PDA

View Full Version : Brady Camp Co-opting the Civil Rights Language


CitaDeL
12-04-2012, 2:56 PM
Received this from their mass email;


Dear CitaDeL,


In the wake of the recent tragedy that claimed the lives of NFL linebacker Jovan Belcher and his girlfriend Kasandra Perkins, the national conversation about common sense solutions to gun violence continues to gain unprecedented momentum.

This past Sunday night, Bob Costas, reading the words of journalist Jason Whitlock, made a powerful and eloquent appeal for some common sense.

Last night, I had the opportunity to appear on The Ed Show with The New York Times sports reporter William C. Rhoden who said that gun violence should be the NFL’s next big “civil rights issue."

Once again, Americans from across the nation and across the political spectrum are coming together to say that We Are Better Than This – better than a nation where more than 500 women are killed by their husbands or intimate acquaintances with guns every year – better than 32 gun murders every day.

On The Ed Show last night, I was asked whether I think the next congress will finally take up the issue of gun violence. I confidently answered, “Yes, because it’s a conversation the American public wants to have.”

And now we look forward to taking that conversation – your voice – to Congress in 2013!

We have unprecedented momentum and we are more certain than ever, with your continued support, the national conversation around gun violence will only continue to build until we make this the better, safer, nation we all want and deserve!

Sincerely,

Dan Gross, President
Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence

P.S. Bob Costas should be applauded for joining that conversation, for boldly representing the voice of all of us who know we are better than this and want to live in a safer nation. If you would like to send a letter to NBC to show your support for Bob, you can email nbcsportshelp@nbcuni.com

Common sense was trotted out once again, but this time they are attempting to transform opposition to gun violence into a 'civil rights' cause. I believe we need to steal this from them and turn it on it's head to mean something distinctly different than proposing even more punitive gun policy changes.

Sutcliffe
12-04-2012, 3:00 PM
WTF?
Careful which horse you hitch to your wagon.

kaligaran
12-04-2012, 3:13 PM
This doesn't surprise me in the least.

Not like this line backer couldn't have killed that rather small woman (especially in comparison) with his bare hands if he wanted to.

Keep in mind, the brady bunch isn't anti-violence or even anti-domestic assault. They just against it if it involves a gun.

The NFL should definitely take a stance against violence and domestic violence. Who in their right mind wouldn't?

Let's see... NFL player charges in the last year:
http://www.utsandiego.com/nfl/arrests-database/

The vast majority are DUI and assault/domestic assault.

I only saw 1 mention of firearm in the first three pages which is all charges in the last year.

IVC
12-04-2012, 3:16 PM
Gun rights are now civil rights.

Bradys are probably most afraid of general population understanding and accepting that guns rights are civil rights and that fighting against them makes one a bigot. It is very important for our side to claim the phrase "civil rights" and use it as often as possible when talking about gun rights.

IVC
12-04-2012, 3:18 PM
The vast majority are DUI and assault/domestic assault.

Here comes the call for renewal of prohibition and "assault fists." :rolleyes:

alfred1222
12-04-2012, 3:21 PM
Here comes the call for renewal of prohibition and "assault fists." :rolleyes:

I know, gotta Ban those before the sheeple hurt themselves

CitaDeL
12-04-2012, 3:29 PM
Gun rights are now civil rights.

Bradys are probably most afraid of general population understanding and accepting that guns rights are civil rights and that fighting against them makes one a bigot. It is very important for our side to claim the phrase "civil rights" and use it as often as possible when talking about gun rights.

Gun rights have ALWAYS been civil rights... they are listed in the Bill of Rights. But now, Mr. Gross is attempting to add hand gun control in that same list (perhaps of those unenumerated rights)... But he forgets, the Constitution and the BOR were constructed to limit government.

Perhaps he should be asked, if freedom from gun violence is a civil right, then we should equally be free from domestic violence, gang violence, and racial violence- shouldnt we? Then we should ban cohabitation, gangs, and races and live in cubicles to keep everyone from the possibility of interaction that might lead to violence. (But real civil rights would suffer in view of the impossible restrictions that would need to be applied.)

wildhawker
12-04-2012, 3:30 PM
To counter that BS, please sign our petition ("Jason Whitlock, Bob Costas, NBC Sports, FOX Sports, and the NFL: Apologize to America's millions of law-abiding and peaceful gun owners!") at https://www.change.org/petitions/jason-whitlock-bob-costas-nbc-sports-fox-sports-and-the-nfl-apologize-to-america-s-millions-of-law-abiding-and-peaceful-gun-owners.

