this is, what exactly? It is indeed an immutable part of me. Aren't ones thoughts and beliefs part of oneself? Mine are. That's what religion is made of (I have that too, and a big part of that is family responsibility, patriotism is also included) and that's something you supposedly can't be discriminated against on account of, correct?

If a gun is not an immutable part of ones 2nd Amendment right than a bible is not an immutable part of ones 1st Amendment right.

sbrady@Michel&Associates
02-11-2010, 11:07 AM
Do we need a new "real Brady" campaign opposing the false Bradys that have hijacked the image of Bradys everywhere? :D

7x57

You read my mind. Now us "real Bradys" just need a catchy title and/or slogan to restore honor to our besmirched name.

nat
02-11-2010, 11:14 AM
so Lone - - - the 1st amendment is more important than the 2nd. Ok. Loud n clear.

ummm.......they are all equally important.

Your proposal to have the government censor people you don't like, would destroy all of our rights.

IrishPirate
02-11-2010, 11:17 AM
They've already outlawed the so-called assault weapons. WTH are they complaining about?

AW ban expired in '04....that's why the actual free states of the nation can own NFA items. It was a national ban, CA has its own ban which is different. Brady Bunch is national, not CA local....though they do spend alot of time here....:mad:

The fact that Armalite Rifle (AR-15) has the same initials made it that much easier. We say our AR and they say Assault Rifle… and everyone buys into it. Heck I even have...

i think it's understandable seeing as the AR-15 has become the iconic "assault rifle" in the US (the AK-47 is still the king of assault rifles though....no question). I thought it was assault rifle-15 for years because no one ever bothered to explain it to me. Hell, I didn't know the AW ban expired until 2 years ago! being as educated as i am now (thank you calgunners!) it's easy to look at others and think "why don't you know the facts? they're RIGHT THERE!!" but you have to look back and realize how distorted the countries view on firearms is

If you talk to gun store clerks....you'll get one answer (usually a very short and very wrong one, but seeing as most people who don't know better view them as the authority on guns....they make a huge impression on people). If you talk to someone who is liberal, you'll get another answer (usually an impassioned anti-gun one with very few facts if any, but a lot of distorted emotional conclusions). Talking to a conservative will get you yet again a different answer (usually a equaly impassioned pro-gun view, with a few more facts, but never the less still full of distorted emotional conclusions with some religious views thrown in for good measure). And of course the moderates could go either way, could care less, or could just sit around like the French and wait for one side to start winning before jumping on board.

Everyone you talk to is going to have a different view about guns and gun control. Some are for it, others against it, a few could care less. What I believe to be the source of all this controversy is the lack of education about guns and gun facts. thinking that AR-15 stands for assault rifle-15 is an innocent mistake sure....but compound that innocent mistake throughout all of a person's gun knowledge and you end up with a very unsafe person to be walking around with a gun.

It's our job as disillusioned gun owners to happily and peacefully spread the word about our gun rights and make sure that everyone knows that they aren't just our rights....they belong to everyone. Even the head of the Brady Campaign has the right to keep and bear arms. even those that choose not to use their rights are still protected by them. We need to continue to fight the good fight and educate our fellow Americans about their 2A rights. impassioned speaches have their time and place, but cold hard facts and a good attitude are good 24/7/365 . what they do with the knowledge will be up to them. You can lead a horse to water........

but you can't always keep me on topic :D

7x57
02-11-2010, 11:23 AM
You read my mind. Now us "real Bradys" just need a catchy title and/or slogan to restore honor to our besmirched name.

On the bright side, at least your last name isn't "Feinstein." :eek:

7x57

gvbsat
02-11-2010, 11:34 AM
What I want to know, is where in the hockey sticks are they getting their number of "people in America shot today"?

Milsurp Collector
02-11-2010, 11:34 AM
In '82, the Hughes Amendment wasn't in effect so people could very likely own select fire rifles, so "assault rifle" would be factually accurate for some of what was depicted.

The guns featured in that book were semi-automatic, not true assault rifles. When I first saw the list of firearms to be banned in 1994 it was obvious that this book was one source used by the authors of the law. All of the rifles featured in the book were on the list, almost as if they had copied the table of contents. If a "Guns & Ammo" publication said they were assault rifles, they must be assault rifles. As much as we would like to blame the anti-gunners for creating the "black rifle = deadly assault weapon" misconception, they didn't do it alone.

