Brady Campaign is NOW a Hate Group...

[virginia mountainman]

Following the incorporation of the 2nd Amendment as a FUNDAMENTAL Civil Right, and the Brady Campaigns continued lobbying, and opposition AGAINST a Fundamental Civil Right...

They now meet the definition of a "Hate Group".

They are no better than the "KKK" or "Anti-Gay" bigots, they all have the denial of fundamental civil rights as a cornerstone of their existence.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[virginia mountainman]

3. Do you too, wish to infringe on a fundamental civil right?

I see you have issues with Prop 8...Do you cherry pick rights that you will fight for, and those you will fight against?? Instead of simply standing up for all of them?

[aquart]

7. Is my right to own a gun? Or to shoot you?

I'd like to be clear on this.

[virginia mountainman]

11. You have a right to own one..Does not mean you MUST own one.

Just because you own one, does not mean you "shoot people"

There is about 40 million US gun owners, who never hurt NO ONE.

If you feel you cannot control yourself, don't buy one.

But don't project YOUR actions on the rest of us.

[PavePusher]

58. You absolutely have a Right to shoot a person...

if they are presenting a threat to your life, or the life of another party (usually regulated under state law), or if they are trying to violate your Civil Rights (Federal law, can't find the cite right now).

Don't be purposefully obtuse/disingenuous on a Progressive web site.

[Hoyt]

80. Hardly a hate group.

They just want to keep angry and fearful people (many of whom think they are law enforcers) from carrying guns around in public. Sounds reasonable to me. Better send em a few more dollars.

[TPaine7]

10. You need a refresher on manners here at DU,

terms like "gun nuts" are not allowed.

[ET Awful]

26. Why is it okay to label someone a member of a "hate group" but not to call

someone a "gun nut"?

It seems to me that the whole premise of this thread should fall under the same criteria.

[TPaine7]

34. I don't pretend to understand the rules, I just know them.

However, one difference that I can see off the top of my head is that the OP attacks a small (miniscule, actually) organization with extremist views, whereas your "gun nut" jibe could be seen as an attack on everyone on DU who believes that we have a right to keep and to bear or carry arms.

Broad brush vs very specific attack.

I can (and have) called Hizzzzoner Richard Daley and his cronies thugs. If I implied that all who hold your beliefs with respect to guns are thugs, I might have my post removed.

That's just a guess. If you want an authoritative answer, ask the mods themselves.

[ET Awful]

36. "My" gun nut jibe?

Take a look at my user ID, then take a look at who made the jibe.

Apparently you like to respond without knowing who you're responding to. Well done.

Little hint for you . . . see my first post in this thread . . . see where I say that I oppose gun control for the most part? I'm likely one of the people the person you THOUGHT you were responding to would call a gun nut.

Learn to read.

[TPaine7]

40. Hey, if I made a mistake, I apologize.

I can's see the name attached to the offending post I responded to. I can't read quite that well; the post has been removed.

I'll work on my literacy.

In any event, does the substance of my answer, IF ADDRESSED TO THE CORRECT POSTER, clarify things?

[ET Awful]

44. Doesn't clarify a thing.

It does however make you sound like your intent is more to be sarcastic than to actually address any substantive issue.

[Tejas]

60. Does somebody need a hug?

;)

[KingFlorez]

2. Not really

They're opposition is over inanimate objects, they aren't preaching hate against gun owners. Rather you agree with them or not, they aren't out trying to harm people.

[izquierdista]

4. Inanimate objects?!?

You haven't been to a gun show recently to see the new line of Smith&Wesson sex toys.

[spin]

51. Is a sports car a sex toy?

Sports cars and handguns are examples of fine machinery as is a high quality watch.

[AtheistCrusader]

85. Not with that cramped cab.

You'd have to roll down both windows, recline the seats, and hopefully you can remove the stick shift because that's totally going to be in the way.

[Recursion]

5. Well, they do use "dog-whistle" language

Saying they have no problem with "hunters" is a more polite way of saying they have no problem with rural whites having guns.

[virginia mountainman]

6. By pushing failed gun control schemes..

They have helped to kill Innocent people...

