A Tough Year for Gun Control’s Brady Campaign

[peckman28]

Excellent article, TN Mike. As far as Obama getting to appoint more judges...that is indeed a scary thought.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[HotGuns]

Nope....its skewed just like fox news.

The purpose was to show that you just cant take one news source and call it "the gospel."

Every single source out there is "skewed".

CNN, known in this part of the country as Communist News Network is skewed.
ABC
NBC
FOX
as is every other media that "reports".

Every single one of them is "skewed". Most of what they report is emotion,speculation and sensationalism with some fact thrown in to keep your attention.

The only issue is how much "skewing" you can take so you watch the one that you can stomach.

Objective and accurate news reporting left this country in the 60's, when socialists took over the Universitys.

[Rock and Glock]

When they rule that corporations are people and money is speech.....I think its time for a couple of them to retire.

Citizen's United V. FEC. Hmmmmmmmm.......You mean Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor? . That is hysterical. I'd throw Kagan in there too.

Just my humble opinion, but your "Corporations are people and money is speech" is simplified hooey spewed by Slate, Brook, Huffington and the like and disregards jurisprudence to the extreme. A sound bite. Nothing more than merely meant to sell.

That is the same problem we have with the anti-gun folks. To each their own, but remember the purpose of all news is to sell, and selling takes willing buyers. The anti-2A crowd play to their audiences well, and sells well. That is just the way it works.

If you remember that the real issue of media is control, and step back and consider the machinations, you will not be comforted.

We all run risks of gathering our news sources in mirrors such that our opinions become more and more narrow.

The purpose was to show that you just cant take one news source and call it "the gospel."

Exactly. Just always beware of inherent bias and the like. The mere choice of one word can turn a news article into a platform for a bias, and most journalists are expert at the turnof a phrase.

[Bubbiesdad]

Every single source out there is "skewed".

CNN, known in this part of the country as Communist News Network is skewed.
ABC
NBC
FOX
as is every other media that "reports".

Every single one of them is "skewed". Most of what they report is emotion,speculation and sensationalism with some fact thrown in to keep your attention.

The only issue is how much "skewing" you can take so you watch the one that you can stomach.

Objective and accurate news reporting left this country in the 60's, when socialists took over the Universitys.

You forgot
M edia's
S ocialist
N ational
B arack
C hannel

[DaveWorkman]

How will CeaseFire spin this? Homicide no longer among leading death causes

A blockbuster revelation from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shows that homicide is no longer among the top 15 causes of death in the United States, during a period when firearm ownership and concealed carry is increasing.

How will CeaseFire spin this? Homicide no longer among leading death causes - Seattle gun rights | Examiner.com

[Divebum47]

When they rule that corporations are people and money is speech.....I think its time for a couple of them to retire.

When did that happen? If memory serves, it was Mitt Romney who said that corporations are people, and in the context he delivered the statement, it's actually a good point. The danger is when one takes one sentence out of a paragraph and uses that as a benchmark. Debbie Wasserman Schultz is a prime example of that.

[MattInFla]

When they rule that corporations are people and money is speech.....I think its time for a couple of them to retire.

Fortunately, the Court never made either of those rulings, at least not the way they are presented.

[gunsnroses]

When did that happen? If memory serves, it was Mitt Romney who said that corporations are people, and in the context he delivered the statement, it's actually a good point. The danger is when one takes one sentence out of a paragraph and uses that as a benchmark. Debbie Wasserman Schultz is a prime example of that.

Citizens united v fed. Elec. Comm.
prior to this ruling corporations were limited in the amount of campaign contributions a corporation can make to a canadate. The supreme court ruled that corporations hold personhood status and can contribute as much money as they want. It was also ruled that campaign contributions also hold some 1st amendment protections.

So in essence, those who have the most money has the most speech.

Money talks, bs walks

The 1% has the money and therefor are entitled to set government up the way they see fit and the rest of us has no say because we dont have the money to buy government like that.

Sent from my DROID2 GLOBAL using Tapatalk

[Rock and Glock]

Money talks, bs walks. The 1% has the money and therefor are entitled to set government up the way they see fit and the rest of us has no say because we dont have the money to buy government like that.

So the Labor Unions and the likes SEIU don't spend any money on politics either. Right. I'll call your BS and raise you 10 more. Huffington anyone? PLEASE...........

Your 1% argument is based on bad facts too. There is less concentration, not more, although the OWS folks won't discuss that. The 1% was a quick and dirty sound-bite. Even Obama has realized they are wackos. Even Obama won't and can't co-op those dolts.

Go vote, go work for the candidates you want and you support. Money cannot overcome a great and dedicated campaign structure and staff.

Here's some quick reading:

Cleta Mitchell, Washington's preeminent campaign finance attorney, rightly says that few for-profit corporations will jeopardize their commercial interests by engaging in partisan politics: Republicans, Democrats and independents buy Microsoft's and Pepsi's products. If for-profit corporations do plunge into politics, disclosure of their spending will enable voters to draw appropriate conclusions. Of course, political speech regulations radiate distrust of voters' abilities to assess unfettered political advocacy.

Barack "Pitchfork" Obama, in his post-Massachusetts populist mode, called the court's ruling a victory for, among others, "big oil" and "Wall Street banks." But OpenSecrets.org reports that in 2008 lawyers gave more money than either of them, and gave 78 percent of the donations to Democrats, who also received 64 percent of contributions from the financial sector.

George F. Will - Campaign finance: a 'reform' wisely struck down

Here's another take:

Let’s be clear:the idea that the government itself should be picking and choosing which corporations–or entities in general–are allowed to participate in the political arena, and what they are allowed to say, is folly and censorship at its finest. The very concept seems, to us, anti-American-ideal.

