I wonder if it will be anything like the protest they had at the NRA's Annual Meeting.
Showing posts with label brady campaign. Show all posts
Showing posts with label brady campaign. Show all posts
Sunday, July 22, 2012
Saturday, June 16, 2012
Microstamping.
Here is the video. Below it will be some highlights and my thoughts:
1:08 - Dan Gross says this is just about catching the bad guys. That is not true. Microstamping will only be able to lead law enforcement to the original, legal purchaser of the firearm who is not always the person who committed the crime.
1:29 - S. E. Cupp leaves out the fact that gun registration is not universal. If what Bloomberg says is true about most of New York's "crime guns" coming from other states (states that aren't even considering microstamping or gun registration), microstamping will not help solve most New York crimes. Microstamping will only be somewhat effective if the gun used in the crime was bought in New York.
2:09 - Guy in a suit says gun owners are accused of crimes just because they have guns. I don't know where he gets that notion. Maybe that's the way things work under the fascist system of Bloomberg, but in the free parts of the country, that's simply not true. And even if it were, microstamping wouldn't change that. Again, microstamping can only allow you to trace a gun back to it's orginal, legal purchaser and they could just as easily (if not more easily) be falsely accused of a crime as someone who doesn't have a microstamping gun. If anything, microstamping would create an environment of gun owners being "guilty until proven innocent" as S. E. Cupp says.
3:10 - Dan Gross mentions a cap of $12.50 per gun for making it microstamping. He mentions this in relation to the cost of saving lives. The problem here is the microstamping can't save lives. In fact, it can only be effective after the crime has been committed and a life possibly ended. Again, says it will help catch bad guys. As explained previously, the bad guy isn't always the person who purchased the gun.
3:55 - Alex Wagner talks about gun advocates claiming that microstamping amounts to a gun ban. That much is true. A microstamping mandate essentially creates a de facto ban on firearms made by companies that can't afford to or simply don't want to implement microstamping technology.
5:37 - Dan Gross mentions anti-law eforcement paranoia. Speaking of law enforcement, I wonder if he can explain why guns purchased by law enforcement agencies will be exempt from microstamping laws? Is it the cost? Is it because it negatively impacts the reliability of firearms? Do they believe law enforcement officials don't commit crimes?
6:54 - Dan Gross pushes the false narrative that neither he nor the Brady Campaign advocate gun bans. Complete and utter BS. Taken verbatim from the Brady Campaign's FAQ page:
Summary:
1. Even when put up against a relative lightweight like S. E. Cupp, Dan Gross seems to be just as weak and uninspiring as his predecessor.
2. Microstamping is hogwash. It can be rendered useless with a $2 tool and a few minutes of time.
3. Why are anti-gunners so adamant about this useless technology? There are two reasons. One, some antigunners are True Believers who really think this technology will accomplish it's goals of making crimes easier to solve. Two, the other more sinister anti-gunners know that any ground gained is better than no ground gained. They know that if they can get this to pass, they'll have something to wave in front of George Soros and their other sugar daddies as proof that the anti-gun lobby isn't completely irrelevant.
1:08 - Dan Gross says this is just about catching the bad guys. That is not true. Microstamping will only be able to lead law enforcement to the original, legal purchaser of the firearm who is not always the person who committed the crime.
1:29 - S. E. Cupp leaves out the fact that gun registration is not universal. If what Bloomberg says is true about most of New York's "crime guns" coming from other states (states that aren't even considering microstamping or gun registration), microstamping will not help solve most New York crimes. Microstamping will only be somewhat effective if the gun used in the crime was bought in New York.
2:09 - Guy in a suit says gun owners are accused of crimes just because they have guns. I don't know where he gets that notion. Maybe that's the way things work under the fascist system of Bloomberg, but in the free parts of the country, that's simply not true. And even if it were, microstamping wouldn't change that. Again, microstamping can only allow you to trace a gun back to it's orginal, legal purchaser and they could just as easily (if not more easily) be falsely accused of a crime as someone who doesn't have a microstamping gun. If anything, microstamping would create an environment of gun owners being "guilty until proven innocent" as S. E. Cupp says.