They have aided and abetted Criminals, by helping to assure they are faced by a disarmed populace.

[TPaine7]

8. So when a person has been repeatedly threatened or even attacked and their home invaded

and you seek to keep them from having a means of defending themselves and their children, you aren't harming them?

[KingFlorez]

14. Calling a group a hate group is very loaded

It's not like they are intentionally trying to cause people harm, their policy positions are debatable, but they are far from being the KKK. In order for them to be like that, they would have to specifically advocate harm against gun owners.

[TPaine7]

18. Stripping people of their rights is a harm, whether you want to admit it or not. n/t

[KingFlorez]

24. Whatever you want to believe

The Brady Campaign just states opinions, they don't make the laws, so it's not like they can actually take guns from people. All the KKK's terrorism can't even remotely be compared to that, but if that's your opinion, whatever.

[TPaine7]

28. Follow the link in post 23

A few points:

1) I never said that they are a hate group, just that they advocate harming people--stripping them of their rights is a harm
2) I never claimed that they make the laws
3) I never claimed that they can take guns from people
4) I never compared them to the KKK
5) Even if I had said that they were a hate group, what would make a group a hate group would be HATE, not the ability to make laws or to take guns

The Brady Campaign MAY not be literally motivated by hate, but they are insane or extremely stupid if they cannot see the harm that would arise from the situation described in the OP linked in post 23. They have a callous disregard for the welfare of others. They fought tooth and nail to retain DCs gun ban regime.

[jazzhound]

59. On the subject of the harm that gun "control" does

the story re. the Luby's diner massacre is especially on point. Dr. Suzanna Gratia, in compliance with Texas law at the time, left her firearm in her truck when she and her parents went into the diner for lunch. As she relates, it turned out to be the worst decision of her life -- as she watched her Father get shot and discovered later that her Mother was killed as well:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1u0Byq5Qis

[virginia mountainman]

22. They do..

With their "disarmament schemes"..

On Wednesday, October 16, 1991, Hupp and her parents were having lunch at the Luby's Cafeteria in Killeen. She had left her gun in her car to comply with Texas state law at the time, which forbade carrying a concealed weapon. When George Hennard drove his truck into the cafeteria and opened fire on the patrons, Hupp instinctively reached into her purse for her weapon, but it was in her vehicle. Her father, Al Gratia, tried to rush Hennard and was shot in the chest. As the gunman reloaded, Hupp escaped through a broken window and believed that her mother, Ursula Gratia, was behind her. Hennard put a gun to her mother's head as she cradled her mortally wounded husband. Hupp's mother and father were killed along with twenty-one other persons. Hennard also wounded some twenty others. As a survivor of the Luby's massacre, Hupp testified across the country in support of concealed-handgun laws. She said that had there been a second chance to prevent the slaughter, she would have violated the Texas law and carried the handgun inside her purse into the restaurant<2>.

Not to mention every mass shooting that happens in a "GUN FREE" zone.... They demanded the laws....They SUPPORTED these laws...THEY DEFEND THESE LAWS.... And people are shot like fish in a barrel BECAUSE of these laws, with no LEGAL option to defend themselves..

Just as the Klan's noose has blood on it...So does the Brady Campaign's leadership..

[TPaine7]

23. They are not "intentionally trying to cause people harm."

Maybe not, but they are very calloused in ignoring the consequences of their faith-based dogmatism.

Read this OP...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x170607

... and tell me that well meaning, sane, intelligent people could support such laws.

[Callisto32]

69. And a revolver is not a machine gun but that doesn't stop D.C from calling it that.

I think this is about statutory definitions.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

84. The rules they support will cause innocent people to get killed. And their hate is quite real

[Abq_Sarah]

27. When they lobby to prevent

Law abiding citizens from defending their lives and property, they are tilting the balance of power towards criminals and against victims. That's "harm" in my book.

[KingFlorez]

29. Maybe you can view it that way, but I still don't think the Brady Campaign = KKK

It's really reaching to compare the two.

[Abq_Sarah]

31. I wouldn't compare the two

Overuse of the "KKK" comparisons is just as stupid as overuse of "Nazi" comparisons.

