PDA

View Full Version : Brady has more Facebook "likes" than The Second Amendment Foundation


Monte
03-12-2012, 10:05 PM
And that's just not right. If you're on Facespace, go 'like (https://www.facebook.com/SecondAmendmentFoundation)' the SAF! The Brady Bunch has around 6,400 (9,315 vs 15,765) more likes at the moment. Tell your friends. Tell your family. Spread the word!

For additional numbers and to see how we're actually trouncing the antis in the Facebook 'like' war, see John Richardson's post over at the blog, No Lawyers - Only Guns and Money (http://onlygunsandmoney.blogspot.com/2012/03/astroturf-organizations-and-real-thing.html). Don't let our winning stop you from helping to fix this utterly wrong situation, though. ;)

P.S. - I wonder how many of those Brady 'likes' are pro-gun people who just want to call out their BS on Facebook.

P.P.S. - Go 'like' CGN and CGF, if you haven't, too.

safewaysecurity
03-12-2012, 10:07 PM
The NRA has over 1.4 million likes. XD

wildhawker
03-12-2012, 10:10 PM
The NRA has over 1.4 million likes. XD

That's what happens when you spend ****loads of money on marketing, fundraising, and staff.

-Brandon

DannyInSoCal
03-12-2012, 10:11 PM
Only 15k brainwashed naive ignorant anti-2A likes...?

No wonder the Brady Bunch is broke -

Their marketing sucks...

Monte
03-12-2012, 10:12 PM
Only 15k brainwashed naive ignorant anti-2A likes...?

No wonder the Brady Bunch is broke -

Their marketing sucks...

15k, minus... 10k pro-gunners who want to comment on their page? :p

Carnivore
03-12-2012, 11:56 PM
15k, minus... 10k pro-gunners who want to comment on their page? :p

LOL!! exactly what I was thinking too.

Chaos47
03-13-2012, 12:03 AM
If I remember right there was pretty much no one that "liked" the brady bunch page when it was new so someone posted a thread here saying it would be funny if they woke up the next day to find there page liked by a lot of people that where pro gun. So a ton of us joined them so we could keep tabs on and mess with them..

I know that's why I liked them...

nicki
03-13-2012, 12:41 AM
Many of us got on the brady facebook and quickly got "banned".:eek:

Only a few of us have survived intitial banning and I believe it is because we were very cryptic in what we wrote.

When a anti gun person show up here, we engage them, when we show up their, they ban us.

SAF doesn't have the name ID of NRA, but what they do have is Alan Gura which makes them 2-0 at the SCOTUS regarding gun rights.

No one else so far has even gotten up to the plate.

Nicki

Stonewalker
03-13-2012, 2:05 AM
While it is somewhat annoying that the Bradys have more likes than the SAF on Facebook, consider the recent February 14th Starbucks boycott by antigunners and the response by civil rights activists - here's what happened:

The National Gun Victims Action Council (funded with the same money that funds the Bradys) declared a boycott against Starbucks because Starbucks refuses to ban guns in their businesses. The NGVAC had dozens of press releases, info-graphics and statistics that were easy for local news channels to eat up and repeat. Despite the fact that the NGVAC is literally run by 12 marketing experts with ZERO grassroots support, news media all around the country ran their press releases.

Gun rights/civil rights activists launched a "buycott" to counter the anti-gunner's boycott on February 14.

On the fateful day of February 14th, the NGVAC had just over 200 'likes', while the pro-gun "buycott" had over 15,000 confirmed attendees. The anti-gunners have ZERO grassroots support. We are winning.

nick
03-13-2012, 2:19 AM
Now, how many members SAF has? What about Brady's? :p

oldsmoboat
03-13-2012, 5:52 AM
Women use face book more than men. More women are anti gun than men.

Tarn_Helm
03-13-2012, 6:09 AM
And that's just not right. If you're on Facespace, go 'like (https://www.facebook.com/SecondAmendmentFoundation)' the SAF! The Brady Bunch has around 6,400 (9,315 vs 15,765) more likes at the moment. Tell your friends. Tell your family. Spread the word!