3:10 - Dan Gross mentions a cap of $12.50 per gun for making it microstamping. He mentions this in relation to the cost of saving lives. The problem here is the microstamping can't save lives. In fact, it can only be effective after the crime has been committed and a life possibly ended. Again, says it will help catch bad guys. As explained previously, the bad guy isn't always the person who purchased the gun.
3:55 - Alex Wagner talks about gun advocates claiming that microstamping amounts to a gun ban. That much is true. A microstamping mandate essentially creates a de facto ban on firearms made by companies that can't afford to or simply don't want to implement microstamping technology.
5:37 - Dan Gross mentions anti-law eforcement paranoia. Speaking of law enforcement, I wonder if he can explain why guns purchased by law enforcement agencies will be exempt from microstamping laws? Is it the cost? Is it because it negatively impacts the reliability of firearms? Do they believe law enforcement officials don't commit crimes?
6:54 - Dan Gross pushes the false narrative that neither he nor the Brady Campaign advocate gun bans. Complete and utter BS. Taken verbatim from the Brady Campaign's FAQ page:
Our prioirites are requiring Brady criminal background checks on all gun sales; banning military-style assault weapons; and strengthening law enforcement's efforts to stop the illegal gun market, like limiting the number of guns that can be bought at one time.Anyone who advocates banning any type of gun is anti-gun. There is no way around it.
Summary:
1. Even when put up against a relative lightweight like S. E. Cupp, Dan Gross seems to be just as weak and uninspiring as his predecessor.
2. Microstamping is hogwash. It can be rendered useless with a $2 tool and a few minutes of time.
3. Why are anti-gunners so adamant about this useless technology? There are two reasons. One, some antigunners are True Believers who really think this technology will accomplish it's goals of making crimes easier to solve. Two, the other more sinister anti-gunners know that any ground gained is better than no ground gained. They know that if they can get this to pass, they'll have something to wave in front of George Soros and their other sugar daddies as proof that the anti-gun lobby isn't completely irrelevant.
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
That didn't take long at all.
Not even on the job for a full month and already telling lies:
Welcome to the dance, Herr Gross. You're filling your predecessor's shoes well.
The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, a group that advocates for stricter gun control laws, claimed Monday that George Zimmerman, the man who shot Trayvon Martin, still has his gun despite press reports to the contrary.
“One month after the tragic killing of Trayvon Martin, George Zimmerman still has his gun,” said group president Dan Gross in a press release. The statement then goes on to blame the National Rifle Association for laws that allowed Zimmerman to keep his weapon even after the shooting.
None of this appears to be true.
Welcome to the dance, Herr Gross. You're filling your predecessor's shoes well.
Thursday, February 23, 2012
*crickets*
Things are pretty quiet over at NGVAC ever since their monumental failure of a boycott.
Their last blog post: February 15, 2012
Their last tweet: February 15, 2012
Their last Facebook post: February 15, 2012
Did they reaally run out of steam that quickly? Or were they merely just another astroturf organization *cough*AHSA*cough*? I'm leaning towards the latter. My guess is the Brady Campaign is running low on PR capital, so rather than blemish the viability of their main organization with a failed boycott, they'd create a "crash test dummy" organization (composed of Brady flotsam) to test the waters. Then, if the boycott had worked, the Brady Campaign would join in.
It doesn't help that the Brady Campaign made sure to state that they weren't boycotting Starbucks (despite the fact they've been after Starbucks for a while). Reeks of a bit of "thou dost protest too much."
Their last blog post: February 15, 2012
Their last tweet: February 15, 2012
Their last Facebook post: February 15, 2012
Did they reaally run out of steam that quickly? Or were they merely just another astroturf organization *cough*AHSA*cough*? I'm leaning towards the latter. My guess is the Brady Campaign is running low on PR capital, so rather than blemish the viability of their main organization with a failed boycott, they'd create a "crash test dummy" organization (composed of Brady flotsam) to test the waters. Then, if the boycott had worked, the Brady Campaign would join in.
It doesn't help that the Brady Campaign made sure to state that they weren't boycotting Starbucks (despite the fact they've been after Starbucks for a while). Reeks of a bit of "thou dost protest too much."