[AtheistCrusader]

87. Not equivalent, but they share a common goal/agenda on this subject.

Which is disturbing to many of us.

For instance, demonizing 'saturday night specials' as 'junk guns', which may be the only firearms poor people can afford at all. Moving to ban them, puts a specifically vulnerable demographic, at a severe disadvantage. A demographic that quite frankly, has more 'need' for a firearm than I do. And far less means to acquire one.

[SteveM]

78. Peruse some of the history of the modern gun-control movement...

and you will see where gun-owners are routinely demonized and personally condemned. I can't say what the specific history of the Brady Bunch is, but many noted "leaders" in journalism, social commentary, politics and academia have engaged in rather hateful bathroom wall finger-painting when they describe gun OWNERS.

I suggest The Great American Gun Debate by Kates and Kleck to get a primer on hate-speech by gun-controllers/prohibitionists.

[TheWraith]

9. No. They're more like the people who still want to ban booze.

Nuts, obnoxious, and authoritarian, but they don't compare to the Klan or the anti-gay groups.

[virginia mountainman]

15. Not really...

Booze is not mentioned anywhere in the Bill of Rights... And yes, I stand by my statements of causing death and mayhem with gun control laws..

At Lubys Cafeteria, in Texas, Several of the victims, had guns, in their vehicals...But, Gun Control laws at that time, did not allow them to bring them inside of the restaurant..

And like the Klan, and anti gay groups, they WISH to restrict a "Fundamental Civil Right"

I completely agree about the Nuts, obnoxious, and authoritarian,part.

[Gman]

12. There is no fundamental right to own a gun

only a court that makes it up as it goes along based on what a small minority of the country wants to force everyone else to put up with.

There hasn't been a militia in many years. What is so hard to understand about that?

[TPaine7]

16. There is a fundamental right to spout dishonest nonsense

about irrelevancies on the web, unfortunately.

The right doesn't belong to the militia, it belongs to "the people." But I'm sure that this has been explained to you before.

Read Heller. Get adult help understanding it, if necessary.

[Gman]

75. Read it however you want to

if it makes you feel like it says what you want it to say.

[virginia mountainman]

17. Evidently you did not read the decision..

Before joining this discussion, how embarrassing for you..

[TheWraith]

19. You're wrong on all counts.

1. There is a fundamental right to own a gun. Check the second amendment.

2. 75% of the country agrees that there is a fundamental right to own a gun. Only 20% disagrees.

3. There is a militia right now. It's called the National Guard. There's also the "unorganized militia" which means all able-bodied males 17 to 45.

4. Ownership of a weapon is not limited to militia service in any way. It is an individual right.

[beevul]

64. "what a small minority of the country wants to force everyone else to put up with. "

About that small minority...


The gun control groups COMBINED have maybe 1 percent the membership of pro-gun groups...

And according to nationwide polling, roughly 75% of the population thinks that the second amendment protects an individual right.

"what a small minority of the country wants to force everyone else to put up with."

If we were playing jeopardy, I'd answer like this:


What is gun bans/unreasonable gun control, Alex.

[S_B_Jackson]

71. Sure there's been a militia....

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/10/A/I/13/311

10 U.S.C. § 311 : US Code - Section 311: Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.

Nor is the National Guard the only organized militia in existence; it is merely the only organized militia of the states which is subject to federalization.
Every state police, every sheriff's department, every constable's precinct, every municipal/university/school district police department is a "select militia"
So to are the various fire departments across the nation.

It is worth noting that since the Dick Act was passed in 1916 IIRC, that there have been subsequent changes to the federal law which prohibit discrimination on the basis of (older) age, as well as on the basis of gender. As a result, it is reasonable to argue that the upper limit has been changed to the mandatory retirement age of the US military (i.e. between 55-62) and that females of the appropriate ages are also members of the Militia. Thus, ANY citizen between the ages of 17-62 who is not a member of the Organized Militia (as defined above), nor prohibited by felony conviction or adjudicated mental "defect" is a member of the UNORGANIZED militia. What's so hard to understand about that, Gman?????????????

[Gman]

76. And they bring their own guns?????

You understand the Guard and even the "unorganized militia" to use their own guns? Now we're getting ridiculous.

