PDA

View Full Version : Brady Campaign Email - "No guns for the law abiding."


CitaDeL
07-11-2011, 3:51 PM
Dear CitaDeL,

Six months ago, the Tucson shooting occurred. What has Congress done to prevent another tragedy? Nothing.

In fact, some leaders in Congress are preparing to make the situation even worse.

We believe the gun lobby is ready to quickly and quietly push an amendment through the Senate that would force states, like your state, to allow dangerous people to carry hidden guns in public.

We’re raising money for our Emergency Action Fund to stop this truly dangerous piece of legislation from reaching the Senate floor.

The so-called "National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011" would override state laws that limit who may carry loaded hidden handguns within state borders. If passed, the bill would allow people from states with extremely permissive concealed carry laws to bring their guns into states that have justifiably passed more restrictive laws.

This outrageous piece of legislation will put police officers in severe danger. In fact, if passed, this law will put all of us in danger. We must stop it.

Two years ago, Sen. Thune (SD) sponsored a similar piece of legislation. Through a massive nation-wide effort we were able to stop it by mobilizing activists like you. Now we must act immediately to prevent new legislation from being passed.

We urgently need your help to win this fight. We don’t need more people carrying concealed weapons on neighborhood streets, into restaurants and bars, and at sporting events.

Is this the way to prevent future tragedies like Tucson? Absolutely not. This is madness.

Please, in the name of common sense gun laws and public safety, donate to the Brady Campaign now.

Please help us stop this legislation. Give your support to the Brady Campaign today.

Sincerely,

Sarah Brady
Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence

So, basically, what they are saying is that they dont want people who have already been veted by a background check and a licencing program to bear arms, particularly outside the states that they are from.

Untamed1972
07-11-2011, 3:55 PM
What I think is most absurd is that MOST of the country is already shall issue with pretty liberal reciprocity agreements already, so this new bill barely changes anything.

Bradys "Hey! We have to fight a federal law that will make it legal for people to do what most states allow them to do already!"

These folks are really fighting to relevancy aren't they?

Pandanin
07-11-2011, 3:57 PM
Did the Tucson shooter have a CCW? I don't think so.

I could make the an argument using two items just as non-related as them, maybe I should:

Everytime someone donates to the Brady campaign a kitten dies.

Yeah, it's just as factual.

barthel
07-11-2011, 4:00 PM
And this surprises you?

Like you said, NO lawful possession.

taperxz
07-11-2011, 4:03 PM
Dear CitaDeL,

Six months ago, the Tucson shooting occurred. What has Congress done to prevent another tragedy? Nothing.

In fact, some leaders in Congress are preparing to make the situation even worse.

We believe the gun lobby is ready to quickly and quietly push an amendment through the Senate that would force states, like your state, to allow dangerous people to carry hidden guns in public.

We’re raising money for our Emergency Action Fund to stop this truly dangerous piece of legislation from reaching the Senate floor.

The so-called "National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011" would override state laws that limit who may carry loaded hidden handguns within state borders. If passed, the bill would allow people from states with extremely permissive concealed carry laws to bring their guns into states that have justifiably passed more restrictive laws.

This outrageous piece of legislation will put police officers in severe danger. In fact, if passed, this law will put all of us in danger. We must stop it.

Two years ago, Sen. Thune (SD) sponsored a similar piece of legislation. Through a massive nation-wide effort we were able to stop it by mobilizing activists like you. Now we must act immediately to prevent new legislation from being passed.

We urgently need your help to win this fight. We don’t need more people carrying concealed weapons on neighborhood streets, into restaurants and bars, and at sporting events.

Is this the way to prevent future tragedies like Tucson? Absolutely not. This is madness.

Please, in the name of common sense gun laws and public safety, donate to the Brady Campaign now.

Please help us stop this legislation. Give your support to the Brady Campaign today.

Sincerely,

Sarah Brady
Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence

I knew you were a double agent. :rofl2:

Untamed1972
07-11-2011, 4:03 PM
Gotta love how they like to argue both sides of the federal vs. states rights issue depending on what suits them.

And yes...it will put cops and everyone at risk.....you know because of all the LEOs and state residents currently being shot by out of state CCW holders when they visit other states.

Hey Brady's......what about that whole "drop in violent crime in states post shall issue"? Would you care to comment on that please?