Sunday, January 15, 2012
#toomanyvictims by the numbers.
6000+ views:
168 views:
I guess this is just one more example of "We win, they lose. Now, let's get to work."
I wonder if the gun controllers/banners will be bold enough to make that claim if Barack Obama wins reelection. Or will they have the Common Sense to realize they've become irrelevant and powerless even amongst their own?
168 views:
I guess this is just one more example of "We win, they lose. Now, let's get to work."
I wonder if the gun controllers/banners will be bold enough to make that claim if Barack Obama wins reelection. Or will they have the Common Sense to realize they've become irrelevant and powerless even amongst their own?
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
It's what they don't say that matters.
From Media Matters:
Reading those quotes from the Brady Campaign and MAIG, I don't see anything that explicitly supports the right to keep firearms for self-defense.
The Brady Campaign says they "believe that law-abiding citizens should be able to buy and keep firearms." Buying and keeping a firearm is one thing. Being able to lawfully carry and/or use it for self-defense is another. For example, a modern day English subject can (under extraordinarily draconian restrictions) buy and keep a firearm. However the use of it in self-defense will result in a night in jail. And if you dare carry a firearm, you are automatically a criminal.
If you peruse the Brady Campaign's website, you won't find anything in support of self-defense in the home or outside of the home. On the contrary, you will find plenty against self-defense. For example, their opposition to HR 822 which would protect the right of self-defense across state lines and their opposition to Castle Doctrine which protects the right of self-defense in the home.
The story is no different for MAIG. Nothing on their website explicitly states that they support the right of self-defense inside or outside the home. MAIG is opposed to HR 822. MAIG founder Mike Bloomberg is also no fan of guns or gun owner's period.
So where is this upfront support for law-abiding citizens to be able to keep firearms for their own protection? Definitely not on their websites.
Major gun violence prevention groups are upfront about their support for law-abiding citizens to be able to keep firearms for their own protection. Here's what the website of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence says:
We believe that law-abiding citizens should be able to buy and keep firearms. And we believe there are sensible gun laws that we can and should insist upon when it comes to gun ownership.
And here's Mayors Against Illegal Guns:
We support the Second Amendment and the rights of citizens to own guns. We recognize that the vast majority of gun dealers and gun owners carefully follow the law. And we know that a policy that is appropriate for a small town in one region of the country is not necessarily appropriate for a big city in another region of the country.
Reading those quotes from the Brady Campaign and MAIG, I don't see anything that explicitly supports the right to keep firearms for self-defense.
The Brady Campaign says they "believe that law-abiding citizens should be able to buy and keep firearms." Buying and keeping a firearm is one thing. Being able to lawfully carry and/or use it for self-defense is another. For example, a modern day English subject can (under extraordinarily draconian restrictions) buy and keep a firearm. However the use of it in self-defense will result in a night in jail. And if you dare carry a firearm, you are automatically a criminal.
If you peruse the Brady Campaign's website, you won't find anything in support of self-defense in the home or outside of the home. On the contrary, you will find plenty against self-defense. For example, their opposition to HR 822 which would protect the right of self-defense across state lines and their opposition to Castle Doctrine which protects the right of self-defense in the home.
The story is no different for MAIG. Nothing on their website explicitly states that they support the right of self-defense inside or outside the home. MAIG is opposed to HR 822. MAIG founder Mike Bloomberg is also no fan of guns or gun owner's period.
So where is this upfront support for law-abiding citizens to be able to keep firearms for their own protection? Definitely not on their websites.
Sunday, July 10, 2011
Paul Helmke's Greatest Hit's.
Paul Helmke has tipped out the door at the Brady Camp, but he won't be forgotten. If anything, his many lies and moments of general stupidity will provide years worth of ammo for the pro-rights movement.
Here are some of his best one-liners:
Obviously bull. Assault weapons ban, anyone?
Bull again.
Hoplophobic nonsense.
Bovine scat.
And that is just stupid.
This will be Helmke's legacy: A bumbling, anti-gun buffoon not only ignorant of current American law, but Mexican law and the positions of his own organization. A mealy-mouthed train wreck of a man whose career is marked with legislative failure after failure (thankfully).