Just read it however you want to so it will say what you think it should say.

[S_B_Jackson]

79. Some yes, some no....

In the case of the National Guard, their weapons are provided by the government - this is one aspect which separates the ORGANIZED MILIA as defined by the Dick Act, from the UNORGANIZED MILITIA which also is defined by the same act.

Yes, police officers in most jurisdictions do provide their own firearms (usually they are provided a voucher for x $$ in order from whatever governmental entity they work for) the gun is their possession, and when they leave the force they take it with them.

The Unorganized Militia, as has always been the case, is expected to provide their own personal arms and bring them when they report.

[Hoopla Phil]

83. The unorganized militia is also expected to show up with arms that are

of like and common use. AKA - Regulated.

[AtheistCrusader]

86. This is more complex than you think.

The State Guard (draws pay from the state, answerable to only the Governor), and the State National Guard (draws pay from the DoD, answerable to the Governor, but can be federalized, then answerable to the Commander in Chief) will have their own armories, and gear. The unorganized militia, (answerable to the Governor) will have to provide it's own arms. The state, historically, has been responsible for providing the unorganized militia with ordnance. (cannon, crew served weapons, etc)

Hopefully that clears up any misunderstanding. I don't think anyone on the Pro-McDonald/Heller decision side of this discussion, in this thread, is misconstruing what 'militia' means, or what it is used for.

[damntexdem]

13. The NRA is the hate group.

And the so-called civil right is a horrible civil wrong.

[TheWraith]

20. Repeal the second amendment, then.

Or, just stop trying to control other people's lives.

[spin]

32. Painting either the Brady Campaign or the NRA as hate groups...

is ridiculous.

Both are organizations on opposite sides of the same issue.

[ET Awful]

38. Yes, but if someone can't spout outlandish rhetoric, how can they

be a real advocate for their position?

At least in the world of the DU Guns forum.

[SPedigrees]

43. The NRA is a RW bunch of loonies. The Brady Campaign is

just as set in their own ignorant ways. Life was a lot more sane back when the NRA was a moderate sportsmans group, and the Brady reactionaries had not yet come into existence.

Neither the NRA nor the Brady Campaign meet the criteria to be called "hate groups." Neither group hurls slurs or aims physical violence at any targeted demographic, as the KKK does to blacks.

[virginia mountainman]

46. Truth of the matter is..

The Brady Campaigns early success in the early 1990's created the modern NRA.

[SPedigrees]

48. I don't doubt that the two groups feed off each other.

Probably each one radicalizes the other.

[spin]

62. You paint with a broad brush ...

many Democrats are members of the NRA as they do a lot for the shooting sports and provide excellent training in firearm safety.

I have been an NRA member for years. The efforts of the NRA have helped to preserve the sport and hobby that I enjoy. I have used the literature that they publish to enhance my knowledge of the history of firearms and value their tests on existing and new firearms. I also have a concealed weapons permit and without the efforts of the NRA no such permit would have ever existed in Florida. Fortunately, I have never had to use a firearm, concealed or not, for self defense.

My daughter once used a handgun to deter an intruder breaking into our home. Without the NRA I might not have had the right to own the weapon she used and she might have possibly died and I would not have two grandchildren to enjoy. She also has a concealed weapons permit. She recently had some problems with a stalker and filed a restraining order against the individual. All too often a restraining order is viewed by the stalker as a worthless piece of paper. This fool did ignore the restraining order and after numerous reports to the police, he was arrested and spent a number of weekends in jail. The stalker was well aware of my daughter's carry permit as he tried to get the judge to revoke it. Fortunately that tactic failed. It's hard to say what might have happened had my daughter lost her permit, but at the minimum she would have suffered from fear of the stalker attacking. In my opinion, that was what the stalker wanted.

The NRA became what you despise because organizations such as the Brady Campaign were working to ban firearms or greatly restrict firearm ownership in our nation. The NRA organized and fought draconian gun control laws in a very effective manner. The NRA morphed from a "moderate sportsman's group" to a powerful pro-RKBA lobby because to do less would have doomed the right to own firearms for self defense and sport in our nation.