CitaDeL
07-11-2011, 4:18 PM
I knew you were a double agent. :rofl2:

Yes I am. It is always beneficial to accept any insight your enemy is willing to give you when you sign up for their email alerts.

taperxz
07-11-2011, 4:20 PM
Yes I am. It is always beneficial to accept any insight your enemy is willing to give you when you sign up for their email alerts.


I agree!

GOEX FFF
07-11-2011, 4:30 PM
Anti's continually call for licensing of gun owners.. blah blah.. Yet when there are lawful folks actually applying for these licenses, it's STILL not good enough.

It goes without saying...Don't be fooled..Their agenda is the disarmament of ALL gun ownership.

timdps
07-11-2011, 4:37 PM
Yes I am. It is always beneficial to accept any insight your enemy is willing to give you when you sign up for their email alerts.

The way that Brady is going downhill, pretty soon there will be no one but pro-gun spies on their mailing list...:43:

Tim

rshoemaker
07-11-2011, 9:30 PM
Damn I just spent a few hours looking at the brady bunch's site and facebook.....(never bothered to look before) i cannot believe that people really think that way. It strikes me as insanity on a grand scale. I am so glad for groups like Calguns, and other pro 2a groups to offset the metaly unstable fearmongering that the brady bunch uses to manipulate the weak minded.

If they want to look at gun control working stats they should look at the real world situation in South Africa. strict gun control... only the criminals have guns.

G60
07-11-2011, 9:44 PM
Please, in the name of common sense gun laws and public safety, donate to the Brady Campaign now.

Please help us stop this legislation. Give your support to the Brady Campaign today.



Do they often come out so heavily with the dare-i-say-NRA-style "please donate to us!" tactics?

I don't subscribe to their newsletter, but i've read a few that people have posted here, and usually it's a call to action of 'please urge your elected official!"

Also, from the other thread on national reciprocity, it sounded like we were trying to keep this on the hush-hush, but now it seems like the cat's out of the bag. Does this change the "don't apply pressure yet" tactic we were instructed on regarding this amendment?

VW*Mike
07-11-2011, 10:04 PM
I guess I would be pretty pissed if someone shot my spouse too, then again, I have reasoning to realize, it was the individual who has the problem, and society for turning a blind eye to his issues for years. That email says to me, desperation. Thats it, nothing more.

GW
07-11-2011, 10:09 PM
What bull****e!
Spreading lies through casuistry and misrepresentation
i wish I could spread their message on my lawn!

stitchnicklas
07-11-2011, 10:21 PM
effing brady's dancing in the blood of victims ...again

andytothemax
07-11-2011, 10:30 PM
What I think is most absurd is that MOST of the country is already shall issue with pretty liberal reciprocity agreements already, so this new bill barely changes anything.

Bradys "Hey! We have to fight a federal law that will make it legal for people to do what most states allow them to do already!"

These folks are really fighting to relevancy aren't they?

D.C. v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago were total ownage. The Brady Campaign is dead in the water. I just learned this today but they only have 50,000 members (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_Campaign) -- 20,000 fewer than this message board! God bless America.

xr650r
07-11-2011, 10:35 PM
I got that same email with DONATE buttons all over the place. This is about money and control....

DocSkinner
07-11-2011, 10:42 PM
Do they often come out so heavily with the dare-i-say-NRA-style "please donate to us!" tactics?

...


of course they do, how do you think they pay salaries?

pointedstick
07-11-2011, 11:06 PM
What I think is most absurd is that MOST of the country is already shall issue with pretty liberal reciprocity agreements already, so this new bill barely changes anything.

It would to them; I'm pretty sure 99.9% of committed anti-gun people live in SF, LA, Chicago, Boston, NYC, or D.C. Outside of those urban enclaves, there's pretty much zero interest in gun control.

Gray Peterson
07-11-2011, 11:11 PM
What I think is most absurd is that MOST of the country is already shall issue with pretty liberal reciprocity agreements already, so this new bill barely changes anything.

Changes things for me. I go to California all of the time.

ddestruel
07-11-2011, 11:20 PM
Damn I just spent a few hours looking at the brady bunch's site and facebook.....(never bothered to look before) i cannot believe that people really think that way. It strikes me as insanity on a grand scale. I am so glad for groups like Calguns, and other pro 2a groups to offset the metaly unstable fearmongering that the brady bunch uses to manipulate the weak minded.