For additional numbers and to see how we're actually trouncing the antis in the Facebook 'like' war, see John Richardson's post over at the blog, No Lawyers - Only Guns and Money (http://onlygunsandmoney.blogspot.com/2012/03/astroturf-organizations-and-real-thing.html). Don't let our winning stop you from helping to fix this utterly wrong situation, though. ;)

P.S. - I wonder how many of those Brady 'likes' are pro-gun people who just want to call out their BS on Facebook.

P.P.S. - Go 'like' CGN and CGF, if you haven't, too.

Irrelevant.
:facepalm:

littlejake
03-13-2012, 6:25 AM
I don't use facebook; in fact I have all 10 of their domain names blocked in the HOST file on my computer.

I could care less about those twits on facebook.

SilverTauron
03-13-2012, 7:21 AM
Let it be stated also that a lot of pro 2nd Amendment supporters are not in a position to publicly support the cause.If I 'liked' the SAF and the NRA on my Facebook page,my nosy employers might make an issue of the matter.In addition,I like to keep a low digital profile with regard to my status as a gun owner.The less strangers know about my political stance & gun activism,the better.

AAShooter
03-13-2012, 7:25 AM
Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.

HowardW56
03-13-2012, 7:27 AM
15k, minus... 10k pro-gunners who want to comment on their page? :p

QFT

goldrush
03-13-2012, 8:26 AM
Many of us got on the brady facebook and quickly got "banned".:eek:

Only a few of us have survived intitial banning and I believe it is because we were very cryptic in what we wrote.


These Internet forums have been horrible for conversation. In the USENET days, all the discussions were unmoderated, so people could say whatever they wanted, and all ideas could be heard.

Now, with these Internet forums, each side has retreated to its impenetrable camps, where only favored opinions are allowed.

Where a "moderator" has always been understood to the debating world as being responsible for keeping a discussion on topic, now, a moderator on an internet forum is widely accepted to have the imperative to keep offending and dissenting opinions out of the forum. A mind only grows in the presence of conflict.

Sadly, it's difficult to find civility, manners and open discussion on the Internet, these days, though discussion moderation has never been more omnipotent. Perhaps nothing is as violent as outright silencing another person and deleting comments from the historical record, yet such "disappearing" is common in Internet America, in forums of all stripes.

Lives_In_Fresno
03-13-2012, 8:28 AM
And that's just not right. If you're on Facespace, go 'like (https://www.facebook.com/SecondAmendmentFoundation)' the SAF! The Brady Bunch has around 6,400 (9,315 vs 15,765) more likes at the moment. Tell your friends. Tell your family. Spread the word!



Is it a popularity contest? I see the issue being who is right, as opposed to being who on facebook pushes a button.

But that is just me... :oji:

cvc04
03-13-2012, 8:54 AM
I don't do Facebook. I have a very limited internet profile. I haven't even hit a hundred posts in 8 years on Calguns. My daughters have Facebook; I will ask them to like SAF.

SamsDX
03-13-2012, 9:30 AM
Since Facebook is becoming more and more of a place for organizations and companies to make announcements, it makes it easy for me to keep track of the Bradys and other victim disarmament organizations. Twitter is too damn cryptic because of the character number limitations and all the stupid #hashtags and @reply-tos. I would guess a large portion of the Brady Campaign "Likes" comes from people like me.

I understand that your "likes" become public if you allow it to, and there could be some issues with that. The privacy settings have become much more sophisticated, that you can now define what content you want certain people to see or not see. You can't set it for each individual page yet, but you can disable your listing of "likes" from public view.

Jerry1949
03-13-2012, 9:35 AM
I don't use facebook; in fact I have all 10 of their domain names blocked in the HOST file on my computer.

I could care less about those twits on facebook.


Exactly. FB is BS. It means very little in the real world. Flame me all you like but that's my opinion.

radioman
03-13-2012, 10:03 AM
this is nextdoor to the bradys
http://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/Brady-Campaign-Their-Untruths/107878782629264 and this

http://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/Brady-Campaign-to-Prevent-Self-Defense/130706323698148

we could use this facebook page to help the bradys see just how well they are doing

Monte
03-13-2012, 10:23 AM
Irrelevant.
:facepalm:

For the most part, yes. And let me just emphasize that this thread is at least partially tongue-in-cheek. That said, I wouldn't want to see those goons 'ahead' of us in a wheelbarrow race.

