Brady Campaign response to recent events... - Page 3

Divebum47 · November 8th, 2009, 08:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by basher052

So....we take the guns from the legal carring public, and this all stops? Are we that dense?

No, but they are. I perused the site for about 3 minutes and found myself projectile vomiting in my waste basket. I must be allergic.

basher052 · November 8th, 2009, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ccw9mm

The economy would collapse. No can do, dead bodies or not.

There is when public transportation only goes from A to B, but you need to get from A to C. And that's the case in a large percentage of metro areas, in the USA. Until this is fixed, there is no way to simply ban cars and retain a functioning economy, unless 125M workers can get to the place of employment via other means.

I'm all for it. It'll happen at some point, for a number of reasons, but I can't see how it can occur in a given location until there are practical alternatives to getting from A to C.

They can have my vehicle when they pry it from my cold, dead hands!

.....hmm...sounds familiar

Katana · November 8th, 2009, 07:13 PM

I feel sick to my stomach seeing how they're dishonoring the memories of those fallen soldiers with their rhetoric. I've got a friend whose ex-husband, her only childs father, is sitting in a hospital in Temple, Texas with three bullet holes in his gut from this terrorist, and these ******* are saying that less guns are needed?

I've got a better idea, allow every soldier upon reporting for duty to have access to the armory and the ability to check out and openly carry any firearm they're qualified on if you really don't want something like this to every happen again. They would be checked back in at the end of the day, and every bullet accounted for.

But I guess something like that would make too much sense for their liking. After all, these men and women are only entrusted with the safety and security of our republic, why should they be able to have the right to protect themselves? It's only one of the rights they fight and die for us civilians for after all.

TN_Mike · November 9th, 2009, 01:06 AM

The Brady Bunch is a despicable and dastardly group. They will never see the fallacy of their argument/cause because they simply are not intelligent enough to understand how stupid their thought process is.

DaveH · November 9th, 2009, 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TN_Mike

The Brady Bunch is a despicable and dastardly group. They will never see the fallacy of their argument/cause because they simply are not intelligent enough to understand how stupid their thought process is.

"...their thought process...."???

They think???

And here I thought it was a thoughtless manta, chanted to ward off evil.

Tint Bob · November 9th, 2009, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by varob

Then we would have to call the United States, England.

Ha Ha Ha
Only difference here would be the Army/Navy/RAF have roving patrols which I believe are armed...Sort or Quick Reaction Force (QRF)
Maybe that's the solution for you guys?

Tint Bob (UK)

Cold Warrior · November 9th, 2009, 05:50 PM

Dayton, Ohio, at Hara Arena and at the Sharonville Convention Center: "Bill Goodman's Gun and Knife Showwwww...tell a buddyyyyy...bring a friendddd!"
We are gonna spread the word to the undercover spies of NYC Mayor Bloomturd. Mind your owned damned business, unless you've got a budget surplus, and stay the hell away from our gun shows!

natticarry · November 9th, 2009, 06:43 PM

I would point out that the one fallacy in our argument is when people of a certain theological persuasion (jihadist) gets their hands on weapons they don't care if they are going down. That being said even though everyone being armed might not be a deterrent to those people it would certainly minimize the casualties.

BaserRonin · November 9th, 2009, 06:50 PM

Natti, that is exactly the point. You nailed. If someone is going to go on a shooting rampage, you are not going to prevent them from doing it. Taking them out early prevents them from doing maximum damage. The more people carrying, the greater the opportunity to minimize the damage.

I like to go to the Brady site to see what weapons are on their watch list as the most dangerous, then buy one. They need to update it more often though.

Edit: I just went to look for their watch list for the most concerning of the dangerous guns and didn't find it. Bummer, it always cracked me up to use them a shopping guide.

ccw9mm · November 9th, 2009, 07:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BaserRonin

Natti, that is exactly the point. You nailed. If someone is going to go on a shooting rampage, you are not going to prevent them from doing it. Taking them out early prevents them from doing maximum damage. The more people carrying, the greater the opportunity to minimize the damage.

Absolutely.

That's the most that can be done. No other solution comes close, short of full-body scans every 1000yds.

And, that's ALL that can be expected.

There are two absolute truths in this life: Life is a contact sport; and, There are no guarantees.

So long as we're going to have a relatively free/liberal society where folks aren't subjected to scans and checks and roadblocks everywhere, this solution (of a fully-armed and -prepared populace) is also the solution that provides the maximal opportunity to take out violent criminals as soon as possible. So far as I can tell, nothing else comes close to this in simultaneously (a) maximizing liberties and free movement while (b) minimizing the ramifications from violent crime.