If they want to look at gun control working stats they should look at the real world situation in South Africa. strict gun control... only the criminals have guns.



What we all need to remember is the reason we got to this point was uncordinated efforts and lack of support. thanks to forums like this our community of firearms owners and supporters are better organized, better versused in challenging commonly accepted inturpretation of the law or lack there of, and better at mounting public awareness. it took us 20+ years but the tides are turning and the public is seeing our side of the argument it just took alot of beating our heads against the wall and alot of dilligence

AVS
07-12-2011, 12:49 AM
"This is Madness."

Is it just me, or she outright baiting us to make a 300 reference?

winxp_man
07-12-2011, 12:53 AM
Every time I see the title Brady Bunch I feel like ...................................... words dont even come close to being able to explain the feeling ! What a bunch of FU#$K UPS.

CalBear
07-12-2011, 1:22 AM
So, basically, what they are saying is that they dont want people who have already been veted by a background check and a licencing program to bear arms, particularly outside the states that they are from.
The Brady Campaign has repeatedly discredited its position of supporting "common sense" gun control laws. They really want us to believe an organization full of anti gun individuals dedicating their money and lives to passing gun control really want "common sense" gun control laws and nothing more.

The reality is, they have a knee-jerk policy of supporting any gun control measure, no matter how nonsensical, and opposing any pro gun law, no matter how right it is.

I don't see why they should have any position on national reciprocity. They want criminal background checks, and that's exactly what happens with permit holders. The reality is, they want discretionary issue, and prefer no issue. When you get down to the heart of the matter, most Brady members want no carry and no possession.

HondaMasterTech
07-12-2011, 4:01 AM
What I think is most absurd is that MOST of the country is already shall issue with pretty liberal reciprocity agreements already, so this new bill barely changes anything.

Bradys "Hey! We have to fight a federal law that will make it legal for people to do what most states allow them to do already!"

These folks are really fighting to relevancy aren't they?

Some states are locked due to being surrounded by gun-hating states. It would be nice for decent, respectful law-abiding citizens to be able to defend themselves outside of their states borders.

HondaMasterTech
07-12-2011, 4:03 AM
The Brady Campaign has repeatedly discredited its position of supporting "common sense" gun control laws. They really want us to believe an organization full of anti gun individuals dedicating their money and lives to passing gun control really want "common sense" gun control laws and nothing more.

The reality is, they have a knee-jerk policy of supporting any gun control measure, no matter how nonsensical, and opposing any pro gun law, no matter how right it is.

I don't see why they should have any position on national reciprocity. They want criminal background checks, and that's exactly what happens with permit holders. The reality is, they want discretionary issue, and prefer no issue. When you get down to the heart of the matter, most Brady members want no carry and no possession.

They want no ownership, period. They contantly demonstrate mental and emotional immaturity.

Cobrafreak
07-12-2011, 10:43 AM
The Nazi's did it back in 1936. It's step 1 of confiscation.

Wernher von Browning
07-12-2011, 12:06 PM
The Nazi's did it back in 1936. It's step 1 of confiscation.

I just did some digging. It's interesting to compare Nazi gun laws with our current situation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Germany

The 1938 German Weapons Act, the precursor of the current weapons law, superseded the 1928 law. As under the 1928 law, citizens were required to have a permit to carry a firearm and a separate permit to acquire a firearm.

(See for example Illinois, or NY? NJ? firearm owner ID cards)

Furthermore, the law restricted ownership of firearms to "...persons whose trustworthiness is not in question and who can show a need for a (gun) permit."

See the need to state a reason for CCW in some counties -- and then it's left up to the sheriff whether or not you really have a need.

Under the new law:

* Gun restriction laws applied only to handguns, not to long guns or ammunition. Writes Prof. Bernard Harcourt of the University of Chicago, "The 1938 revisions completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as well as ammunition."[4]

So far, that's actually less restrictive than California, where all modern-long-gun transfers must go through an FFL. Unless/until (it's in the Assembly right now) they bring in the requirement that all long guns including C&Rs will be treated like handguns. And look at the restrictions we face trying to get some ammo, or handgun ammo, in certain cities, or through mail order. So, in that narrow aspect, objectively CA is already worse than Nazi Germany (gasp! what he said!)