George Will and the Left’s Hypocrisy over Citizens United | NewsReal Blog

[gunsnroses]

So the Labor Unions and the likes SEIU don't spend any money on politics either. Right. I'll call your BS and raise you 10 more. Huffington anyone? PLEASE...........

Your 1% argument is based on bad facts too. There is less concentration, not more, although the OWS folks won't discuss that. The 1% was a quick and dirty sound-bite. Even Obama has realized they are wackos.

Go vote, go work for the candidates you want and you support. Money cannot overcome a great and dedicated campaign structure.

<sigh> Have you ever heard of a P.A.C. or "super Pac" before this election cycle?

The Political Action Committee's are a direct result of corporate personhood. Also, I am sure you are paying attention to the Republican race? The Pac's are absolutely imploding the republican primaries. This is what happens when there is a endless amount of money(speech) and influence.

Is this good for you and me?

Is this good for our democracy when only the rich and influential are represented?

[peckman28]

<sigh> Have you ever heard of a P.A.C. or "super Pac" before this election cycle?

The Political Action Committee's are a direct result of corporate personhood. Also, I am sure you are paying attention to the Republican race? The Pac's are absolutely imploding the republican primaries. This is what happens when there is a endless amount of money(speech) and influence.

Is this good for you and me?

Is this good for our democracy when only the rich and influential are represented?

The only thing worse is accepting the notion of government censorship in the name of helping the "little guy". You want the corporations and government to untangle each other? Complete and total economic deregulation is the only way that can ever happen. Your line of thinking is no different from that of the Brady Campaign; ignoring certain parts of the Constitution when you find it distasteful. While I have no doubt you mean well, railing against the evil corporations while ignoring their powerful partners in D.C. is absolutely counterproductive.

[Sig 210]

20 years ago the Brady bunch was awash in cash. Now they have trouble paying the rent-how fitting.

[Rock and Glock]

<sigh> Have you ever heard of a P.A.C. or "super Pac" before this election cycle?

<SIGH>

Pacs have been around since 1974 and before, Dear. Learn your history before you <sigh>. I don't necessarily believe it is good for the country, but the SCOTUS decision had nothing to do with that, which if you read more than some poorly written tripe about the case you would understand.

You're the one that brought up the Citizens United SCOTUS case as an example of jurisprudence that needed correction by replacement of conservative Justices.

prior to this ruling corporations were limited in the amount of campaign contributions a corporation can make to a canadate. The supreme court ruled that corporations hold personhood status and can contribute as much money as they want. It was also ruled that campaign contributions also hold some 1st amendment protections.

You have misinterpreted the case too - corporations and labor unions may still not contribute money to candidates, contrary to your declaration above.

” Bringing law into conformity with this 1976 precedent, the court has struck down only federal and state laws that forbid independent expenditures (those not made directly to, or coordinated with, candidates’ campaigns) by corporations and labor unions. Under the censorship regime the court has overturned, corporations were even forbidden to send political communications to all of their employees.”

I would prefer we have no more SC Justices appointed by Obama as I have made clear many times. No one can read "tea leaves", but more liberal SC justices does not bode well for less regulation in this country.

Sorry we don't agree on the Citizen's United Case, but let's make sure the facts are clearly presented first.

The only thing worse is accepting the notion of government censorship in the name of helping the "little guy". You want the corporations and government to untangle each other? Complete and total economic deregulation is the only way that can ever happen. Your line of thinking is no different from that of the Brady Campaign; ignoring certain parts of the Constitution when you find it distasteful. While I have no doubt you mean well, railing against the evil corporations while ignoring their powerful partners in D.C. is absolutely counterproductive.

Well said.

[gunsnroses]

The only thing worse is accepting the notion of government censorship in the name of helping the "little guy". You want the corporations and government to untangle each other? Complete and total economic deregulation is the only way that can ever happen. Your line of thinking is no different from that of the Brady Campaign; ignoring certain parts of the Constitution when you find it distasteful. While I have no doubt you mean well, railing against the evil corporations while ignoring their powerful partners in D.C. is absolutely counterproductive.

I think I take serious offense to that statement! I have been nothing but a total constitutionalist concerning the 2A right for all, and to have you compare me to having similarities of the Brady Campaign i find very dis-tastful......

.....so why don't you just <censored> OFF!!!!????

[peckman28]

I think I take serious offense to that statement! I have been nothing but a total constitutionalist concerning the 2A right for all, and to have you compare me to having similarities of the Brady Campaign i find very dis-tastful......

.....so why don't you just <censored> OFF!!!!????

Obviously not 1A though. You either believe in the rule of law or you don't, and your comments suggest that you don't. Neither do they. Just because you've picked a different part of the Constitution not to like doesn't make it better. Furthermore, I think the people at the top of the Brady Campaign know exactly what they're doing, and mean to do evil, which I already said I do not believe of you. What I am saying is, just as they are guilty of condemning a part of the Constitution they find distasteful, so here are you.

We have to ensure that we follow the rule of law and respect that concept in all its forms, or 2A, along with the rest of them, will be out the window under the same overall rationale, and it will be a real tragedy. The fact that we've already accepted the false notion that the Constitution's Interstate Commerce Clause gives the federal government unlimited economic regulatory powers has already caused a massive amount of damage, and in fact has led to the super-PACs you hate (and I am no fan of either). It's also led to several federal gun control laws, such as the Gun Control Act, 1934; 1968; and Firearm Owner's Protection Act of 1986, the first of which gave rise to NFA weapons and tax stamps, and the last of which "protected" us from being able to buy any machine guns manufactured after its passage. The point is, you can't go picking and choosing what kinds of freedoms you think we should all have, or else they all slowly get lost. Again, to be clear, I don't mean to offend you or call you a bad person, but I sincerely hope you think about these things.