PDA

View Full Version : "From my perspective, then, the solution is to get rid of all guns."


oaklander
04-13-2011, 2:18 PM
^^^ ACTUAL QUOTE FROM A BRADY CAMPAIGN SUPPORTER

Thought that would get your attention. . .

I do not normally like to start two threads on a single topic, but this PARTICULAR matter deserves increased attention and focus. . .

The Brady Campaign presents itself as a "rational stakeholder" in the "gun debate." The apparent reality, from looking at NUMEROUS "off the cuff" Facebook comments on a number of "Brady" pages is that the membership of "Brady" is actually comprised of anti-rights extremists.

Please see:
http://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=114684868612168&id=114683418612313&notif_t=feed_comment_reply

I think that it would go a long ways towards discrediting "Brady" if it could be shown that their "grass-roots" membership is comprised of people who are fairly irrational (to put it nicely). We already know that their money comes mostly from large corporate/institutional sources. Now we have the other half of the equation that is needed to completely discredit them. . .

At this point, the apparent rank and file views of typical Brady members are being laid out bare by the pervasive nature of social networking sites. . .

Let's seize this opportunity to (truthfully) portray US as the rational ones!!!

If you comment on an anti-gun social networking site, please be logical, and polite. Please make sense, like I know most of you do. This is the sort of thing that the media cannot ignore. At some point, I may and try and get press on this - and what I would like to see is the truth:

On our side - rational debate.

On their side - frantic calls for civil rights violations.

For those of you who can remember the 1960's - this is how the Black Civil Rights Movement quashed the KKK and related groups. If you haven't noticed it yet, gun rights is one of the last civil rights that was not "fixed" in the 1960's. (It was actually hurt in that decade, and the two that followed it).

Now is the time to fix that.

MODS: please move to appropriate forum - I'm not really sure where this one goes either. . .

taperxz
04-13-2011, 2:33 PM
^^^ ACTUAL QUOTE FROM A BRADY CAMPAIGN SUPPORTER

Thought that would get your attention. . .

I do not normally like to start two threads on a single topic, but this PARTICULAR matter deserves increased attention and focus. . .

The Brady Campaign presents itself as a "rational stakeholder" in the "gun debate." The apparent reality, from looking at NUMEROUS "off the cuff" Facebook comments on a number of "Brady" pages is that the membership of "Brady" is actually comprised of anti-rights extremists.

Please see:
http://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=114684868612168&id=114683418612313&notif_t=feed_comment_reply

I think that it would go a long ways towards discrediting "Brady" if it could be shown that their "grass-roots" membership is comprised of people who are fairly irrational (to put it nicely). We already know that their money comes mostly from large corporate/institutional sources. Now we have the other half of the equation that is needed to completely discredit them. . .

At this point, the apparent rank and file views of typical Brady members are being laid out bare by the pervasive nature of social networking sites. . .

Let's seize this opportunity to (truthfully) portray US as the rational ones!!!

If you comment on an anti-gun social networking site, please be logical, and polite. Please make sense, like I know most of you do. This is the sort of thing that the media cannot ignore. At some point, I may and try and get press on this - and what I would like to see is the truth:

On our side - rational debate.

On their side - frantic calls for civil rights violations.

For those of you who can remember the 1960's - this is how the Black Civil Rights Movement quashed the KKK and related groups. If you haven't noticed it yet, gun rights is one of the last civil rights that was not "fixed" in the 1960's. (It was actually hurt in that decade, and the two that followed it).

Now is the time to fix that.

MODS: please move to appropriate forum - I'm not really sure where this one goes either. . .


Its kinda like "nukes" there are the haves and have nots. If you want to be afraid of another country taking you over you get rid of the nukes. If you want a safe place to live, you keep the nukes. I like and trust us with nukes and i like and trust me with a firearm to protect my family.

mofugly13
04-13-2011, 2:41 PM
I was blocked from the brady CA facebook page, and when I tried to "like" the main Brady page, I was blocked from commenting there as well. My three comments were in good taste, and were merely along the lines of asking for a reference from the guy who is claiming that criminals break the law to get guns, but a psychopath would never break the law to get a gun. My other comment was about why they only are concerned with gun violence, not knife violence or old fashioned beat-down violence. No vitriol, nothing off color, I thought I was very cordial and did not even try to come off as a gun rights activist, I didn't mention that I own guns or anything. These anti's are not interested in any sort of discussion, at all. What can we do if they continue to remove our comments, and then block us.

We should start a facebook page that encorages anti's to come and debate us. Something where they don't have th control over what stays and what goes.

ubet
04-13-2011, 2:47 PM
Mofugly, I could probably set something like that up on facebook. Its not hard, they have a discussion tab. Pm if you have ideas

Connor P Price
04-13-2011, 2:52 PM
With the main stream media on their side, the antis have done a great job of portraying us all as camo wearing paranoid rednecks. Your point about being eloquent and rational is an important one that needs to be echoed. It will serve us well to become more well thought of by the general public.

Sent from my SGH-T959 using Tapatalk

Super Spy
04-13-2011, 2:52 PM
From my perspective, then, the solution is to get rid of all people that don't respect the constitution. Preferably send them on a boat to tour the coast of Somalia to preach the evil of guns (they would of course HAVE NO GUNS) I don't really care where they go, just as long as it's not here....We should of course have some kind of due process, maybe a bill that makes it Treason to dis the constitution.....I don't know, Oak with your gift of gab, can you come up with a suggestion? Respect the constitution, or get out......Illegals included as well, heII they should go to the front of the line.

rromeo
04-13-2011, 2:53 PM
Loons.

rero360
04-13-2011, 2:53 PM
Oaklander, I read through all the posts there and I just love the way you steamrolled over her with your solid irrefutable facts. So unrelenting it was beautiful to read, you sir have a talent with your writing.

oaklander
04-13-2011, 3:01 PM
Thank you. I like writing. Started in 3rd grade when I got an "A" on my essay about dinosaurs. . .

It now seems that things have come full circle, and I am debating an ageing hippie, which as you know - is a somewhat irritating form of that genus.

I don't normally write that way here, BTW - it's somewhat irritating to people.