Funtimes
03-13-2012, 11:02 AM
I will say for most people, if you aren't on facebook you probably aren't running a business or real deep grass roots person. Social media is one of the largest and most effective methods of advertising. Your largest non-profits spend at least 25 hours a week, with an average of 1 or more persons specifically dedicated to nothing more than social media. So much tin-foil hat on what people may or might think about you is kind of funny. Transitioning out of the Navy this year, I have found no problems with anything I have done, said, or posted, even within Hawaii. Skills and resumes speak for themselves. I use my gun experiences to demonstrate leadership, professionalism, and total overall understanding of business operations; it is most certainly something I don't hide. In fact, I highlight it depending on the position.


There are lots of people overlooking its benefits and its effectiveness imo. Facebook, and the like, are where it is at for business.

mag360
03-13-2012, 1:12 PM
Let it be stated also that a lot of pro 2nd Amendment supporters are not in a position to publicly support the cause.If I 'liked' the SAF and the NRA on my Facebook page,my nosy employers might make an issue of the matter.In addition,I like to keep a low digital profile with regard to my status as a gun owner.The less strangers know about my political stance & gun activism,the better.

so don't add your boss to your facebook? The more closeted you remain, the worse off our rights are. Why not come out of the closet as a gun owner and hit that like button the SAF page. It is a civil rights issue. If anyone says something, tell them you are a civil rights activist!

SilverTauron
03-13-2012, 1:42 PM
so don't add your boss to your facebook? The more closeted you remain, the worse off our rights are. Why not come out of the closet as a gun owner and hit that like button the SAF page. It is a civil rights issue. If anyone says something, tell them you are a civil rights activist!

I am not in any kind of "closet".

The Boss, and his Bosses, are people who would think 250 rounds of .22LR ammo equates to a "cache". I like money, being that I need it to buy ammo and to pay for my range fees among other expenses. Should said boss check my Facebook and see " Second Amendment Foundation" ,my future will eventually involve the unemployment office. Setting that obstacle aside,I do not know who looks at my FB profile. Someone who might be weighing candidate A and myself for one position might decide to reject me on reviewing my Facebook pics of 2nd Amendment activism. People are in jail right now for stuff they posted online.

Part of living in the 21st century is ensuring what you do online and offline won't result in an ugly episode. The people who do take care of their profiles don't end up on the news or in their bosses' office explaining something you'd rather not want them to know.

curtisfong
03-13-2012, 2:01 PM
I am not in any kind of "closet".
...
Part of living in the 21st century is ensuring what you do online and offline won't result in an ugly episode. The people who do take care of their profiles don't end up on the news or in their bosses' office explaining something you'd rather not want them to know.

That sounds like the very definition of "closeted" to me.

RuskieShooter
03-13-2012, 4:00 PM
In addition,I like to keep a low digital profile with regard to my status as a gun owner.

^^^ This.

I've 'liked' Sac Black Rifle for the ads and thats it. No pics of guns, no shooting range tales, etc. Why? Things like this: http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2011/02/08/up-to-2-million-in-guns-stolen-from-gilroy-home/

Call me paranoid, but you never know who's watching/listening.

-Ruskie

Gray Peterson
03-13-2012, 5:26 PM
Part of living in the 21st century is ensuring what you do online and offline won't result in an ugly episode. The people who do take care of their profiles don't end up on the news or in their bosses' office explaining something you'd rather not want them to know.

This is why I've taken the time to learn the settings. I do not "overshare". For example, my primary facebook pic is the rainbow gadsen. If asked by any "anti-gun bosses" (I don't have any of those, plus I'm under a collective bargaining agreement), I explain that it was early symbol of the effort to combat the repeal of the marriage equality law in New Hampshire, before they went corporate. Some of my co-workers asked this question and they were greatly satisfied with the answer, because I was never asked this again, and many of them are gun owners and shooters anyway so. They know that I'm highly anti-authoritarian, and I'm the visible "gay person", so it all makes sense in their eyes.

Again, this is a matter of settings. People just post stuff on their profile and they don't use settings to restrict things.

I am not in any kind of "closet".