-Brandon

Fatgunman
12-04-2012, 3:32 PM
Why don't they just pass a law saying that killing people is a crime.........oh wait a minute:facepalm:

The War Wagon
12-04-2012, 3:40 PM
Sarah Brady's been reading "Enrich Your Word Power" in Reader's Digest again, I see. :rolleyes:

Too bad it doesn't actually increase her BRAIN power - she's barely got a quarter watt bulb burning in the belfry... http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-confused010.gif

Window_Seat
12-04-2012, 3:47 PM
There is only one thing that will hurt the Brady Campaign, and that is; They are more opposed to legal gun ownership than illegal gun possession.

Erik.

cjc16
12-04-2012, 3:59 PM
To counter that BS, please sign our petition ("Jason Whitlock, Bob Costas, NBC Sports, FOX Sports, and the NFL: Apologize to America's millions of law-abiding and peaceful gun owners!") at https://www.change.org/petitions/jason-whitlock-bob-costas-nbc-sports-fox-sports-and-the-nfl-apologize-to-america-s-millions-of-law-abiding-and-peaceful-gun-owners.

-Brandon

signed

Carnivore
12-04-2012, 5:10 PM
So again, water is wet, the sky is up, dog bites hurt...Ya these people never saw a tragedy they didn't want to exploit.

Peter.Steele
12-04-2012, 5:31 PM
Okay, so waitaminute here ... can anybody at Brady do basic arithmetic?

500 per year ... that's greater than 32 per day? Something's not adding up here.

IVC
12-04-2012, 6:31 PM
Gun rights have ALWAYS been civil rights... they are listed in the Bill of Rights.

Yes and no. The catch is that the *second amendment* has always been in the BOR, but the *interpretation* of the second amendment was settled only recently.

If the court ruled that 2A is about state militias and that there is no individual right, what we here call "gun rights" would be out of scope of 2A and therefore not a civil right.

This might look like details, but it's actually very crucial. Now, we can claim that "gun rights = civil rights" and have a Supreme Court ruling to prove it. Anyone going into argument of "but, but, militia, well regulated, but, but" can be smacked down with a simple "the Supreme Court says otherwise."

Hdawg
12-04-2012, 8:21 PM
To counter that BS, please sign our petition ("Jason Whitlock, Bob Costas, NBC Sports, FOX Sports, and the NFL: Apologize to America's millions of law-abiding and peaceful gun owners!") at https://www.change.org/petitions/jason-whitlock-bob-costas-nbc-sports-fox-sports-and-the-nfl-apologize-to-america-s-millions-of-law-abiding-and-peaceful-gun-owners.

-Brandon

Done!

Carnivore
12-04-2012, 11:57 PM
Okay, so waitaminute here ... can anybody at Brady do basic arithmetic?

500 per year ... that's greater than 32 per day? Something's not adding up here. You mean that 32 a day is greater then 500 a year? Ya 11k more. So they are counting the Jupiter calender?. This is the Brady's we are talking about. They never mess up a perfectly good lie with any form or truth, proof or accountability.

strongpoint
12-05-2012, 4:02 AM
Okay, so waitaminute here ... can anybody at Brady do basic arithmetic?

500 per year ... that's greater than 32 per day? Something's not adding up here.

they're two different statistics. they're not supposed to add up.

cdtx2001
12-05-2012, 4:06 AM
The Brady Campaign:
A group fading into obscurity and grasping at straws.

I cannot wait until they are completely gone, that way I don't have to listen to their lies and spin anymore.

donny douchebag
12-05-2012, 4:19 AM
they're two different statistics. they're not supposed to add up.

Finally, someone gets it, and all it took was basic reading comprehension.

Eldraque
12-05-2012, 5:13 AM
reading such foolish ignorance was difficult..."nearly 32 gun murders a day" well what about the person killed every 5 minutes from a drunk driver? any stat can look scary by itself.

SteveMartin
12-05-2012, 5:59 AM
To counter that BS, please sign our petition ("Jason Whitlock, Bob Costas, NBC Sports, FOX Sports, and the NFL: Apologize to America's millions of law-abiding and peaceful gun owners!") at https://www.change.org/petitions/jason-whitlock-bob-costas-nbc-sports-fox-sports-and-the-nfl-apologize-to-america-s-millions-of-law-abiding-and-peaceful-gun-owners.

-Brandon

Done.