Oaklander, I read through all the posts there and I just love the way you steamrolled over her with your solid irrefutable facts. So unrelenting it was beautiful to read, you sir have a talent with your writing.

taperxz
04-13-2011, 3:03 PM
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Brady-Campaign-The-Untruths/107878782629264

loose_electron
04-13-2011, 3:05 PM
A measured response. No ranting. Inform politely and factually. Get people who have never shot a gun to be exposed to the subject and experience it as a sport/hobby.

Anybody got a good set of "talking points" that don't look like a "ranting gun nut" ???

safewaysecurity
04-13-2011, 3:07 PM
"Benjamin, The greatest tool for self-preservation is one's spiritual Judgment. Deep caring, trusting friendships, and nowadays, the Internet are good ones, too." Wow.... doesn't that sound great? I seriously think these Brady people are demented. I don't hate them so much as I feel sorry for them. I've seen most of their FB profiles and most of them are the same. They are usually socialist and are usually very old and incompetent. I was also banned from the Brady page after stating facts.

loose_electron
04-13-2011, 3:08 PM
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Brady-Campaign-The-Untruths/107878782629264

Lets all "like" this page!!! Its brand new!! Spread the word!!!!!!!!1

WRONG Approach!

1. You are pointing at the opponent and giving them credence by recognizing them.
2. You want something positive, not something finding fault.
3. Something along the lines of: "Safe use of Firearms for Sport and Personal Protection."

Look at the the first comment posted there "The Brady Bunch...."

taperxz
04-13-2011, 3:12 PM
NO its not. It is simply a place to list untruths by the Brady campaign.

taperxz
04-13-2011, 3:14 PM
WRONG Approach!

1. You are pointing at the opponent and giving them credence by recognizing them.
2. You want something positive, not something finding fault.
3. Something along the lines of: "Safe use of Firearms for Sport and Personal Protection."

Look at the the first comment posted there "The Brady Bunch...."

First you want everyone to ignore them and then be cordial to them?? @#$% that!!!

loose_electron
04-13-2011, 3:23 PM
You come off as a fanatic, you are going to get ignored.

You want something positive about what you are promoting.

You go and make a case for what you want and what your position is. Don't boost the other side up by acknowledging them.

Brady puts forth a ton of FUD. The "assault clips" targets with the little girl in pigtails pisses me off in a big way. But dealing with it by talking about safety, sporting, hunting, successes in personal protection, are the things that will help make headway with the general public.

You go into rant and rave mode and you are gonna get ignored, or worse yet, strengthen the other sides position.

taperxz
04-13-2011, 3:27 PM
You come off as a fanatic, you are going to get ignored.

You want something positive about what you are promoting.

You go and make a case for what you want and what your position is. Don't boost the other side up by acknowledging them.

Brady puts forth a ton of FUD. The "assault clips" targets with the little girl in pigtails pisses me off in a big way. But dealing with it by talking about safety, sporting, hunting, successes in personal protection, are the things that will help make headway with the general public.

You go into rant and rave mode and you are gonna get ignored, or worse yet, strengthen the other sides position.

First of all you are hi jacking the thread. I simply posted a like to "FACEBOOK"!! Which is world wide. There is no rant. Its just a place to keep them in check with their UNTRUTHS. What do you mean ignored???????? I have no friends anyway. Accept for my dogs and guns that is.

taperxz
04-13-2011, 3:29 PM
Back to Oaks topic!!!!! Sorry for the distraction. :)

loose_electron
04-13-2011, 3:37 PM
"On our side rational debate"

I am quoting Oaklander there.
And - that is what I am suggesting here.

You get into rant and rave mode and you shoot yourself in the foot.

taperxz
04-13-2011, 3:41 PM
"On our side rational debate"

I am quoting Oaklander there.
And - that is what I am suggesting here.

You get into rant and rave mode and you shoot yourself in the foot.

If you don't like it don't visit the page!! There is no ranting or raving! Oh and please don't worry about my foot.

Besides its just a FB page! What if you told Kes not to do a forum like calguns because people will just rant and rave and....... ???????????

Again, back to Oaks topic!!

Glock22Fan
04-13-2011, 3:47 PM
The apparent reality, from looking at NUMEROUS "off the cuff" Facebook comments on a number of "Brady" pages is that the membership of "Brady" is actually comprised of anti-rights extremists.

My gosh, you can't be serious :rolleyes:

M1A Rifleman
04-13-2011, 3:48 PM
You make a good point. While its fun to goof with these people, and make wild statements to inflame, in the end it may only hurt our goals.

CCWFacts
04-13-2011, 3:54 PM
Yes, they should get rid of all guns. Start with complete disarmament of law enforcement and military. Then there will be no one able to enforce the gun laws and we can have whatever we want. "You don't like me having a machinegun? Do you want to arrest me? Do I need to remind you, I've got a machinegun?" (I'm being absurd only to show how absurd this idea is.)

It is similar to nuclear disarmament nonsense. The only disarmament you can achieve is unilateral disarmament of the "good guys" and that buys you precisely nothing.

In fact all the pacifism ideas are similar to this, and are based on magical thinking, cowardice, or self-hatred, or some delightful brew of all of the above.

Ding126
04-13-2011, 4:30 PM
Invest in advertising...advertise by playing off the media with all their reports on murder, killings, robberies, home invasions etc..Just like the poster in SF bus stops..advertise how firearms prevents crime, stops crime, assisted LE and saves lives...eventually the words will stick in peoples minds. It may takes years or decades...just as civil rights did

Education I say

ubet
04-13-2011, 4:34 PM
do you have to join the brady website to comment? If not, its shut down on the thread oak posted about. Good to see RATIONAL debate on our side, and "I will rely in my faith to protect me" "will rely on people like you to protect me" from the other side.

wash
04-13-2011, 4:37 PM
Ads don't work as well as grass roots education and it's more expensive.

It reminds me of the signs that antis paid for on the border of AZ I think.

We all got a kick out of them and took pictures next to them with our guns.

I don't remember the words but they said something like "watch out, you're entering a state where people carry guns".

Evidently the antis thought that would frighten average citizens while we saw it as a warning to criminals.

oaklander
04-13-2011, 4:38 PM
Advertising not needed - just some smart people who know how to use social media. . .

Invest in advertising...advertise by playing off the media with all their reports on murder, killings, robberies, home invasions etc..Just like the poster in SF bus stops..advertise how firearms prevents crime, stops crime, assisted LE and saves lives...eventually the words will stick in peoples minds. It may takes years or decades...just as civil rights did

Education I say

Ding126
04-13-2011, 4:57 PM
How about playing the same game as the Brady's except in reverse... We are against gun violence, against illegal guns and illegal ownership...behind the scene we promote laws geared towards protecting gun rights for the good people.