I do find much of the overblown propaganda from the NRA-ILA irritating just as I've been disgusted by the constant predictions of blood in the streets by the Brady Campaign. It's probably necessary for any organization who hopes to garner contributions for most political issues to use hyperbole and distort the truth. Both the NRA and the Brady Campaign are guilty of such tactics.

I simply file the contribution requests from the NRA-ILA in file 13 unopened. It helps me keep my blood pressure under control.

I do agree that the NRA and the Brady Campaign are not "hate" groups. They are merely opposite teams fighting over a controversial political issue. It would be nice if both groups would eventually work together to improve existing gun laws.

[ET Awful]

21. Not quite. The common definition of a hate group is

an organized group or movement that advocates hate, hostility, or violence towards members of a race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation or other designated sector of society.

The Brady Campaign has never advocated hate, hostility or violence towards anyone.

Outlandish rhetoric doesn't serve your cause well at all.

Hell, I'm against most gun control (I advocate background checks, including mental health history, etc.), but I think that calling the Brady Campaign a "hate group" is about the dumbest, most outlandish thing I've seen all day.

[virginia mountainman]

30. I think so...

"hostility" towards a "designated sector of society." The Brady Campaign has most certainly espoused hostility towards both gun rights and gun owners. Hence, they fit the definition.

[ET Awful]

33. You insult real victims of hate groups with your nonsense, you realize that right?

Sorry, but you're wrong on this one.

Tell me when the Brady Campaign ever supported say . . . lynching gun owners.

Once again, calling them a hate group is about the stupidest thing I've read all day, if not all year.

You sound exactly like the poor "oppressed" Christians who say that the so-called "liberal media" is out to get them and that there's a war on Christmas.

It's all bullshit rhetoric and you know it.

[TPaine7]

35. Follow the link in post 23 to see what Brady supported. It's not lynching, I agree...

but then neither are lots of atrocities.

You don't have to lynch to be a hate group. You just have to hate.

PS: I'm not saying that the Brady Campaign hates the people they disarm; they may simply lack the mental competence or the compassion to understand the consequences.

[ET Awful]

37. So they don't hate, but they're a hate group?

Mmmmmhmmmmm.

You can't even support your own outlandish rhetoric.

[TPaine7]

42. Apparently you know how to read very well,

whereas I'm just learning.

Why don't you point out where my "outlandish rhetoric" said that "they're a hate group."

Just "READ" my posts and point it out, pretty please.

[ET Awful]

45. You have posted repeatedly in support of the OP's position, defended his position

and thereby admitted that you share his opinion.

Now, before you start some little attempt to say I share the opinion of the person who called you a "gun nut" you have to actually recognize that I never said any such thing, I merely inquired as to the difference between his bullshit rhetoric and your own.

[TPaine7]

50. No I haven't. Learn to THINK.

If I find fault in someone's critique of a position, it does not mean that I share that position in toto. Thinking people know that.

Incidentally, I'm not the type to "start some little attempt" to say you said something. YOU are the little attempt person on this thread. YOU started some little attempt to say that I claimed "they're a hate group" in spite of the fact that, as any literate person can see, I have in fact distanced myself from that position several times. I am calling you out for you false claim.

Now when you claimed I misidentified you, I apologized, based solely on your word (I can no longer verify the identity of the offending poster). We will see whether you're woman or man enough to admit that you are wrong.

[ET Awful]

So, do you or do you not support the OP's claim that the Brady Campaign is a hate group?

Please be brief.

As to being wrong, I willfully admit when I am. However, I have not seen any evidence in this case that I am wrong. If I am, I'll gladly admit it, but I haven't seen you at any point show any disagreement with the OP (although I have not ready every single post in the thread).

You did, in fact, argue on behalf of the OP in your reply #8 to this very thread.

You can't argue his point, then deny that you agree with it.

[TPaine7]

55. I do not.

Brief enough?

I see nothing in my post 8 that supports the OP or the claim that the Brady Campaign is a hate group.

The OP in its entirety:

Brady Campaign is NOW a Hate Group...

Following the incorporation of the 2nd Amendment as a FUNDAMENTAL Civil Right, and the Brady Campaigns continued lobbying, and opposition AGAINST a Fundamental Civil Right...