* The groups of people who were exempt from the acquisition permit requirement expanded. Holders of annual hunting permits, government workers, and NSDAP party members were no longer subject to gun ownership restrictions. Prior to the 1938 law, only officials of the central government, the states, and employees of the German Reichsbahn Railways were exempted.[5]


So, if you had the right papersss, you could have any gun you wanted. I see some numbers, unsubstantiated, that in 1945 the Nazi Party had 7 million members. Throw in non-party government employees. And of course that doesn't include children. 7 million adults out of a total population of some 66 million, I make it at least 1 in 9, maybe more like 1 in 5 or 6 adults, could have any gun, any time.


* The age at which persons could own guns was lowered from 20 to 18.[5]

See current discussion about 18-year-old buying a rifle, or lower, or building own, or being creative and getting it as a gift.


* The firearms carry permit was valid for three years instead of one year.[5]

That's how long the Illinois FOID is goodfer, too. What a coincidence.


* Jews were forbidden from the manufacturing or ownership of firearms and ammunition.[6]

Under both the 1928 and 1938 acts, gun manufacturers and dealers were required to maintain records with information about who purchased guns and the guns' serial numbers. These records were to be delivered to a police authority for inspection at the end of each year.

Gee, that sounds an awful lot like the "bound book" and various other FFL paperwork-retention rules.

On November 11, 1938, the Minister of the Interior, Wilhelm Frick, passed Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons. This regulation effectively deprived all Jews of the right to possess firearms or other weapons.

That alone is interesting because the absolute largest arms conglomerate in the country, DWM (which also controlled Mauser and several other firms) was founded and managed by the Loewe family (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Loewe), which was Jewish. They merged the armaments biz with AEG, controlled by the Quandt family (today, Quandt = BMW) in 1929, well before the Nazi takeover, but in 1938 were forced out of the boards of the joined companies because they were Jewish. Reparations to the family were not made until very recently, 2004 -- see here (http://www.crt-ii.org/_awards/_apdfs/Ludwig_Loewe.pdf).

Other than specifically banning Jews from owning firearms, it seems to me that this is not all that much more drastic than what we are living under right now. Except for Jews, I don't see any evidence that the Nazis ever made use of their bookkeeping to confiscate guns from anybody or any group, once they had been issued. (Unlike the UK, Australia, and Canada's feeble attempt). And remember that once upon a time not too much before the Nazis were denying guns to Jews, there were similar laws in the USA to prevent certain minorities from owning guns in certain geographic areas.

Just for grins, I should point out that after several school shootings and the like, the Germans have just about the most restrictive gun laws of any Western nation. Some are as absurd as ours. For example, old military rifles (if you somehow manage to get permission to own one -- you need to show cause, as in hunting or being in a shooting club -- and it has to be renewed every few years) like a Mauser 98k have to have a blob of weld glopped onto the rear leaf sight so the slider won't go past 300 meters (never mind for now that you can pop out the leaf and pop a new, fully functional one in, in a matter of seconds -- is there constructive possession for sight leaves?) And the bayonet lug has to be hacksawed off. (Logical conclusion: you can shoot somebody between zero and 300 yards, but not beyond that, and you can't poke 'em with the bayo -- if it looks like they're getting close, drop the gun and run like hell).

The Shadow
07-12-2011, 12:21 PM
Some states are locked due to being surrounded by gun-hating states. It would be nice for decent, respectful law-abiding citizens to be able to defend themselves outside of their states borders.

Connecticut is the only one completely surrounded and all by itself. Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont are safe to travel to between those states, but from Florida to Washington, a person is pretty much free to carry.

http://www.moccw.org/images/ccwmap.gif

Wernher von Browning
07-12-2011, 12:22 PM
It would to them; I'm pretty sure 99.9% of committed anti-gun people live in SF, LA, Chicago, Boston, NYC, or D.C. Outside of those urban enclaves, there's pretty much zero interest in gun control.

Yup. There seems to be an "urban control gene," or there's something in the municipal water supplies. There is a tendency for people who live in cities to expect everything to be done for them, not by them. That includes personal protection. "I pay my taxes, why don't the police do something about xxx?" The deal now where Newark requires late-night restaurants to hire armed private security even as they deny CCW to citizens -- or restaurant employees -- is a beautiful, if absurd, example. Their trash is taken away, their food and toys delivered, their car maintained, their homes cleaned, by others who are paid to do so. Outside their happy little metrosexual lifestyles, they really aren't very capable of doing much of anything. But the kicker is, they want their personal world view to be imposed on everybody else. It's the tyranny of the true believer.