Sorry..there's just no words on how much I dislike the whole Brady organization

loose_electron
04-13-2011, 4:58 PM
social media is not difficult, a good set of talking points to publish I think would be a first step. It has to be written intelligently for the general public however. NRA must have something, I suspect.

loose_electron
04-13-2011, 5:01 PM
How about playing the same game as the Brady's except in reverse... We are against gun violence, against illegal guns and illegal ownership...behind the scene we promote laws geared towards protecting gun rights for the good people.

Sorry..there's just no words on how much I dislike the whole Brady organization

add to the above - for safe and responsible ownership, for the right to personal self protection, for sportsman uses...

oh and add - hunters are for the protection of the environment... - would not want to lose the deer and turkey hunts to a concrete landscape now would we?

ubet
04-13-2011, 5:13 PM
add to the above - for safe and responsible ownership, for the right to personal self protection, for sportsman uses...

?

AND for the preservation of a free (sic) society, to protect against a tyrantical government. If we are going to talk 2a, the back bone of it, was this. It wasnt so you and I could shoot deer, it was to protect ourselves from a tyrantical government.

oaklander
04-13-2011, 5:15 PM
FAIL/WIN/FAIL/WIN

http://oi55.tinypic.com/r9r40m.jpg

Tweak338
04-13-2011, 5:23 PM
When did you see that Oak?

taperxz
04-13-2011, 5:39 PM
AND for the preservation of a free (sic) society, to protect against a tyrantical government. If we are going to talk 2a, the back bone of it, was this. It wasnt so you and I could shoot deer, it was to protect ourselves from a tyrantical government.

^^^ THIS ^^^ Is what we all need to remember. And i am an avid hunter.

oaklander
04-13-2011, 5:45 PM
LOL - made it!

When did you see that Oak?

p.s

There should be no guns on our planet. We need all of our human resources to help each other, not harm each other.

Mute
04-13-2011, 6:36 PM
I don't know about you but I've never met an anti-gun moderate. Every last one I've ever met has been an extremist. Some just hide it better than others.

ubet
04-13-2011, 7:00 PM
^^^^LIKE button being hit

Falconis
04-13-2011, 7:01 PM
As far as corporations, we can play the same game they do. Write to the corporations and get all your friends to do it. PR is more important to the corporations than actual reason and truth. They get enough letters, they may stop giving the Brady and the like minded organizations money. Way I figure it, if they won't give to the proper people, let's cut off the enemy supply line.

As far as the facebook thing, you could try reporting them I guess. Unfair editing or whatever. I don't think it will get very far. Setting up our own facebook page is an idea, off of the CGN page that is already there to promote education and discussion. Problem is, I think a small number of us will have to keep feeding it till it gets rolling on its own.

But yeah arguing with a brady-ier to me is kind of pointless unless there is an audience that needs convincing. Talking to a anti gun person is like talking to a brick wall with a speaker built in with an audio loop. Lot's of crap being dished out with no place for input.

HowardW56
04-13-2011, 7:05 PM
As far as corporations, we can play the same game they do. Write to the corporations and get all your friends to do it. PR is more important to the corporations than actual reason and truth. They get enough letters, they may stop giving the Brady and the like minded organizations money. Way I figure it, if they won't give to the proper people, let's cut off the enemy supply line.

As far as the facebook thing, you could try reporting them I guess. Unfair editing or whatever. I don't think it will get very far. Setting up our own facebook page is an idea, off of the CGN page that is already there to promote education and discussion. Problem is, I think a small number of us will have to keep feeding it till it gets rolling on its own.

But yeah arguing with a brady-ier to me is kind of pointless unless there is an audience that needs convincing. Talking to a anti gun person is like talking to a brick wall with a speaker built in with an audio loop. Lot's of crap being dished out with no place for input.

OK...

Is there a list of Brady supporters?

ubet
04-13-2011, 7:14 PM
falconis, cgn shut them up on all the posts that I have seen. One feeble old lady is the only one supporting brady, and I think she has finally given up. So ya, you can beat them back, shout them down with numbers, truth, and reason in a polite manner. Send the ****ers scurrying home

BKinzey
04-13-2011, 7:28 PM
OK...

Is there a list of Brady supporters?

They are a non profit correct? Then they have to have a list of donors. I'd start by checking their web site.

oaklander
04-13-2011, 7:29 PM
We never try to stop the other side from talking. We like the 1A as much as the 2A.

As far as corporations, we can play the same game they do. Write to the corporations and get all your friends to do it. PR is more important to the corporations than actual reason and truth. They get enough letters, they may stop giving the Brady and the like minded organizations money. Way I figure it, if they won't give to the proper people, let's cut off the enemy supply line.

As far as the facebook thing, you could try reporting them I guess. Unfair editing or whatever. I don't think it will get very far. Setting up our own facebook page is an idea, off of the CGN page that is already there to promote education and discussion. Problem is, I think a small number of us will have to keep feeding it till it gets rolling on its own.

But yeah arguing with a brady-ier to me is kind of pointless unless there is an audience that needs convincing. Talking to a anti gun person is like talking to a brick wall with a speaker built in with an audio loop. Lot's of crap being dished out with no place for input.

G60
04-13-2011, 7:54 PM
"But yeah arguing with a brady-ier to me is kind of pointless unless there is an audience that needs convincing."

we can't convince the true believers, but what we can, and what we are doing is planting seeds.

Wernher von Browning
04-13-2011, 8:35 PM
Write to the corporations and get all your friends to do it. PR is more important to the corporations than actual reason and truth. They get enough letters, they may stop giving the Brady and the like minded organizations money. Way I figure it, if they won't give to the proper people, let's cut off the enemy supply line.


There may not be anything to cut off. So to speak.

Brady's 2010 payouts:
http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pacgot.php?cmte=C00113449&cycle=2010

2010 income:
http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pacgave2.php?cycle=2010&cmte=C00113449

That's IT??? We're sposedta believe that? What do they live on? How do they oil the PR machine? And... expenditures WAAAAY way exceed income (at least, income in excess of $200 per pigeon?)