Of course, the site immediately put up an ad/link for MAIG. :rolleyes:

CDFingers
12-05-2012, 9:02 AM
If we say that "gun rights are civil rights" we (and the Brady's) have to accept also that "civil rights include gun rights."

The Brady's have to accept that.

CDFingers

wildhawker
12-05-2012, 9:38 AM
Done.

Of course, the site immediately put up an ad/link for MAIG. :rolleyes:

I'm quite happy to compete in the free market against e.g. MAIG and Brady.

-Brandon

Dantedamean
12-05-2012, 9:43 AM
The Brady Campaign:
A group fading into obscurity and grasping at straws.

I cannot wait until they are completely gone, that way I don't have to listen to their lies and spin anymore.

Once they're gone some other dumb *** group will pop up to take their place.

kaligaran
12-05-2012, 10:14 AM
Here comes the call for renewal of prohibition and "assault fists." :rolleyes:

I see an 'assault fist' flowchart guide in our future!

We already made an 'assault noodles' flowchart. (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=609068)

dfletcher
12-05-2012, 10:20 AM
I took advantage of the NBC link:

"Please thank Mr. Costas on my behalf for making it easier to decide which football games to watch. I have excluded NBC from my playlist. I am also contacting your NFL dedicated advertisers and the NFL directly."

putput
12-05-2012, 11:03 AM
unprecedented...

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTfzTPQBNFV8crWgfJD75pbzTM2Hqpsf 2NWUTmOPX2d-0WOxfJ5aoi5NYH4

the86d
12-05-2012, 11:06 AM
Ban microwaves, as they are frying anti's brains...

1BigPea
12-05-2012, 11:16 AM
I took advantage of the NBC link:

"Please thank Mr. Costas on my behalf for making it easier to decide which football games to watch. I have excluded NBC from my playlist. I am also contacting your NFL dedicated advertisers and the NFL directly."

Same here...email sent.

Oh...and petition signed as well.

wjc
12-05-2012, 7:53 PM
Sent the email. I'll sign the petition at work. I can't get there from my home computer.

VAReact
12-06-2012, 9:28 AM
Petition signed.

Guns4ever
12-06-2012, 10:07 AM
Signed.

radioman
12-06-2012, 10:22 AM
Let's do some math.
32x365=11,680, minis 500 woman=11,180 gun deaths. How many of them are self defense, police shooting and murder. Living in the USA today are some 330,000,000 sole's. Now ask how many are killed on our highways every years, should we ban cars? Then there is cancer, adis, old age and loving the wrong person, just ask the 500 woman, and they would tell you, just ban love and sex.

phrogg111
12-06-2012, 10:26 AM
You lnow, I agree with common sense gun laws in the US. I hope that doesn't make me a brady lover.

Common sense dictates that nearly all of the "bans" we have ever heard about, as well as the de-facto bans of NFA items, should be lifted - because the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Common sense dictates that if someone can infringe on the second thing currently in the bill of rights, they can infringe on other rights, too.

Common sense dictates that these are terrible people.

So yeah. I'm all for common sense gun laws.

dfletcher
12-06-2012, 11:54 AM
Did anyone notice in Gross's article he never once said anything specific as to what he believed ought to be done about guns or gun control? This is where, I think, the folks on the left and Democrats tend to kick our fannies - they are extremely effective users of "terms of art" while we tend to want to provide specific, concrete information. There is a place for both when gaining an advantage in the public discussion, yes?

By term of art I mean those flexible, catchy phrases that fit into a neat sound or sight bite - assault weapon, gun safety, reasonable gun control. I'm not saying it wins the battle, but it sure helps.

BTW, here's Mr Gross quoted in a fairly even handed article in The Atlantic:

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/12/the-case-for-more-guns-and-more-gun-control/309161/3/

"But even some moderate gun-control activists, such as Dan Gross, have trouble accepting that guns in private hands can work effectively to counteract violence. When I asked him the question I posed to Stephen Barton and Tom Mauser—would you, at a moment when a stranger is shooting at you, prefer to have a gun, or not?—he answered by saying, “This is the conversation the gun lobby wants you to be having.” He pointed out some of the obvious flaws in concealed-carry laws, such as too-lax training standards and too much discretionary power on the part of local law-enforcement officials. He did say that if concealed-carry laws required background checks and training similar to what police recruits undergo, he would be slower to raise objections. But then he added: “In a fundamental way, isn’t this a question about the kind of society we want to live in?” Do we want to live in one “in which the answer to violence is more violence, where the answer to guns is more guns?”

Gross supports banning handguns, CCW and supports CA gun laws - yet he manages to be labeled "moderate".

