Last edited Tue Jan 3, 2012, 03:04 AM - Edit history (1)
"The NRA questionnaire is designed to exclude proponents of most gun control"
Asking someone to go on the record, by answering a series of question, is somehow by design, a conspiracy to exclude gun control proponents?
And some people here claim gun owners are pananoid. That market would appear, cornered by the other half, within the debate. 
As to the brady bunch, its pretty simple to lay the trump card on them - as I said in another post:
The brady bunch hitches their wagon to "gun violence" sure, I don't deny that, but thats NOT really what they're about.
Witness the lies:
"Glock handguns are "not suited for hunting or personal protection,” said Paul Helmke, the president of the Brady Campaign."
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/10/opinion/10collins.html?_r=3&hp
"We're not a gun ban organization. We don't push for gun bans" - Helmke - 2008.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-helmke/nra-gun-licensing-and-reg_b_110778.html
Did I mention the brady nunch submitted an amicus in favor of the DC handgun ban, and have pushed the assault weapon ban at every turn?
Did I mention their original name was "handgun control inc"?, and that their mission was the banning of handguns?
And then there are these facts:
This is a group that has deliberately included adults in thier "child statistics" to inflate them. No organization that has a legitimate intent to reduce gun violence would do such a thing.
This is a group that claims to want to prevent gun violence, yet gives grades on a per state basis based on how much they restrict guns rather than how high or low the level of gun crime/gun violence is in that state. Again, no organization that has a legitimate intent to reduce gun violence would do such a thing.
This is a group that claimed that civilian owned 50 caliber rifles which are esentially never used in crime could shoot down aircraft, which is a huge lie, and used that false rationale for stamping thier feet and screaming ban at the tops of thier lungs.
Again, no organization that has a legitimate intent to reduce gun violence would do such a thing.
This is a group that opposes concealed carry, even though police as a group are convicted of a larger number of crimes than CCW holders.
Once again, no organization that has a legitimate intent to reduce gun violence would do such a thing.
This is a group that claimed that "assault weapons" were the choice of criminals, in spite of the fact that ALL rifles - which 99 percent of so called "assault weapons" are - are used in less than 3 percent of all firearm homicides, and used that false rationale for stamping thier feet and screaming ban at the tops of thier lungs.
Once again, no organization that has a legitimate intent to reduce gun violence would do such a thing.
They may as well be "the brady campain to reduce guns", because 90 plus percent of the things they stump for are aimed squarely at doing just that.
And did I mention that they thought a republican would be a good fit as president of thier org?
I have said it many times in this post:
No organization that has a legitimate intent to reduce gun violence would go after legally owned guns, unless thats what they want gone. They aren't interested in reducing gun violence unless its through restrictive gun laws aimed at people who by and large aren't a problem in the first place.
Do they look at root causes of gun violence? No. They go after guns.
Do they bother investigating how much the "war on some drugs" effects gun violence? Of course not. Like good little gun haters they never bring that up, and go after guns instead.
As far as they're concerned, its the guns.
Though their words (if you accept their lies as true) and their name might indicate their intention is to reduce gun violence, their their actions paint a completely different picture.
Edit history
= new reply since forum marked as read