Something not right here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_Campaign
says they have just over 50K members and an annual budget of nearly $4 million. Let's see... their web site has a "donate" page, $25 and up. There must be membership dues but their web site design is so piddle-poor awful I can't get it to stand still long enough to find out what it is. $4M divided by 50K = $80 per member. That sounds about right (figuring member dues + voluntary contributions).

Anyway, point is, there's no "there" there -- no corporate backers to go after. Unless I'm missing something. Or, maybe the corporate donors only donate to local chapters?

The BBB did give them some black marks for charity accountability.
http://www.bbb.org/charity-reviews/national/law-and-public-interest/brady-center-to-prevent-gun-violence-in-washington-dc-1136

That page says in part:

For the year ended December 31, 2008, Brady Center's program expenses were:

Public education 1,763,852
Legal action 1,136,294
Membership services 241,838
Total Program Expenses: $3,141,984

And, it says

Governance

Chief Executive : Paul Helmke, President
Compensation*:
$249,555

Chair of the Board: Michael Wolkowitz

So, the board's own chair is the only individual donor to contribute more than $200 in 2010? ($7500 total, two contributions). Seriously?

It stinks...

(Later)
Found this.
http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-507931.html

(Still later)
Found a Google Books hit that says Brady Campaign has no dues but solicits contributions. Also "... one can become a member of the Brady Leadership Council with an appropriate contribution." Are you thinking what I'm thinking? :-)

CRPAGunner
04-13-2011, 8:39 PM
Hey Oak. Thanks for all the energy and time you devote to the cause..

You have no idea..........I don't think 'OAK' sleeps much..........

oaklander
04-13-2011, 10:28 PM
I'll sleep when I'm dead. Or at least that's what Gene and Brandon say - so I may as well say it myself!!!!

:D

You have no idea..........I don't think 'OAK' sleeps much..........

Dreaded Claymore
04-14-2011, 2:55 AM
Anyway, point is, there's no "there" there -- no corporate backers to go after. Unless I'm missing something. Or, maybe the corporate donors only donate to local chapters?

If you're missing it, so am I. Oaklander, are we missing anything? You said somewhere that some of their funding comes from corporations.

Wernher von Browning
04-14-2011, 9:16 AM
If you're missing it, so am I. Oaklander, are we missing anything? You said somewhere that some of their funding comes from corporations.

Just gimme a list of who to boycott, and I'm in. (And send the appropriate Nastygram of Registered Disapproval). I just can't find such a list on my own...

Mesa Tactical
04-14-2011, 9:49 AM
[B]I think that it would go a long ways towards discrediting "Brady" if it could be shown that their "grass-roots" membership is comprised of people who are fairly irrational (to put it nicely).

Not so sure about that. Any group can have looney supporters, it's what the group itself says that matters most.

How discredited are the Republican or Tea Parties in your eyes, for example, given that much of their "grass-roots" membership is comprised of people who are fairly irrational (to put it nicely).

A lot of the "grass-roots" membership of the NRA, for that matter, is comprised of people who are fairly irrational (to put it nicely).

liketoshoot
04-14-2011, 9:53 AM
Wow, thats all I'll say. Good job Oak.

Southwest Chuck
04-14-2011, 12:40 PM
This may or may not be a waste of time and energy, but as I see it, the issue is not just Gun Control v. Gun Rights and the associated arguments. It's the debate of the topic in and of itself. Let me explain.

I believe the Brady Campaign has an inherent weakness in that they not only stifle open debate, but actively avoid it at all costs. Why? well we know why. Their arguments are emotionally based, deceptive in their stats, are illogical and many times, down right false and misleading. They also shroud their true motives which is/was a total ban on guns (which thankfully, was eclipsed by Heller and McDonald). If inroads are going to be made in the debate itself, we first have to have the ability to debate it. This is where more focus needs to be put, IMO. We need to expose to the American People, the Brady's unwillingness to engage critics in the open, public area, and then ask the question, WHY?

"How do we do this?", is the question; at least in a way that will open the debate to the general public so they can really see the illogical realities of their arguments. I'm sure Calgunner's can brainstorm any number of ways, but to get to the heart of the gun control debate, we have to (1) open up the ability to debate them, or (2) expose their unwillingness to debate the issues to the American Public. As I said in the beginning, this may or may not be a waste of time and energy.

Say an investigative report/study was done which looked at two divergent groups that had diametrically opposing views on a subject (NRA v. Brady Campaign) to see which is more open and tolerant of opposing viewpoints. (I think you know where I'm going with this ;) ) The study would not necessarily delve into the issues themselves, but would rather look at organizations themselves in relationship to the honesty of the presentation of the issues (and their stances on them), tollerance of different viewpoints, willingness to debate the issues on an open public forum, and the integrity and honesty of their presentations.

Would you like to see a headline and article in the Chicago Tribune like this? :

"Brady Campaign's Website Censors Opposing Views; Site Stifles Public Debate on Gun Issues"
Chicago is a city who's citizens are in real need of an open, honest debate on gun issues. However, residents looking to the Brady Campaign's website or Face Book Page for information, get instead, a one-sided look at the debate.

"In their zeal to oppose some 2nd A. protections, they willingly trample on the 1st, also, and have a bad habit of banning people with differing opinions, or those that do not tow the corporate line......" says Joanne Browning, mother of two, who's home was broken into while she and her children slept, while her husband John, was at work. "I registered and posted a comment on their (website/facebook) page about how I felt safer with a Firearm in my home and believe it's everyone's 2nd A. Right". She goes on to say , "I thought they would be understanding of what I had been through, but instead, they removed my comment and banned me from their site" .....

Something like this might force them into the open and back them into a proverbial corner where they would be forced to openly debate the issues.

Who would undertake such a Study let alone fund it?:confused: Good question. Let me know when you come up with the answer. But until we can show the public the Brady Campaigns unwillingness to enter the public area and debate the issues in-depth, we're stuck with the status quo until something gives.

ubet
04-14-2011, 4:26 PM
This may or may not be a waste of time and energy, but as I see it, the issue is not just Gun Control v. Gun Rights and the associated arguments. It's the debate of the topic in and of itself. Let me explain.

I believe the Brady Campaign has an inherent weakness in that they not only stifle open debate, but actively avoid it at all costs. Why? well we know why. Their arguments are emotionally based, deceptive in their stats, are illogical and many times, down right false and misleading. They also shroud their true motives which is/was a total ban on guns (which thankfully, was eclipsed by Heller and McDonald). If inroads are going to be made in the debate itself, we first have to have the ability to debate it. This is where more focus needs to be put, IMO. We need to expose to the American People, the Brady's unwillingness to engage critics in the open, public area, and then ask the question, WHY?