The Hughes Amendment doesn't prevent people from owning selective fire rifles ;)

n4_EVJ4q52o

timdps
02-11-2010, 11:56 AM
so Lone - - - the 1st amendment is more important than the 2nd. Ok. Loud n clear.

My answer to this one is that the there would be no First Amendment without the Second Amendment.

tim

IGOTDIRT4U
02-11-2010, 12:06 PM
Hey, who said they could read Calguns the way we read their facebook pages? :D

7x57

lol, I thought the same thing.

vantec08
02-11-2010, 12:42 PM
which was my point nat

nat
02-11-2010, 1:08 PM
My apologies, I misread the tone of your post.

Glock22Fan
02-11-2010, 3:43 PM
You read my mind. Now us "real Bradys" just need a catchy title and/or slogan to restore honor to our besmirched name.

Maybe you should just change your name*.

How about Feinstein, or Pelosi?



No, on second thoughts . . . . .

* After a meltdown at the nuclear reactor at Windscale (U.K.), they changed its name to Sellafield. After Chernobyl, the Russians asked what the heck they could do to mitigate the disaster. "Why, change its name, of course" was supposed to be Margaret Thatcher's response.

sbrady@Michel&Associates
02-11-2010, 4:53 PM
Maybe you should just change your name*.

How about Feinstein, or Pelosi?

I think I will ride this Brady thing out, and see where it takes me. I mean, I think Mrs. Brady is just misguided (not to dismiss the danger of the people she has surrounded herself with), but those two on the other hand are, well, "something else..."

dantodd
02-11-2010, 5:49 PM
I think Mrs. Brady is just misguided (not to dismiss the danger of the people she has surrounded herself with)

Are you speaking of Mrs. Sean Brady or Mrs. Jim Brady?

sbrady@Michel&Associates
02-11-2010, 6:06 PM
Are you speaking of Mrs. Sean Brady or Mrs. Jim Brady?

Well, aside from marrying me (and having my offspring, which she will doing in July), I would not be so foolish as to call Mrs. Sean Brady misguided (I do want to eat dinner tonight when I get home and sleep in my bed.) I was, in fact, referring to Mrs. Jim Brady.

dantodd
02-11-2010, 6:08 PM
Well, aside from marrying me (and having my offspring, which she will doing in July), I would not be so foolish as to call Mrs. Sean Brady misguided (I do want to eat dinner tonight when I get home and sleep in my bed.) I was, in fact, referring to Mrs. Jim Brady.

Congrats. Our last baby is Due March 12th.

sbrady@Michel&Associates
02-11-2010, 6:10 PM
Congrats to you too. May it be a healthy gunny (like it has a choice :))

8-Ball
02-11-2010, 6:11 PM
movement. No, not kidding. Look at this latest stemwinder by Joe from Idaho. (Note to Joe, Brady blog posts under the NewsWatch label are by Brady staff other than Paul Helmke. Paul posts under his own name.)

In order to think this way, the key assumption such gun advocates have to make is that their guns and gun use are functionally identical to race, or sexual orientation — such that one’s status as a gun advocate is essentially an immutable characteristic.

From that flows the conclusion that anyone who disagrees with the effects of their gun advocacy — such as forcing families and children to accept semi-automatic pistols or assault weapons in the local Starbucks or other restaurant — is the same as those who refused service to African-Americans at a Woolworth’s lunch counter.

They make a good argument...

I agree...

dantodd
02-11-2010, 6:37 PM
Congrats to you too. May it be a healthy gunny (like it has a choice :))

I've been eying some of those pink ARs that Oleg has pictures of. Printed one off and showed my wife. I was surprised that she was more receptive than I thought she would be.

five.five-six
02-11-2010, 7:28 PM
(and having my offspring, which she will doing in July)

congrats! first one?



if it's a girl, I think Kimber would be a wonderful name :)

Lone_Gunman
02-11-2010, 7:59 PM
so Lone - - - the 1st amendment is more important than the 2nd. Ok. Loud n clear.


What the what?

They are equally important. Do you think the authors of the Bill of Rights would embrace the destruction of the first amendment for those that oppose the second. Do you?