One thing I will miss about Paul is how funny he was. Not funny like a clown, but funny like a burning car stuck in a tree.
Good-bye, Paul. I knew you entirely too well.
Here are some of his best one-liners:
"The Brady Campaign is not a gun ban organization." - Paul Helmke
Obviously bull. Assault weapons ban, anyone?
Violence in Mexico has increased since Congress allowed the federal assault weapons ban to expire in 2004. - Paul Helmke
Bull again.
"Families should not have to stare down loaded AK-47's on nature hikes." - Paul Helmke on legalizing park carry
Hoplophobic nonsense.
"People always say there are all these laws on the books. There aren't any laws on the books." - Paul Helmke
Bovine scat.
"Maybe we oughta look at adopting some of the Mexican laws here in the US." - Paul Helmke
And that is just stupid.
This will be Helmke's legacy: A bumbling, anti-gun buffoon not only ignorant of current American law, but Mexican law and the positions of his own organization. A mealy-mouthed train wreck of a man whose career is marked with legislative failure after failure (thankfully).
One thing I will miss about Paul is how funny he was. Not funny like a clown, but funny like a burning car stuck in a tree.
Good-bye, Paul. I knew you entirely too well.
Friday, July 8, 2011
Does age matter?
Reading the VPC's latest piece of agitprop and seeing it mention "that the age of gun owners continues to increase" gave me an idea. I decided to compare the average ages of the last 10 commenters on 3 anti-gun groups' Facebook groups to the average age of the last 10 commenters on the NRA's Facebook group. I would have loved to get the average age of all the members of each group, but that would have taken forever.
The results weren't all too surprising. The Brady Campaign had the oldest commenters with an average age of 55. The CSGV came in second with an average age of 52. The NRA came in 3rd with an average age of 46. And the VPC came in last with an average age of 41.
My conclusion is that even if you assume the average age of gun owners is increasing, there is a high chance they are younger than the average Brady Campaign and CSGV supporter and only slightly older than the average VPC supporter. If I were to increase the sample size, the results would probably move slightly more in favor of the NRA considering one of the youngest people in the sample was both a participant in the VPC's and CSGV's groups. Increasing the sample size would only decrease the weight that individual's age carries (unless there were more who participated in multiple anti-gun groups).
Another conclusion that can be made is that people who actively participate in the gun-debate are old in general. People my age (29) and younger had little to no representation in any of the groups. It appears the gun issue in general, whether pro or anti, is simply not a young person's concern with the anti side being even less of a young person's concern than the pro side.
So what does all this mean? It means the pro-gun side is going to continue winning. Out of all those who are passionate about the gun issue, we're among the youngest and greatest in number.
The results weren't all too surprising. The Brady Campaign had the oldest commenters with an average age of 55. The CSGV came in second with an average age of 52. The NRA came in 3rd with an average age of 46. And the VPC came in last with an average age of 41.
My conclusion is that even if you assume the average age of gun owners is increasing, there is a high chance they are younger than the average Brady Campaign and CSGV supporter and only slightly older than the average VPC supporter. If I were to increase the sample size, the results would probably move slightly more in favor of the NRA considering one of the youngest people in the sample was both a participant in the VPC's and CSGV's groups. Increasing the sample size would only decrease the weight that individual's age carries (unless there were more who participated in multiple anti-gun groups).
Another conclusion that can be made is that people who actively participate in the gun-debate are old in general. People my age (29) and younger had little to no representation in any of the groups. It appears the gun issue in general, whether pro or anti, is simply not a young person's concern with the anti side being even less of a young person's concern than the pro side.
So what does all this mean? It means the pro-gun side is going to continue winning. Out of all those who are passionate about the gun issue, we're among the youngest and greatest in number.
I just wanted an excuse to make a chart.
Thursday, June 23, 2011
Shooting is fun.
And it's reason numero uno why gun rights supporters are so much more avid, vocal, and numerous than the gun control/ban movement. There is not a single event the Brady Campaign, VPC, or CSGV can hold that will put nearly as many smiles on so many faces.
I mean ask yourself: Would you rather attend one of the Brady Campaign's $1500 per plate dinners where you get to listen to ex-cons lecture you on the evils of guns OR would you rather blow away a Porsche for charity?