"How do we do this?", is the question; at least in a way that will open the debate to the general public so they can really see the illogical realities of their arguments. I'm sure Calgunner's can brainstorm any number of ways, but to get to the heart of the gun control debate, we have to (1) open up the ability to debate them, or (2) expose their unwillingness to debate the issues to the American Public. As I said in the beginning, this may or may not be a waste of time and energy.

Say an investigative report/study was done which looked at two divergent groups that had diametrically opposing views on a subject (NRA v. Brady Campaign) to see which is more open and tolerant of opposing viewpoints. (I think you know where I'm going with this ;) ) The study would not necessarily delve into the issues themselves, but would rather look at organizations themselves in relationship to the honesty of the presentation of the issues (and their stances on them), tollerance of different viewpoints, willingness to debate the issues on an open public forum, and the integrity and honesty of their presentations.

Would you like to see a headline and article in the Chicago Tribune like this? :


Something like this might force them into the open and back them into a proverbial corner where they would be forced to openly debate the issues.

Who would undertake such a Study let alone fund it?:confused: Good question. Let me know when you come up with the answer. But until we can show the public the Brady Campaigns unwillingness to enter the public area and debate the issues in-depth, we're stuck with the status quo until something gives.

Their is a talk show host, Lars Larson, he is definetly 2a friendly. I think if you could get them to come to the show, he might be willing to mediate something between a calgunner and brady camp. I dont know. I know it would be preaching to the quire but at least it could get SOME exposure, maybe a news network would pick it up and run with it afterwards.

Super Spy
04-14-2011, 4:42 PM
I think we've all been having a little fun with Elly....and she typifies the Brady Bunch, tries to maintain that she supports the 2nd amendment, and then turns right around and says nobody should have guns. She made a reference to some traumatic event in her home as a child when guns were allowed. Talking sense to her about guns is probably akin to discussing group sex and swinging to a recent gang rape victim.....any mention of "guns' and she gets all emotional and flustered. She certainly didn't want to take me up on my offer to take her shooting :D

Super Spy
04-14-2011, 4:47 PM
(Still later)
Found a Google Books hit that says Brady Campaign has no dues but solicits contributions. Also "... one can become a member of the Brady Leadership Council with an appropriate contribution." Are you thinking what I'm thinking? :-)

Cool find out how much, I'll kick in $20 to get things started, I want Oak on their Leadership Council....if Oak is too busy (I doubt he'd miss that for all rice in China) I'm sure we can find other suitable candidates.

oaklander
04-14-2011, 11:53 PM
They are useful to us NOW, as a "foil."

They allow us to focus our thoughts on why this issue is so important.

Seriously, if THEY did not exist - WE would not be as far along as we are. If they did not exist, we would have to invent them.

The correct way to look at THEM is as a necessary and entertaining source of amusement, and nothing more.

The real opposition (as I have explained before) are politicians who actually pretend to drink the Brady kool-aid. Even the pols know that Brady is just a bunch of corporate smoke-and-mirrors - BUT - it's the fact that politicians MAKE LAWS that we need to worry about. . .

There's not a lot to be gained from really engaging Brady, other than the obligatory "bread and circuses thing" which keeps many of us engaged in (and entertained by) the issue.

Sorry to be so up-front about this - but you really need to think it through.

But until we can show the public the Brady Campaigns unwillingness to enter the public area and debate the issues in-depth, we're stuck with the status quo until something gives.

press1280
04-15-2011, 2:23 AM
If someone takes the time to join Brady, then I'd say they have a 99% chance of being for either an outright gun ban(or some kind of may-issue system for even possession of guns). I believe Oaklander's assessment is correct-these are hard-core progressives. It just proves it that they will always try to hide their true agenda, masking it with words like "common sense" laws, when we know the Bradys have never opposed ANY gun control measure.
While there are some people outside of Brady and other gun control groups that aren't friendly to firearms, I doubt you'll find many that would support total or discretionary bans.

oaklander
04-15-2011, 3:03 AM
Brady isn't even taken seriously anymore:

One area in which Croley has shown less interest, according to several people who have spoken with him about the issue, is restricting the large-volume ammunition magazines that allowed the Tucson shooter to keep firing. When Paul Helmke, director of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, broached the subject during the March 15 gathering with Croley, officials promptly adjourned the meeting.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/over-a-barrel-meet-white-house-gun-policy-adviser-steve-croley/2011/04/04/AFt9EKND_story.html

The "take-away" from this is that STRIDENT movements and positions simply do not sell anymore. Part of this is the crowd-sourcing effect of the internet blogoshpere. Overly strident movements can be quickly be eviscerated by the vast numbers of "fairly" reasonable people who now "speak" (blog/write/post/tweet/FB) on issues.

Every single "movement" has had to tone itself way down in the last few years as a result of this. In the past, the strident voices of gun-banners had to be super loud to rise above the strident voices of abortion-issue people, gay-marriage issue people, etc., etc. . .

This was due to the fact that printed publications only had a limited space to run anything - so print publications tended to print only the most controversial things. They still do - but interestingly, online sources tend to give a more reasoned and rational analysis of these issues - and if a movement gets so "out of line" that it becomes subject to ridicule - all that ridicule now happens in real time, on the internet - and instantly discredits the movement.

People who are smart now realize that reasonable, rational, and incremental are keywords that work now.

Brady is still stuck in 1994, and that's where they will stay.

If someone takes the time to join Brady, then I'd say they have a 99% chance of being for either an outright gun ban(or some kind of may-issue system for even possession of guns). I believe Oaklander's assessment is correct-these are hard-core progressives. It just proves it that they will always try to hide their true agenda, masking it with words like "common sense" laws, when we know the Bradys have never opposed ANY gun control measure.
While there are some people outside of Brady and other gun control groups that aren't friendly to firearms, I doubt you'll find many that would support total or discretionary bans.

Super Spy
04-15-2011, 9:22 AM
A Brady Bashing we go, A Brady Bashing we go, High Ho the Dairy 'O, A Brady Bashing we go!