The Boss, and his Bosses, are people who would think 250 rounds of .22LR ammo equates to a "cache". I like money, being that I need it to buy ammo and to pay for my range fees among other expenses. Should said boss check my Facebook and see " Second Amendment Foundation" ,my future will eventually involve the unemployment office. Setting that obstacle aside,I do not know who looks at my FB profile. Someone who might be weighing candidate A and myself for one position might decide to reject me on reviewing my Facebook pics of 2nd Amendment activism. People are in jail right now for stuff they posted online.

We saw the underpinnings of this back in 2003 in Ohio, when Toby Hoover of the OHAGV told employers they should grab up CHL records in the county they have business in, and fire people with CHL's as dangerous.

This is the future of what gun owners will be dealing with in the future. Even today, companies are selling social networking profiling software for potential and current employees, and putting up gun ownership as a "negative trait". When the Brady campaign and the rest of the gun control movement lose utterly in both the governmental context and the court of public opinion, they will go after us in a HR context, terrorize us into keeping completely silent.

When Indiana passed a law banning employers from disciplining or firing people for having guns in cars, the employers got really cute, and basically told people when they were being fired, they were not being fired because of the gun in the car, but because they were a gun owner, period. As a result of that outrage, Indiana passed a new law including gun ownership in a vehicle and off property to be on the same level. It put an end to it at least, and they actually put in specific forms of relief. Firing a gun owner based on their gun ownership off property is a major money loser for them, so they just don't.

More and more states are banning the practice, including Missouri. California Labor Code also includes protections for political activity, as well.

I realize that some gun owners think that the corporate policy is sacrosanct and government shouldn't interfere in private business. However, the people most calling for that are not calling for the repeal of anti-discrimination law due to race, gender, religion. They say it's wrong, but they don't press their legislators to repeal the non-discrimination provisions entirely. None will ever be introduced. Not even in libertarian New Hampshire where there was a major takeover there did the anti-discrimination laws get repealed. Any attempt to repeal all anti-discrimination law is taken as completely un-serious.

Gun owners will become a permanent underclass thanks to the Brady Campaign/CSGV/LCAV efforts to screw gun owners over as all being mentally unstable and willing to shoot up a workplace, unless we use our political power to put in protections at the state and federal level that other groups have done.

doug-y-doug
03-13-2012, 5:57 PM
Liked.

IVC
03-13-2012, 6:03 PM
They know that I'm highly anti-authoritarian, and I'm the visible "gay person", so it all makes sense in their eyes.

Being a highly visible person and living in the time when gay rights have advanced the most since the old Greek civilization, you are in a unique position not to worry about your gun image at work. It's almost that the gay/gun owner cancels out.

Same goes for Gene or the several other activists who hold high level positions, are connected with the core of their local society and are active at the political level. For example, Gene's company works with Bloomberg and my guess is neither of the two has a problem with that.

Those who worry about exposure in CA are correct to do so. There is a massive perceptional issue that needs to be addressed, but first the law of the land must be established. Saying "it shouldn't be a problem" doesn't bring bacon home, so to speak. The discrimination is real and can be very well disguised. Anyone from any of the groups that are the usual suspects of being discriminated against can attest to it. Subtle rules the day, so pay attention to what you do online and concentrate on "what is" vs. "what should be".

Personally, I don't have to worry as I fall into privileged category, yet I would never bring up gun issues with business partners or post it online. It's just not the smart thing to do. As the quote from "The Magnificent Seven" goes: "The graveyard is full of men who were very young and very proud."

Monte
03-13-2012, 6:10 PM
Being a highly visible person and living in the time when gay rights have advanced the most since the old Greek civilization, you are in a unique position not to worry about your gun image at work. It's almost that the gay/gun owner cancels out.

Same goes for Gene or the several other activists who hold high level positions, are connected with the core of their local society and are active at the political level. For example, Gene's company works with Bloomberg and my guess is neither of the two has a problem with that.

Those who worry about exposure in CA are correct to do so. There is a massive perceptional issue that needs to be addressed, but first the law of the land must be established. Saying "it shouldn't be a problem" doesn't bring bacon home, so to speak. The discrimination is real and can be very well disguised. Anyone from any of the groups that are the usual suspects of being discriminated against can attest to it. Subtle rules the day, so pay attention to what you do online and concentrate on "what is" vs. "what should be".