As more of the population moves to cities, the tendency will be for anti-gun pressure to increase.

The extension of personal belief systems to others goes beyond guns. Look at the stunts pulled by the anti-fur vandals, the vegan gangs, the whalehuggers, the global warming demagogues, the anti-globalism tribes... "You MUST adopt my world view, or you are worthless as a human being!"

Stonewalker
07-12-2011, 12:35 PM
Werner VB... have you watched the Jews For the Preservation of Firearm Ownership video "No guns for Jews"?

The author of the Gun Control Act of 1968 (forget who) actually requested a translation of the 1938 nazi weapons law... some of it is copied word for word...

Mute
07-12-2011, 7:49 PM
Dear Brady Campaign,

BITE ME!

With all due respect,
Mute

PANTyRAiD
07-12-2011, 8:03 PM
I just did some digging. It's interesting to compare Nazi gun laws with our current situation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Germany

The 1938 German Weapons Act, the precursor of the current weapons law, superseded the 1928 law. As under the 1928 law, citizens were required to have a permit to carry a firearm and a separate permit to acquire a firearm.

(See for example Illinois, or NY? NJ? firearm owner ID cards)

Furthermore, the law restricted ownership of firearms to "...persons whose trustworthiness is not in question and who can show a need for a (gun) permit."

See the need to state a reason for CCW in some counties -- and then it's left up to the sheriff whether or not you really have a need.

Under the new law:

* Gun restriction laws applied only to handguns, not to long guns or ammunition. Writes Prof. Bernard Harcourt of the University of Chicago, "The 1938 revisions completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as well as ammunition."[4]

So far, that's actually less restrictive than California, where all modern-long-gun transfers must go through an FFL. Unless/until (it's in the Assembly right now) they bring in the requirement that all long guns including C&Rs will be treated like handguns. And look at the restrictions we face trying to get some ammo, or handgun ammo, in certain cities, or through mail order. So, in that narrow aspect, objectively CA is already worse than Nazi Germany (gasp! what he said!)


* The groups of people who were exempt from the acquisition permit requirement expanded. Holders of annual hunting permits, government workers, and NSDAP party members were no longer subject to gun ownership restrictions. Prior to the 1938 law, only officials of the central government, the states, and employees of the German Reichsbahn Railways were exempted.[5]


So, if you had the right papersss, you could have any gun you wanted. I see some numbers, unsubstantiated, that in 1945 the Nazi Party had 7 million members. Throw in non-party government employees. And of course that doesn't include children. 7 million adults out of a total population of some 66 million, I make it at least 1 in 9, maybe more like 1 in 5 or 6 adults, could have any gun, any time.


* The age at which persons could own guns was lowered from 20 to 18.[5]

See current discussion about 18-year-old buying a rifle, or lower, or building own, or being creative and getting it as a gift.


* The firearms carry permit was valid for three years instead of one year.[5]

That's how long the Illinois FOID is goodfer, too. What a coincidence.


* Jews were forbidden from the manufacturing or ownership of firearms and ammunition.[6]

Under both the 1928 and 1938 acts, gun manufacturers and dealers were required to maintain records with information about who purchased guns and the guns' serial numbers. These records were to be delivered to a police authority for inspection at the end of each year.

Gee, that sounds an awful lot like the "bound book" and various other FFL paperwork-retention rules.

On November 11, 1938, the Minister of the Interior, Wilhelm Frick, passed Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons. This regulation effectively deprived all Jews of the right to possess firearms or other weapons.

That alone is interesting because the absolute largest arms conglomerate in the country, DWM (which also controlled Mauser and several other firms) was founded and managed by the Loewe family (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Loewe), which was Jewish. They merged the armaments biz with AEG, controlled by the Quandt family (today, Quandt = BMW) in 1929, well before the Nazi takeover, but in 1938 were forced out of the boards of the joined companies because they were Jewish. Reparations to the family were not made until very recently, 2004 -- see here (http://www.crt-ii.org/_awards/_apdfs/Ludwig_Loewe.pdf).