That is surprisingly therapeutic....I'll give Elly credit, she can take a lot :D

Nodaedul
04-15-2011, 9:55 AM
I read the Facebook beatdown of "Elly" by the pro gunners and I was not at all impressed by our side. I saw a sweet old albeit, misguided woman get berated and slandered by cheap political argumentative tactics. Her emotional arguments were understandable and good intentioned like most anti gun arguments I have heard. Just because her views are myopic, emotional, and ignorant it does not make her a bad person and certainly not a racist.

I view pulling the race card as the lowest and most pathetic attempt to form a fallacious argument against the persons character in leu of a valid argument against the persons beliefs. Her one line rebuttal was perfect: "call me a dreamer but don't call me a racist"

The argument ended when our side derailed it by turning it to race and proceded to scold her with holier than thou attitude. We accomplished nothing by missing the opportunity to address her actual argument and labeling someone who is probably good hearted as a racist.

loose_electron
04-15-2011, 10:04 AM
People who are smart now realize that reasonable, rational, and incremental are keywords that work now.


++++10E100!

Have a set of rational talking points, expose people to the sport in a non confrontational manner. Maintain a steady course of open dialog.

OH, yeah, and litigate as well.

oaklander
04-15-2011, 10:07 AM
Would you like to argue with me about this?

:D

ETA:

:gene:

I read the Facebook beatdown of "Elly" by the pro gunners and I was not at all impressed by our side. I saw a sweet old albeit, misguided woman get berated and slandered by cheap political argumentative tactics. Her emotional arguments were understandable and good intentioned like most anti gun arguments I have heard. Just because her views are myopic, emotional, and ignorant it does not make her a bad person and certainly not a racist.

I view pulling the race card as the lowest and most pathetic attempt to form a fallacious argument against the persons character in leu of a valid argument against the persons beliefs. Her one line rebuttal was perfect: "call me a dreamer but don't call me a racist"

The argument ended when our side derailed it by turning it to race and proceded to scold her with holier than thou attitude. We accomplished nothing by missing the opportunity to address her actual argument and labeling someone who is probably good hearted as a racist.

Nodaedul
04-15-2011, 11:00 AM
Sure. My premise is that you used "Ad Hominem" to contaminate a debate with race instead of having a quality debate about emotional vs logical arguments, thus accomplishing nothing. Is this what you are challenging me to debate about?

FYI: Cant quote or do smilies from phone.

N6ATF
04-15-2011, 11:23 AM
Support overtly racist, written, voted for, and signed by racists, laws... it's a duck.

oaklander
04-15-2011, 11:41 AM
OK - I'll try and not use smilies, since I want to debate you in a fair way. . .

;)

I read the Facebook beatdown of "Elly" by the pro gunners and I was not at all impressed by our side. I saw a sweet old albeit, misguided woman get berated and slandered by cheap political argumentative tactics. Her emotional arguments were understandable and good intentioned like most anti gun arguments I have heard. Just because her views are myopic, emotional, and ignorant it does not make her a bad person and certainly not a racist.

I disagree with you. I spent literally years studying the "civil rights movement" of the 1960's. This isn't just me saying this - there's actual peer reviewed academic papers written by people much smarter than me that support the simple idea that well-intentioned "whites" did some things that actually hurt racial minorities.

For example, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was well-intentioned, and was morally and legally "right." BUT - it had the effect of decimating inner cities, since wealthy blacks moved out of inner cities at HUGE rates as soon as the law was passed (since they finally - and rightly - could). Don't you realize that Harlem was actually once a very vibrant place? Same with Watts.

Things could have been done in a much more measured way that would have not killed the inner cities, BUT - the wealthy do-gooders who were behind all of this had NO ACTUAL EXPERIENCE on the topic. Their ham-fisted attempt to be "right" actually HURT people. Can't you see this?

This was all confirmed when I went to law school and spent a whole semester studying the subsequent legal cases resulting from this law, and certain previous laws.

I don't pull this stuff out of my slippers.

Social change is needed, but I'd rather see it come from the grassroots. When wealthy, and politically connected "whites" do things to effect social change, they tend to screw them up. Simple fact. You can't even argue that I am wrong on this, since (1) you have likely never studied it, and (2) if you had studied it, you would have to agree with me, since my assertions are not even assertions, they are simple and verifiable facts.

I view pulling the race card as the lowest and most pathetic attempt to form a fallacious argument against the persons character in leu of a valid argument against the persons beliefs. Her one line rebuttal was perfect: "call me a dreamer but don't call me a racist"

I don't pull the race card. How can *I* pull the race card. I am white. Am I "pulling it" by proxy? I have no idea what you are even saying. You seem to be pulling something yourself, although I can't quite determine what it is.

I talk about race issues because my essential minor in undergrad was black studies, and my entire adult life has been spent living (by choice) in diverse non-white areas. I do this because I do not particularly even like a lot of white yuppies. In fact, I don't like yuppies in general, but it seems that most of them are white.

I'm a blue collar dude from a trailer park, and I like people who are like me - no matter what their skin color is. I like hanging around with working people, since I am a working person myself, and I do not like people who pretend that they are the real life embodiment of Michael J. Fox's character in "Family Ties." I simply don't like that sort of starched shirt person.

They bore me. Kind of like how you are boring me right now.

The argument ended when our side derailed it by turning it to race and proceded to scold her with holier than thou attitude. We accomplished nothing by missing the opportunity to address her actual argument and labeling someone who is probably good hearted as a racist.

How can someone who is actively engaged in behavior that has been shown to HURT people of color, poor people, and other disfranchised groups -- not be considered morally wrong?

At what point is her behavior subject to criticism?

1) When she joined Brady?

2) When she started posting wrong ideas?

3) When she failed to back them up with facts?

Are you waiting for her to literally walk into a disenfranchised person's house and take away their defensive guns before you feel I am entitled to criticize her?????

Please, don't be like her. Just say something, even one little thing - that makes sense.

Southwest Chuck
04-15-2011, 11:45 AM
They are useful to us NOW, as a "foil."
They allow us to focus our thoughts on why this issue is so important.
I agree with you whole-heartedly here

Seriously, if THEY did not exist - WE would not be as far along as we are. If they did not exist, we would have to invent them. We would be just as bad as they are by "inventing" things. Do you really want to go there?