Personally, I don't have to worry as I fall into privileged category, yet I would never bring up gun issues with business partners or post it online. It's just not the smart thing to do. As the quote from "The Magnificent Seven" goes: "The graveyard is full of men who were very young and very proud."

I've become a lot more open about my addiction in the last couple of years, and I've been pleasantly surprised at the responses. I've taken new folks to the range, and found that several of my coworkers shoot, too. Your mileage will vary, of course, but the results definitely aren't guaranteed to be bad in every case, even in California. Shooting and gun ownership are, thankfully, becoming more common and more accepted. As they say, we're winning.

The War Wagon
03-13-2012, 6:25 PM
Much like ACORN-secured voter registrations, are the Brady 'likes' named "Donald Duck," "Bugs Bunny," and "Homer Simpson," perchance? :rolleyes:

SkyMag68
03-13-2012, 7:39 PM
Already liked.....I agree Monte, got NRA,CPRA, and guns related decals on my toolbox at work..I make it clear where I stand when it come to 2A..I even got some of my coworkers to join Calguns,buy guns and go shooting.

Wherryj
03-13-2012, 9:04 PM
15k, minus... 10k pro-gunners who want to comment on their page? :p

More like 10k pro-Constitution types that ultimately get their posts redacted.

The Bradys feel pretty much the same way about the first amendment as they do the second.

I would like the 2AF, NRA and CGF pages, except I already did that a year or more ago.

Monte
03-14-2012, 9:30 AM
A couple of gun bloggers posting this up might help bump SAF's numbers. :43:
http://www.exurbanleague.com/misfires/Home/tabid/59/EntryId/1607/When-Like-turns-to-love.aspx
http://www.saysuncle.com/2012/03/14/a-campaign-2/

AndrewMendez
03-14-2012, 9:03 PM
I don't use facebook; in fact I have all 10 of their domain names blocked in the HOST file on my computer.

I could care less about those twits on facebook.

So then why did you come to the thread to tell us? You cared enough to open it, read, then respond.....:facepalm: If i didn't know any better...I would say you have a man crush on FB and twitter!!!

Monte
03-14-2012, 9:28 PM
+651 in two days... and +0 for the Bradys. :43:

Dreaded Claymore
03-14-2012, 10:41 PM
Brady has more Facebook "lies" than The Second Amendment Foundation

There, I fixed your title. You added a K accidentally.

Monte
03-14-2012, 10:57 PM
There, I fixed your title. You added a K accidentally.

:smilielol5:

HBrebel
03-15-2012, 10:24 AM
Facebook is a tool for the systems of control.

Scott Connors
03-15-2012, 10:33 AM
I am not in any kind of "closet".

The Boss, and his Bosses, are people who would think 250 rounds of .22LR ammo equates to a "cache". I like money, being that I need it to buy ammo and to pay for my range fees among other expenses. Should said boss check my Facebook and see " Second Amendment Foundation" ,my future will eventually involve the unemployment office. Setting that obstacle aside,I do not know who looks at my FB profile. Someone who might be weighing candidate A and myself for one position might decide to reject me on reviewing my Facebook pics of 2nd Amendment activism. People are in jail right now for stuff they posted online.

Part of living in the 21st century is ensuring what you do online and offline won't result in an ugly episode. The people who do take care of their profiles don't end up on the news or in their bosses' office explaining something you'd rather not want them to know.

Understand your position. I get around this by setting my privacy settings to "Friends Only" and not approving any friend requests unless I actually know who the people are, and not approving anyone from work.

Monte
03-15-2012, 10:49 AM
Understand your position. I get around this by setting my privacy settings to "Friends Only" and not approving any friend requests unless I actually know who the people are, and not approving anyone from work.

Some people will go a step further and create two profiles, one for friends and family and one for coworkers and others.

RMP91
03-15-2012, 11:32 AM
Facebook is a tool for the systems of control.

:TFH: Bull.

Don't you think I'd be brain-washed, yelling "Heil Obama" right about now if that were true?

Monte
03-20-2012, 2:05 PM
Bump for an official SAF Facebook push.
https://www.facebook.com/SecondAmendmentFoundation/posts/10150762348676217