Other than specifically banning Jews from owning firearms, it seems to me that this is not all that much more drastic than what we are living under right now. Except for Jews, I don't see any evidence that the Nazis ever made use of their bookkeeping to confiscate guns from anybody or any group, once they had been issued. (Unlike the UK, Australia, and Canada's feeble attempt). And remember that once upon a time not too much before the Nazis were denying guns to Jews, there were similar laws in the USA to prevent certain minorities from owning guns in certain geographic areas.

Just for grins, I should point out that after several school shootings and the like, the Germans have just about the most restrictive gun laws of any Western nation. Some are as absurd as ours. For example, old military rifles (if you somehow manage to get permission to own one -- you need to show cause, as in hunting or being in a shooting club -- and it has to be renewed every few years) like a Mauser 98k have to have a blob of weld glopped onto the rear leaf sight so the slider won't go past 300 meters (never mind for now that you can pop out the leaf and pop a new, fully functional one in, in a matter of seconds -- is there constructive possession for sight leaves?) And the bayonet lug has to be hacksawed off. (Logical conclusion: you can shoot somebody between zero and 300 yards, but not beyond that, and you can't poke 'em with the bayo -- if it looks like they're getting close, drop the gun and run like hell).

Thanks for that, very cool.

CalBear
07-12-2011, 8:49 PM
They want no ownership, period. They contantly demonstrate mental and emotional immaturity.
Yup. The worst part is, they're totally disingenuous about their stance. At least the NRA states that one of its mission is stemming incrementalism by opposing basically most gun control measures. The Brady bunch try to use that against us, by saying the NRA is never willing to engage in a common sense debate -- that they just claim the Bradys want to ban guns. The reality is, they do want to ban guns. Probably every one of their members would say if they could destroy every firearm in the world, they would.

They don't support 2A rights at all, and they want to see guns pushed out of the country entirely. They are attempting to do this through trojan horse "common sense" measures. They will support any gun control that can feasibly be passed. Notice how it's always the restrictive states that get #1 in their rankings, even though they have some moronic laws. They'll never come out and support a state that's in the middle ground somewhere -- background checks, but shall issue, etc.

Ford8N
07-12-2011, 9:42 PM
D.C. v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago were total ownage. The Brady Campaign is dead in the water. I just learned this today but they only have 50,000 members (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_Campaign) -- 20,000 fewer than this message board! God bless America.

Thats great that we have more support here. But why do they control California government and control the gun agenda in this state? Somethings not right.

Krak
07-12-2011, 10:37 PM
I wouldn't be to worried about these emails. They only have 50,000 members left. The Brady campaign is dying a slow, painful death. Lets just stand back and watch it burn. :cool:

Krak
07-12-2011, 10:39 PM
Connecticut is the only one completely surrounded and all by itself. Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont are safe to travel to between those states, but from Florida to Washington, a person is pretty much free to carry.

http://www.moccw.org/images/ccwmap.gif

That map is outdated. Colorado became constitutional carry as of July 1st. Just an FYI ;)

CitaDeL
07-12-2011, 11:34 PM
That map is outdated. Colorado became constitutional carry as of July 1st. Just an FYI ;)

You mean Wyoming.

luckystrike
07-13-2011, 12:46 AM
That map is outdated. Colorado became constitutional carry as of July 1st. Just an FYI ;)

um no.

Wherryj
07-13-2011, 8:52 AM
So, basically, what they are saying is that they dont want people who have already been veted by a background check and a licencing program to bear arms, particularly outside the states that they are from.

Why is it that when someone is for any other Constitutionally guaranteed right the term is "pro-free speech group", "pro-freedom group", "civil liberties group", "activist", etc., but when it comes to the second amendment it is ALWAYS the "gun lobby"?

That phrase seems calculated to make it appear that the evil, money mongers at the NRA and the firearms manufacturers are the only ones behind the effort.

Mulay El Raisuli
07-14-2011, 8:24 AM
Yes I am. It is always beneficial to accept any insight your enemy is willing to give you when you sign up for their email alerts.


I agree completely. But, shouldn't you be wearing a fedora?


"This is Madness."

Is it just me, or she outright baiting us to make a 300 reference?


LOL!


The Raisuli

resident-shooter
07-14-2011, 10:57 AM
That e-mail is a plain pathetic attempt to generate revenue from sheeplz