I know which one i'm choosing.
via Auto Blog:
There is not a single event the Brady Campaign, VPC, or CSGV can hold that will put nearly as many smiles on so many faces.
I mean ask yourself: Would you rather attend one of the Brady Campaign's $1500 per plate dinners where you get to listen to ex-cons lecture you on the evils of guns OR would you rather blow away a Porsche for charity?
I know which one i'm choosing.
via Auto Blog:
There is not a single event the Brady Campaign, VPC, or CSGV can hold that will put nearly as many smiles on so many faces.
Thursday, June 16, 2011
The Brady Campaign's newest criminal friend.
First Adam Gadahn. Now Plaxico Burress.
Paul Helmke via HuffPo:
Who is going to be the next Brady Campaign spokesperson? Lee Paige?
Paul Helmke via HuffPo:
Burress contacted the Brady Center last year and told us that when he was released from prison, he wanted to spend his time warning young people, especially, about the risks and dangers of guns.
Who is going to be the next Brady Campaign spokesperson? Lee Paige?
Have terrorists ever had a problem acquiring weapons?
Aside from the fact that you can't buy machine guns at gun shows, has a terrorist ever had a problem getting guns? Guns are all but completely outlawed in India, but that had no effect on the Mumbai Massacre. You could completely outlaw the sale of firearms in the US and go door-to-door and pull a Diane Feinstein and you still couldn't stop a terrorist attack.
Unsurprisingly, the gun-controllers/banners are set to exploit their new terrorist friend, Adam Gadahn.
A mass terrorist shooting is inevitable on US soil and there is only one way to limit the damage of such an event. We have to do what the Indian citizens couldn't do and what the Indian police didn't do: Shoot back.
Unsurprisingly, the gun-controllers/banners are set to exploit their new terrorist friend, Adam Gadahn.
A mass terrorist shooting is inevitable on US soil and there is only one way to limit the damage of such an event. We have to do what the Indian citizens couldn't do and what the Indian police didn't do: Shoot back.
Friday, May 20, 2011
Lie #26: "...voting to allow known terrorists to buy guns..."
Dennis Hennigan of the Brady Campaign:
A bold-faced lie. The amendment in question did nothing to prohibit known terrorists from buying guns. It did however authorize that the horribly-flawed, secret "terrorist watch list" be used to deny people a Constitutional right without due process.
How can any politician pretend to be serious about protecting the nation from terrorism, while voting to allow known terrorists to buy guns, including assault weapons?
A bold-faced lie. The amendment in question did nothing to prohibit known terrorists from buying guns. It did however authorize that the horribly-flawed, secret "terrorist watch list" be used to deny people a Constitutional right without due process.
And they call us paranoid.
Brady Campaign member Joan Peterson
via http://www.weerdworld.com/
Dear readers,
A few of you have threatened to publish my home address somewhere. I consider this to be a personal threat to me and my family. I do check IP addresses and the town and state coming from the comment at a certain time so in case you think you are being clever, think again. I will report any such activity to law enforcement. What are you planning to do with that information? Will someone come around and try to shoot me or my family? Will I be under your survelance now? Will you be outside of my house monitoring my activities? Are you this paranoid? What are your intentions with such information? Mere intimidation or do you mean some sort of dangerous action?
via http://www.weerdworld.com/
Friday, May 6, 2011
Paul Helmke: There is no correlation between gun laws and gun death rates.
At least that's what he should have said.
via HuffPo
Translation: There are 17 states that manage to have a lower rate of gun-related deaths without the oppressive, nonsensical gun laws of California. Need a visualization? Look here.
Paul also laments that one of the guys in this picture was hired by the NRA:
via HuffPo
California topped the Brady Campaign State Scorecard, earning 80 of 100 points for its strong efforts to protect its citizens from gun violence. It also has one of the lowest gun-related death rates - 33rd in the nation - according to the most recent data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Translation: There are 17 states that manage to have a lower rate of gun-related deaths without the oppressive, nonsensical gun laws of California. Need a visualization? Look here.