They now meet the definition of a "Hate Group".

They are no better than the "KKK" or "Anti-Gay" bigots, they all have the denial of fundamental civil rights as a cornerstone of their existence.

Here are the OP's points as I see them

1) Brady Campaign is a hate group
2) After incorporation, Second Amendment is a fundamental civil right
3) Therefore, the Brady Campaign continues to lobby against a fundamental civil right
4) The Brady Campaign thus meets the definition of a hate group
5) They are no better than the "KKK" or "Anti-Gay" bigots, {since} they all have the denial of fundamental civil rights as a cornerstone of their existence

Please correct me, if necessary.

Now here is my post 8 in its entirety:

So when a person has been repeatedly threatened or even attacked and their home invaded

and you seek to keep them from having a means of defending themselves and their children, you aren't harming them?

Would you please point out which of the OP's points that supports? It doesn't even support the OP's statements that I clearly agree with, points 2 and 3. (I would stress that the RKBA was a fundamental civil right before the Court ruled and even before the Court existed, but that doesn't change the fact that it is still a fundamental civil right after the ruling. What it does do is make it an "officially recognized" civil right from a judicial standpoint.)

My point was that seeking to disarm someone who is under threat is a harm to that person.

[ET Awful]

56. Well, the way I read it

"My point was that seeking to disarm someone who is under threat is a harm to that person"

Which to my reading, falls in line with what the OP seems to be describing as a "hate group".

If that is not your intent, then I apologize, but it certainly appeared to be your point.

[TPaine7]

57. Accepted.

I don't much like this sniping anyway.

I take your word that this was an honest mistake, and assure you that I certainly had no intent to accuse you falsely; I made a mistake too.

I am usually quite literal and precise in what I say. Too literal sometimes.

I believe that depriving someone of their ability to defend themselves is--generally speaking--a terrible thing. That was true when blacks were disarmed in the face of the Klan, but that was not the only time it was wrong to deprive someone of the right to self-defense or the means to exercise it.

It is just as wrong to disarm a white woman whose ex has threatened to kill her and her children as it is to disarm a black person who a Klanman has threatened with death. The wrongness of the deprivation does not spring from the race or minority status of the victim, it springs from her humanity, or more precisely from her sentience.

Blacks, women and children have merited special protection because of their relative lack of power and status in society--because of society's tendency to see them as "less than" and less worthy of having their rights preserved. But the special protections have not (or should not have) sprung from it being worse to harm them than to harm white men, but from it being more likely that harm to them would not be taken seriously.

If I found a way to deprive the entire human race of their rights, that would be no less an atrocity because I didn't discriminate.

I don't think the Brady clowns act out of malice or hatred, but I do think they are extremely stupid or callous. If you follow the link I referenced several times above, you will see the type of legal regime they support. I despise it, not because the protagonist in Parker (the precursor to Heller) was black, but because she--and all the other people living under DC's unconstitutional regime--was human.

[Tejas]

63. I do.

Brady et al hates the idea of 2 adults engaged in private firearms transactions, but they would love registration of all firearms.

Brady hates the idea of no waiting period, they would love the idea of having to wait a week before even a nun takes possession of a firearm.

Brady hates the fact that the AWB expired in 2004, they would however love the renewal of such a "common sense" gun law.

Brady hates the idea that the NRA is so much more successful at the $ game than they are, they would love for the Joyce Foundation to fund their lazy *sses.


3:55


wait for it...

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/168449/may-13-2008/better-know-a-lobby---gun-control

<url>http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/168449/may-13-2008/better-know-a-lobby---gun-control</url>

[virginia mountainman]

41. I never said they "Lynched" gun owners..

But, they did, thru legislation they push disarm them...And left them vulnerable to attacks..

And many gun owners died, while complying with Brady,supported laws, that forced them to disarm when they go to certain places..

The Brady Campaign, has some blood on it's hands, from any mass shooting that happens in a legislated, "GUN FREE ZONE", especially ones where gun owners where killed, with their guns, locked away in their cars....These victims, are just as dead, as if they where lynched.