The correct way to look at THEM is as a necessary and entertaining source of amusement, They DO entertain me and I agree they help us immensely,

and nothing more. If you are suggesting that they have little or no influence on the average Joe-schmoe American and we should disregard their antics as no threat to the RTKBA, I disagree. We must always and continually counter them to keep there rhetoric under check

The real opposition (as I have explained before) are politicians who actually pretend to drink the Brady kool-aid. Even the pols know that Brady is just a bunch of corporate smoke-and-mirrors - BUT - it's the fact that politicians MAKE LAWS that we need to worry about. . .and by exposing them publically for what they are will make it harder for politicians to hang their hat on that kool-aid

There's not a lot to be gained from really engaging Brady, other than the obligatory "bread and circuses thing" which keeps many of us engaged in (and entertained by) the issue. I again, disagree. Are you really saying that there is "Nothing", absolutly Nothing to be gained by engaging them? I've seen posts by newer members here admiting they were once anti but after hearing logical opposing arguments refuting Bady's claims, became pro RTKBA.

Sorry to be so up-front about this - but you really need to think it through. I don't mind directness, but the way you phrased this, I take it as being a little condescending and uncalled for. Maybe I'm just tired (it's been a long week) and I'm reading motivations into things that arn't there. Sorry if that's the case and pro-offer an appology
....

oaklander
04-15-2011, 11:48 AM
I generally agree with you on this. I was a little tired too when I posted that - plus I had spent about 8 hours the previous day talking with a retired judge on this issue - my brain was fried.

The big take-away is that Brady is somewhat of an annoyance, but they aren't worth spending a LOT of time on. I could have phrased it better. Also - I would never advocate deception - when I say "invented" - I simply mean that something like them needs to exist - it helps US, in the long run. Groups like them help us formulate our thinking on the "gun topic."

....

Southwest Chuck
04-15-2011, 11:56 AM
I generally agree with you on this. I was a little tired too when I posted that - plus I had spent about 8 hours the previous day talking with a retired judge on this issue - my brain was fried.

The big take-away is that Brady is somewhat of an annoyance, but they aren't worth spending a LOT of time on. I could have phrased it better. Also - I would never advocate deception - when I say "invented" - I simply mean that something like them needs to exist - it helps US, in the long run. Groups like them help us formulate our thinking on the "gun topic."

:thumbsup:

oaklander
04-15-2011, 12:14 PM
Nodaedul - do you think that moral arguments have no place here???

Try this. . .

Things that needlessly hurt other people are generally bad.

Can you not agree with that?

Gun control disproportionally affects people who do not have accesss to money (by making gun ownership expensive and otherwise difficult to attain).

Can you not agree with that?

Poor people and disfranchised people - by definition, do not have access to money.

Can you not agree with that?

Brady therefore hurts poor people and other disfranchised people (many of whom are black).

Can you not agree with that?

There is simply NO WAY that a rational person can disagree with anything I have said - so my only conclusion is that you somehow don't like MY particular argument. Is it because you thought that I was black?

Seriously, don't even go there - or you will reveal the true problem with your own thinking.

PLEASE - I "debate" for a living. Don't even try to "win" - you simply can't.

ETA: in sum - I've offered you both a "fact-based" argument AND a "moral" argument that both show why I am right and you are wrong. Say something now - anything - and I will show you one more argument that you hadn't even thought of. . .

PLEASE DO IT.

:43:

wash
04-15-2011, 12:54 PM
I used to let my grandmother win at cards.

Why can't you let a feeble minded old woman win?

(sorry, I just want to hear that third argument)

oaklander
04-15-2011, 12:59 PM
I *was* going to let Nodaedul win. But he disappeared when I challenged him to come up with facts/arguments to back up his assertions. . .

Seriously, I don't like it when people try to "call me out" and then don't really have anything "there."

I am FAST to apologize when I am wrong. Here, I am simply not wrong - and I want to hear why Nodaedul thinks I am wrong. It helps me refine my thinking if someone points out my errors.

I welcome the challenge - I'm NOT that smart - so I like to learn from people who are smarter than me. That's all this is about, really. And me maybe showing off a little - which is OK, since we all do that now and then. . .

Just being honest here. I might be a Ricardo sometimes - BUT I am always honest, as you know from personal experience.

I used to let my grandmother win at cards.

Why can't you let a feeble minded old woman win?

(sorry, I just want to hear that third argument)

Oh, you mean Elly. I actually kind of like her, and I don't think that she is feeble-minded. She's actually pretty smart, and she is well meaning - she's just stubborn like I am. Again - just being honest about things.

oaklander
04-15-2011, 1:19 PM
OK - it was pointed out (via PM) that I was getting sophomoric (here and on FB) for a while.

I agree with this observation. At this point, there's nothing to be served by continuing to pound this issue into the ground.

Despite what I tell my wife, I am actually human, and I make mistakes.

Here, my mistake was getting too emotionally wrapped up in my own ego to see that I was really just trying to use debate to verbally shut someone down, based merely on the fact that I disagreed with their opinion.

My apologies here on this issue. I'll try and remember to not do it again.

This is also a lesson for us - let's not get overly emotional on these issues - it sometimes does not help - and sometimes, even hurts us a little. . .

The best way to do anything is analytically - not emotionally.

That is hard for me sometimes. I've had to scrap my way up. I was born a poor black child (LOL - sorry for the movie reference (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079367/quotes)). I am sometimes a Jerk myself.

But I am human, as are our political opponents on this issue. I need to remember that, as we all do.

Again, I am truly sorry if I have offended anyone. It was not my intent.

ETA: I'm not going to delete or edit my posts like I sometimes do - that would be a cop out here. But read them realizing that I have essentially devoted my life to this issue, and that I have a strong passion to seeing all of us regain our self-defense rights. This is not something new for me. I've been like this since I made a decision to go back to school in 1986. It's somewhat of a flaw, but makes me useful to you guys, as long as I don't get too emotional, like I just did. Please realize that there is no malice in my heart on this issue, I am your servant on this issue and as such, I am NOT above reproach. I work for you.

G60
04-15-2011, 1:34 PM
I don't think any apology is necessary.
Perhaps you may have been a big to eager in daring anyone and everyone to try to disagree with you (definitely not saying that I do, I've learned a lot from your posts), but I really hope you don't refrain from these types of debates in the future.
In my opinion, your argument is much more effective and much more likely to be taken seriously than the tired and somewhat juvenile 'what part of shall not infringe..., guns don't kill people..., spoons make people fat..." arguments that pollute most discussion, as true as those statements may be. They've heard that all before, and they're not going to listen to it.
Giving them something new and no less truthful to hear may actually change a few minds.
We're very lucky to have someone like Oaklander on our side.

wash
04-15-2011, 1:38 PM
In my book, sophomoric isn't as bad as insensitive and the antis are surely insensitive to our desire to retain and exercise our second (and first) amendment rights.