Paul also laments that one of the guys in this picture was hired by the NRA:
In yet another sign of how out of touch it is with how people interact in a civilized society, the National Rifle Association is apparently so wrapped up in its paranoid view of the world that it planted an undercover cameraman at our news conference at the National Press Club on Wednesday when the Brady Campaign released its annual Scorecard of State gun laws that can help reduce gun violence.
Thursday, May 5, 2011
The room full of people who care.
How much more irrelevant can the gun control/ban movement become? And keep in mind, this is the 800lb gorilla of the gun control/ban movement. Organizations like CSGV and VPC couldn't even get this many people to show up.
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
Friday, April 15, 2011
Colin Goddard may or may not not be a coward, but he is a liar.
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Weapons created "by the military for active war zones" are not being sold to the general public, thanks in part to the National Firearms Act and Hughes Amendment.
It looks like Colin will fit right in with the Brady Camp. He's already engaging in their trademark twisting of reality.
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Compromise.
Compromise only leads to the demise of the honorable. Never compromise with your enemy.
Compromise will never happen. And it's not because of a lack of effort on the side of 2nd Amendment advocates. There are a number of 2nd Amendment advocates who will accept new legislation in exchange for repealing current legislation. That is true compromise.
What stands in the way of compromise is the fact that the gun-controllers/banners, can never be satisfied. They refuse to give up any current legislation and will forever pursue new legislation. Helmke says he would love for his job to go away in 3 years. I'm doubtful of that. He brings up the example of Britain and their 55 gun murders per year. Such a low number hasn't given way to the retirement of Britain's gun-controllers/banners (nor has it given way to a less progressive gun-banning agenda), so why should we believe Paul Helmke and his cadre would fade away upon reaching an arbitrary goal? They'll simply do what they do best and move goal posts.
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
What if Wayne sat down?
What if Wayne LaPierre decided "...to sit down with a group of people that have spent a lifetime trying to destroy the Second Amendment in the United States?" Let's game that scenario:
Wayne meets with President Obama, the Brady Campaign, and all the other gun-controller/banner groups and agrees with his 3 ideas. They get made into law and then? Well, Baldr Odinson of Ceasefire Oregon said it best: "I think this is a great first step." In other words, there are more steps. The next time some drug-addled loon shoots up a school, restaurant, or store, the vulturous, gun-controllers/banners (I refuse to call them "gun safety advocates" when none of them teach gun safety) will circle and they will crow for more steps. Second steps, third steps, fourth steps, fifth steps... Where will it end? What is the final step? Is it something like England where you have to beg your local sheriff for permission to own even the most primitive and ineffective of firearms? Isn't that what we have in #2 Brady Campaign ranked New Jersey? Assuming that being ranked #1 is a final step, is it safe to say that New Jersey's numerous infringements on the 2nd Amendment are close to the final step? Is that why Brady Campaign member, Joan Peterson, can't tell us at what point "Commonsense" ends and infringement begins?
Personally, i'm glad Wayne decided not to sit down. Wayne knows that taking that first step only sets you up for the second step, third step, and so fourth, inching us closer and closer to the final step.
Wayne meets with President Obama, the Brady Campaign, and all the other gun-controller/banner groups and agrees with his 3 ideas. They get made into law and then? Well, Baldr Odinson of Ceasefire Oregon said it best: "I think this is a great first step." In other words, there are more steps. The next time some drug-addled loon shoots up a school, restaurant, or store, the vulturous, gun-controllers/banners (I refuse to call them "gun safety advocates" when none of them teach gun safety) will circle and they will crow for more steps. Second steps, third steps, fourth steps, fifth steps... Where will it end? What is the final step? Is it something like England where you have to beg your local sheriff for permission to own even the most primitive and ineffective of firearms? Isn't that what we have in #2 Brady Campaign ranked New Jersey? Assuming that being ranked #1 is a final step, is it safe to say that New Jersey's numerous infringements on the 2nd Amendment are close to the final step? Is that why Brady Campaign member, Joan Peterson, can't tell us at what point "Commonsense" ends and infringement begins?
Personally, i'm glad Wayne decided not to sit down. Wayne knows that taking that first step only sets you up for the second step, third step, and so fourth, inching us closer and closer to the final step.