Brady Campaign

[jon'76]

I decided to read a bit of the brady campaign website b/c I've never actually taken them seriously before, but as I read I'm seriously stunned at the misinformation, ignorance, scare tactics, and blatant lies they use.

http: // www . bradycampaign . org / action / schools/

(Broke the link, I refuse to give their site page rank, -danp)

"Armed students? Armed teachers? That is the response of the gun lobby to the horrible massacre at Virginia Tech. Let's give everyone a gun and start the crossfire. The gun lobby is pushing legislation modeled after a law in Utah that prohibits colleges and universities from barring possession or use of firearms on campus. As a result of the law, 18-year-old kids could carry handguns to class, and kids even younger than 18 could possess AK-47 assault rifles with high-capacity magazines on campus. The gun lobby also wants to arm K-12 teachers."


They insinuate that kids would be forced to carry in the next paragraph, and in this one they make blatantly untrue statements regarding regarding 18 year olds CCing and kids under 18 possessing "AK-47 assault rifles".

I'd love to own an "AK-47 assault rifle", but I'm going to have to settle for a yugo semi-auto AK clone instead

[Brick]

Every pro-rights supporter in this forum should read Brady's site and Moms against guns and all of the other anti's sites. It comes under the heading of "Know Your Enemy". We each need to know and understand their tactics and how to defeat them. (NOTE: DEFEAT not defend against)

[icp4life162005]

An armed society is a polite society.

[Mtbkski]

This was posted a while back, and I loved it. Wanted to get it on this thread, in case anyone googling The Brady Clan will see this and get a chance to read it.

WHY THE GUN IS CIVILIZATION
> By Marko Kloos
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another:
> reason and force. If you want me to do something for you,
> you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or
> force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every
> human interaction falls into one of those two categories,
> without exception. Reason or force, that's it.
>
> In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively
> interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid
> method of social interaction, and the only thing that
> removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as
> paradoxical as it may sound to some.
>
> When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You
> have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have
> a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The
> gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound
> woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger,
> a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old
> gang banger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a
> carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes
> the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers
> between a potential attacker and a defender.
>
> There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the
> source of bad force equations. These are the people who
> think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed
> from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a
> [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course,
> is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly
> disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has
> no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are
> armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for
> automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and
> that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A
> mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful
> living in a society where the state has granted him a
> force monopoly.
>
> Then there's the argument that the gun makes
> confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in
> injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways.
> Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the
> physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury
> on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or
> stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV,
> where people take beatings and come out of it with a
> bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal
> force easier works solely in favor of the weaker
> defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed,
> the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that's as
> lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the
> hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well
> as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily
> employable.
>
> When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for
> a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun
> at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded.
> I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it
> enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of
> those who would interact with me through reason, only the
> actions of those who would do so by force. It removes
> force from the equation...and that's why carrying a gun is
> a civilized act.

[reverserboy]

I've seen/heard of antis coming over to our side BUT I've never heard of a pro 2a becoming an anti. Therefore I know we are right.

If it were not for misinformation & lies the antis would have next to nothing.

[noslolo]

That is a very well written article from Mr. Kloos. Thanks for posting it.

[Willtallica]

Back to these sick fucks that look like they got smacked in the face with a shovel, and they actually do. I compared their head's shape to little nicky who's head was smacked by a shovel. Their actually identical, and in combination with all of this I'm seriously contemplating if they're just fucking retards that need to be ignored.

Oh, and watch this little magic trick.

[Agent Smith]

Paul Helmke was just on Court TV spewing more of his anti-gun nonsense, and of course the host of the show went along with everything he said. What a surprise.