Congress: What's so all-fired heinous about de-criminalizing the people to the point we're able to arm everyone who's willing? What're you afraid of ... that folks will come after you? Well then, get it right, if you're so concerned with that possibility of the sociopaths taking you out. But let's agree on one thing, that the days of trading political favors and protecting your own personal congressional skin at the expense of the lives of tens of thousands of the People (each year) is over.

Cold Warrior · November 12th, 2009, 06:46 PM

They don't wanna leave D.C. because they will always need a cause, and a tax-exempt and a judicial government Santa Clause, with their gun-grabbing nagging-nanny hate, except maybe when they stay and play behind nice white D.C. suburbanite gates.

MOS8541 · November 13th, 2009, 10:12 AM

How about the Brady Campaign fighting to keep criminals in jail and fighting to use all the gun laws we already have.

[/QUOTE]

Now we're talking common sense!

msgt/ret · November 13th, 2009, 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MOS8541

How about the Brady Campaign fighting to keep criminals in jail and fighting to use all the gun laws we already have.

Quote:

Now we're talking common sense!

That is where the brady’s are seriously short changed.

harley2007 · November 13th, 2009, 12:54 PM

The Brady campaign, based on the things they have done, seriously feel that more laws with greater scope and reach, will affect the outcome of crimes committed by unlawful citizens…makes no sense logically.

November 8th, 2009, 07:13 PM	#43
Katana Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Clarksville,TN Posts: 736	I feel sick to my stomach seeing how they're dishonoring the memories of those fallen soldiers with their rhetoric. I've got a friend whose ex-husband, her only childs father, is sitting in a hospital in Temple, Texas with three bullet holes in his gut from this terrorist, and these ***** are saying that less guns are needed? I've got a better idea, allow every soldier upon reporting for duty to have access to the armory and the ability to check out and openly carry any firearm they're qualified on if you really don't want something like this to every happen again. They would be checked back in at the end of the day, and every bullet accounted for. But I guess something like that would make too much sense for their liking. After all, these men and women are only entrusted with the safety and security of our republic, why should they be able to have the right to protect themselves? It's only one of the rights they fight and die for us civilians for after all. __________________ "Stand your ground, don't fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have a war, let it begin here!" - John Parker April 19th, 1775 Lexington, MA Μολών λαβέ!**

November 9th, 2009, 01:06 AM	#44
TN_Mike VIP Member Join Date: May 2006 Location: Southwest TN Posts: 8,122	The Brady Bunch is a despicable and dastardly group. They will never see the fallacy of their argument/cause because they simply are not intelligent enough to understand how stupid their thought process is. __________________ A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have. -Barry Goldwater 1968 "When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty" -Thomas Jefferson

November 13th, 2009, 10:12 AM	#52
MOS8541 New Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: WA Posts: 9	How about the Brady Campaign fighting to keep criminals in jail and fighting to use all the gun laws we already have.[/QUOTE] Now we're talking common sense!

November 13th, 2009, 12:54 PM	#54
harley2007 Senior Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 634	The Brady campaign, based on the things they have done, seriously feel that more laws with greater scope and reach, will affect the outcome of crimes committed by unlawful citizens…makes no sense logically. __________________ I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy!

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

November 9th, 2009, 05:50 PM	#47
Cold Warrior Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: West Carrollton, Ohio Posts: 680	Dayton, Ohio, at Hara Arena and at the Sharonville Convention Center: "Bill Goodman's Gun and Knife Showwwww...tell a buddyyyyy...bring a friendddd!" We are gonna spread the word to the undercover spies of NYC Mayor Bloomturd. Mind your owned damned business, unless you've got a budget surplus, and stay the hell away from our gun shows!

November 9th, 2009, 06:43 PM	#48
natticarry Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: cincinnati Posts: 126	I would point out that the one fallacy in our argument is when people of a certain theological persuasion (jihadist) gets their hands on weapons they don't care if they are going down. That being said even though everyone being armed might not be a deterrent to those people it would certainly minimize the casualties.

November 9th, 2009, 06:50 PM	#49
BaserRonin Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Colorado Posts: 304	Natti, that is exactly the point. You nailed. If someone is going to go on a shooting rampage, you are not going to prevent them from doing it. Taking them out early prevents them from doing maximum damage. The more people carrying, the greater the opportunity to minimize the damage. I like to go to the Brady site to see what weapons are on their watch list as the most dangerous, then buy one. They need to update it more often though. Edit: I just went to look for their watch list for the most concerning of the dangerous guns and didn't find it. Bummer, it always cracked me up to use them a shopping guide.

November 12th, 2009, 06:46 PM	#51
Cold Warrior Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: West Carrollton, Ohio Posts: 680	They don't wanna leave D.C. because they will always need a cause, and a tax-exempt and a judicial government Santa Clause, with their gun-grabbing nagging-nanny hate, except maybe when they stay and play behind nice white D.C. suburbanite gates.