My usual response to ridiculous arguments is to go equally ridiculous in the opposite direction and your response was much more moderate than that.

ubet
04-15-2011, 1:49 PM
In my pms with Elly, she even said, to let her know when I was gone, she would call and check in with my wife. She HONESTLY meant well, was just VERY misguided.

I have no problem with letting someone win at cards (as long as their is no money) buy my life is not a game, and I have made the concious decision to, if I have to, defend myself with a firearm. I will not let an anit gunner win a firearm debate with me, PERIOD! If you let them win once, they will keep trying to win, they need to be beat down every time the put their head up. Just think of it as "whack-a-mole".

oaklander
04-15-2011, 1:49 PM
I agree with you guys - but do I need to further refine how I "talk" to people. I DO have a tendancy to pee people off sometimes, and it hurts my effectiveness - not all the time - but sometimes. . .

I'm really just trying to do a good job here - and despite my postings - I don't really have a big ego about this kind of stuff. I'll change anything that I need to - if it appears that I am not doing something right.

I agree that the 2A arguments are sometimes simplistic (and they depend on what the 2A "is" at any given time).

Therefore, I like to also see the "common sense gun rights" arguments that we've been using more and more. There's actually a legal basis for this under all sorts of legal doctrines. The big legal case that allowed us to get OLL's was decided on common sense, if you read it.

Let's just remember that we have many arguments in our favor, and not all of those are "hard" legal arguments. . .

Let's also remember that our credibility is dependent on us being the good guys here.

oaklander
04-15-2011, 1:51 PM
Yes, she actually reminds me of my mom, who I love dearly.

In my pms with Elly, she even said, to let her know when I was gone, she would call and check in with my wife. She HONESTLY meant well, was just VERY misguided.

I have no problem with letting someone win at cards (as long as their is no money) buy my life is not a game, and I have made the concious decision to, if I have to, defend myself with a firearm. I will not let an anit gunner win a firearm debate with me, PERIOD! If you let them win once, they will keep trying to win, they need to be beat down every time the put their head up. Just think of it as "whack-a-mole".

curtisfong
04-15-2011, 2:07 PM
Yes, she actually reminds me of my mom, who I love dearly.

ditto.

Err. My mom, not yours :)

Nodaedul
04-15-2011, 2:08 PM
Crap, I finished a long winded response to you Oak and then when I hit post it said I was logged out and killed my input. Ill respond later tonight when I can. The gist of my long rebuttal was that you want to argue this esoteric pro-gun argument that is in your area of expertise when there are a variety of pro-gun arguments. There are many illogical and emotional reasons why anti-gunners are anti and it is rediculous to call every knee-jerk "eww guns kill" anti-gunner a racist. You chose a specific pro-gun argument to unfairly paint your opposition as a racist which is a cheap argumentative fallacy "red herring" technique known as "ad hominem". You accomplished nothing.

oaklander
04-15-2011, 2:15 PM
Yes, I agree with you. I was kind of a richard.

We are done with this now. Thank you for pointing it out, etc. . .

Let's move on to something else, please.

One thing I think (this is an opinion) is that the ability to drop something is as useful as the ability to pick something up. I stand behind my words - I just think I was too quick to use them, here. We all have a certain amount of power in our lives, and it's the discreet use of power that defines true power. Swing richards are not power - they are simply swinging richards.

Let's just both zip up here.

Crap, I finished a long winded response to you Oak and then when I hit post it said I was logged out and killed my input. Ill respond later tonight when I can. The gist of my long rebuttal was that you want to argue this esoteric pro-gun argument that is in your area of expertise when there are a variety of pro-gun arguments. There are many illogical and emotional reasons why anti-gunners are anti and it is rediculous to call every knee-jerk "eww guns kill" anti-gunner a racist. You chose a specific pro-gun argument to unfairly paint your opposition as a racist which is a cheap argumentative fallacy "red herring" technique known as "ad hominem". You accomplished nothing.

Dreaded Claymore
04-15-2011, 2:29 PM
Again, I am truly sorry if I have offended anyone. It was not my intent.

Forgiven. It's hard to argue on the Internet because we can't see each other's faces or hear each other's voices, both of which communicate an incredible amount of information.

Wernher von Browning
04-15-2011, 2:43 PM
...and the antis are surely insensitive to our desire to retain and exercise our second (and first) amendment rights.

My idea for a T-shirt has the following on it:

DIVERSITY DOES NOT INCLUDE YOU

Nodaedul
04-15-2011, 3:10 PM
No offense taken here! :-)

I just think it would have been more interesting to counter the anti with some of our dreaded logic and reasoning instead of scare her away because now she's probably thinking something along the lines of "wait what? I just want to make the world a better place and stop the killing and now some gun nut is calling me a racist!"

oaklander
04-15-2011, 3:44 PM
Your point is well taken - and I think we can learn a lot from our own strategic mistakes - including mine.

:D

No offense taken here! :-)

I just think it would have been more interesting to counter the anti with some of our dreaded logic and reasoning instead of scare her away because now she's probably thinking something along the lines of "wait what? I just want to make the world a better place and stop the killing and now some gun nut is calling me a racist!"

GOEX FFF
04-16-2011, 2:16 PM
Isn't it also ironic that the bRaDy's have laid complete silent about Prodject Gunwalker?

If they were truly about stopping gun violence Helmke would/should be calling for ATF reform or further investigation on his blog O' ramas. But of course, for the bRaDy's it's about controlling the arms of the people, NOT about what the .gov does involving gun violence.

There was ONE person who posted a link to the CBS and Fox news story about the ATF scandal & investigation on their FB a few months ago.. not ONE comment from the anti followers on the matter.

Scumbags, all of them.

Swiss
04-16-2011, 4:15 PM
If you're referring to Elly - last I heard she wanted to start a Brady Chapter in Richmond. Haven't heard anything since though.

Oaklander, I read through all the posts there and I just love the way you steamrolled over her with your solid irrefutable facts. So unrelenting it was beautiful to read, you sir have a talent with your writing.