Mg911guy
12-06-2012, 1:37 PM
To counter that BS, please sign our petition ("Jason Whitlock, Bob Costas, NBC Sports, FOX Sports, and the NFL: Apologize to America's millions of law-abiding and peaceful gun owners!") at https://www.change.org/petitions/jason-whitlock-bob-costas-nbc-sports-fox-sports-and-the-nfl-apologize-to-america-s-millions-of-law-abiding-and-peaceful-gun-owners.

-Brandon

Signed ;)

strongpoint
12-06-2012, 2:18 PM
"But then he added: “In a fundamental way, isn’t this a question about the kind of society we want to live in?” Do we want to live in one “in which the answer to violence is more violence, where the answer to guns is more guns?”

i, for one, don't want to live in a society in which the answer to guns is fewer guns.

Mulay El Raisuli
12-07-2012, 8:20 AM
Did anyone notice in Gross's article he never once said anything specific as to what he believed ought to be done about guns or gun control? This is where, I think, the folks on the left and Democrats tend to kick our fannies - they are extremely effective users of "terms of art" while we tend to want to provide specific, concrete information. There is a place for both when gaining an advantage in the public discussion, yes?

By term of art I mean those flexible, catchy phrases that fit into a neat sound or sight bite - assault weapon, gun safety, reasonable gun control. I'm not saying it wins the battle, but it sure helps.

BTW, here's Mr Gross quoted in a fairly even handed article in The Atlantic:

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/12/the-case-for-more-guns-and-more-gun-control/309161/3/

"But even some moderate gun-control activists, such as Dan Gross, have trouble accepting that guns in private hands can work effectively to counteract violence. When I asked him the question I posed to Stephen Barton and Tom Mauser—would you, at a moment when a stranger is shooting at you, prefer to have a gun, or not?—he answered by saying, “This is the conversation the gun lobby wants you to be having.” He pointed out some of the obvious flaws in concealed-carry laws, such as too-lax training standards and too much discretionary power on the part of local law-enforcement officials. He did say that if concealed-carry laws required background checks and training similar to what police recruits undergo, he would be slower to raise objections. But then he added: “In a fundamental way, isn’t this a question about the kind of society we want to live in?” Do we want to live in one “in which the answer to violence is more violence, where the answer to guns is more guns?”

Gross supports banning handguns, CCW and supports CA gun laws - yet he manages to be labeled "moderate".


If "even handed" means letting the antis talk & sink their own boat, this is even handed. I thought it was GREAT!

As for the answer posed at the end, my answer is YES, I do want to live in such a world. Because the one & only answer to violence IS more violence. Its the only thing that has ever worked.

More good stuff:


There are an estimated 280 million to 300 million guns in private hands in America—many legally owned, many not. Each year, more than 4 million new guns enter the market. This level of gun saturation has occurred not because the anti-gun lobby has been consistently outflanked by its adversaries in the National Rifle Association, though it has been. The NRA is quite obviously a powerful organization, but like many effective pressure groups, it is powerful in good part because so many Americans are predisposed to agree with its basic message.


Well, DUH! The inherent illogic of "gun control" can only carry the day for so long.



Others contend that proving causality between crime rates and the number of concealed-carry permits is impossible. “It’s difficult to make the case that more concealed-carry guns have led to the drop in the national crime rate, because cities like Los Angeles, where we have very restrictive gun-control laws, have seen the same remarkable drop in crime,” Winkler told me. (Many criminologists tend to attribute America’s dramatic decrease in violent crime to a combination of demographic changes, longer criminal sentencing, innovative policing techniques, and the waning of the crack wars.)


I'll go a bit off-topic here. But the very existence of the phrase "crack wars" proves that the disparate sentencing between powder cocaine & crack was entirely justified.

I liked how the article correctly described the incident at the Appalachian School of law.


Finally, Dave Koppel, talking about the "infantilization of Americans;



“If they get their way,” he said of the anti-gun forces, “people who are the victims of violent crimes wouldn’t be able to fight back; women who are abused couldn’t protect themselves; criminals will know that their intended victims, who have no access to the black market, will be unable to defend themselves.

“It’s more than that,” he went on. “Telling the population that they are incapable of owning a tool that can be dangerous means you are creating a population that loses its self-reliance and increasingly sees itself as wards of the state.”


Absolutely!

Which inspires me to post this link again:


http://www.catb.org/esr/guns/gun-ethics.html


Where Eric S. Raymond so eloquently speaks on the same subject.


The Raisuli