Oh, Those Bradys

[PegLeg45]

Saw this on Ammo Land:

Brady Campaign Caught Red-Handed

http://www.ammoland.com/2012/10/04/brady-campaign-caught-red-handed/#axzz28QRXLNrG

[tombogan03884]

That is what Democrats want.
Americans on the other hand believe the best solution to "gun violence" is the ability to shoot back.
Brady might want to also consider that the only "millions of victims of gun violence" are our veterans and their families who the dems also hate.

[fightingquaker13]

That is what Democrats want.
Americans on the other hand believe the best solution to "gun violence" is the ability to shoot back.
Brady might want to also consider that the only "millions of victims of gun violence" are our veterans and their families who the dems also hate.

And the criminals, who too many of them don't hate, but they can't vote, unless they live in Florida, Chicago or Louisiana. More importantly, does anyone even listen to the Brady's anymore? They are about as relevant as Pat Robertson, no one cares, go home, pop a geritol and STFU. Its kind of sad really.
FQ13

[MikeBjerum]

Hint:

This is a rhetorical question:

When will the Brady Campaign, Liberal whiners, and all other anti Second Amendment people out there ever realize that the truth is there is no "gun violence" problem?  It is a violence problem!  We have a basic respect problem in our nation today, and blaming or attacking any given tool will not fix the actual issue.

I actually went to Brady's facebook page and looked at a few posts.  Somebody, who ended up having their comment deleted, must have said the gun is not to blame.  A common reply to comments like that appears to be "If a gun is designed to kill, the gun is the problem."  I read this one enough to realize it is one of their talking points.

Another thing I noted on their facebook page is that anybody who speaks to pro Second Amendment or pro gun is deleted.  You will find many people addressing those posts, but the posts do not exist anymore.  I wonder how the Brady Campaign feels about the Freedom of Speech clause in the First Amendment?  I know they are not the government censoring, but shouldn't open expression of beliefs and facts be a part of any debate?

[tombogan03884]

Hint:

This is a rhetorical question:

When will the Brady Campaign, Liberal whiners, and all other anti Second Amendment people out there ever realize that the truth is there is no "gun violence" problem?  It is a violence problem!  We have a basic respect problem in our nation today, and blaming or attacking any given tool will not fix the actual issue.

Rhetorical  reshmorical,
They will never realize it because to do so would cast doubt on their entire view of society.
These are the followers of the "unconstrained " view described by Bill Whittle in one of my previous posts.
They believe that all humans are inherently good and if their actions indicate otherwise then there must be some external variable causing the deviation .
If a certain percentage of people are poor then it must be the fault of the evil rich, if a certain percentage of people are violent it must be the fault of the weapons tempting them to evil deeds.
Their entire world view renders them incapable of recognizing the fact that some people are just lazy, or can't handle money, or have no regard for others  or are just psychotic assholes that like to hurt people.

[Sponsor]

[Jrlobo]

When I look at what happened to Mr. Brady, I can't begin to explain to him and his family why they must accept that. So I can understand where the Brady's are coming from. But I detest the politicians that use the Brady's as an excuse for impacting our right to bear arms. To me the founding fathers were clear in their intent as the only means the people have to defend themselves are the arms that allow them to form a militia. Back in those days the common arms to do that were the musket and pistol, the same as was used by "regulars" as standard arms and the people as hunting tools. The powder was common and the bullets handmade, so logistics were simplified. Throughout the years we have evolved to the AR and semi-auto pistol as standard arms for our military, so we coalesce on those as the arms needed by the people "to form a well-regulated militia." If ever we are to defend ourselves against a foreign enemy or ourselves (people against a tyrannical government, for example), we cannot and should not allow ourselves to be outgunned if we are to succeed. One requires the people to become irregulars alongside our army; the other requires the unthinkable in that we oppose our government. Two very different logistical problems? Not if we are to be successful!

The issue quickly becomes paramount as today's military employs "selective fire" weapons and explosive devices (grenades) that are denied to common people. Governments tend to want to control their people and a prevailing method is gun control. If a government doesn't control its people, then its people will control it. So why would the "unconstrained" want a government to constrain them? This notion could drive Spock nuts!

[tombogan03884]

JrLobo,   Here's the video I was referring to, BW explains it far better than I could .