They CAME UP WITH, the legislation
They SUPPORTED, the legislation
They PUSHED, the legislation
THEY DEFENDED the legislation
THEY SENT LAWYERS to defend the legislation in court

They bear responsibility for the total failure of the legislation...

Yes, SIR, they do have blood on their hands...

[ET Awful]

47. So far NOTHING you've posted has substantiated your claim that they are a hate group

I think the ADL would very likely agree that they are not a hate group. The SPLC would likely not consider them a hate group. Real victims of real hate groups would likely not consider them a hate group.

You're insulting the memory of everyone who has fought REAL hate groups through history. You know people that were beaten, robbed, raped, lynched, abused, subjugated and treated as less than human because they were born black, or Jewish or gay, etc.

You demean their sacrifices.

Your foolish unwillingness to see that says FAR more about you than it does about the Brady Bunch.

[virginia mountainman]

49. You do realize, that Early Gun Control efforts..

Where to keep Black folks, from owning guns?? Don't you???

Standing up against the enemies of the US Bill of Rights, is no vice....And I will not apologize for it.

I would fight just as hard for this woman, to be free, as I would for HER RIGHT, to own a gun...Even modern ones...

Whether or not she is in Mississippi in 1864, or Chicago 2010... I am their...

[ET Awful]

52. Completely irrelevant, unles your'e insinuating that the Brady Campaign existed back then.

You're making an irrelevant argument to support an illogical point.

[Hello_Kitty]

25. Yeah, and Ted Nugent is practically MLK. eom

[Katya Mullethov]

65. " Rosa Parks with a guitar" .

Is how he puts it .

[Cheap_Trick]

39. Unrec x 1,000,000

I'll have to settle for just once for that idiotic statement.

[msongs]

53. OCD strikes again lol nt

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jody]

61. Great point, thanks. n/t

[Katya Mullethov]

66. Was that you , mountain ?

lulz were had .

[virginia mountainman]

68. ROFLMAO!!!!

What ME?!!? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooo ... LOL.......

[onehandle]

73. No, the right-wing gunosphere is full of the 'hate group' meme today.

And the marching orders were to plant that idea in the liberalosphere.

Mission accomplished.

[Name removed]

81. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[friendly_iconoclast]

82. Got a copy of those 'marching orders' to share with us?

I'd love to see the documentation (if any) behind your claim.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

95. The vandal's IP address is 24.0.195.230.

Located in Egg Harbor City, NJ.

Ain't WHOIS wonderful?

[proteus_lives]

67. Hahaha!

Wonderful and true!

[Ter]

70. Not a hate group, just anti-Constitution

n/t

[donheld]

72. talk about idiotic!!! Proud to unrecommend.

[old mark]

74. Don't know about a hate group, but they have always been liars and

generators of hysteria for profit.
Rec.

mark

[KansasVoter]

89. And the NRA has always been liars and anti american.

[EricInHouston]

93. Really?

You have any actual, you know, proof of that?

No? Didn't think so.

I don't even like the NRA but there is enough they have done to attack them on their merits and actions instead of just pulling things out of thin air.

[east texas lib]

94. As opposed to the VPC, that bastion of Truth, Justice and The American Way...

As long as you're unarmed and defenseless, that is. Now, hush up and die quietly for the glory of the Brady Bunch. It's the modern, trendy, politically correct thing to. Now, don't you feel better already? I know I do!

[Greyhound]

77. Some heads are aching from the spinning today.

They just gave Obama an 'F'.

[Name removed]

88. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

90. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[virginia mountainman]

91. What do you have against civil rights??

KansasVoter should read DU rules, insulting people is not tolerated, and you could be tombstoned for it.

[EricInHouston]

92. We understand you dont like guns...

I've been lurking here a while and figured it was about time I said something.

Ok - you don't like guns. Got that part. You don't understand them either - that is obvious.

The question I would have for you is, WHY? Why such anger over an inanimate object? Why would you want to direct all your anger towards a tool rather than the persons misusing the tool? Why do you believe the rights of all should be restricted because of the criminal behavior of a very small number of people?

If you don't like them - don't own one. Simple as that. Wanting to take away the rights of those who think differently is not a very progressive, or even rational, attitude.