A begging letter from the Brady Campaign with something left unsaid.

[friendly_iconoclast]

Having donated several dollars to the Brady campaign (and thus becoming a 'member', by their reckoning), I have now started

receiving solicitations from them.


The latest is purportedly from Victoria Reggie Kennedy on their behalf, soliciting donations for their Gun Law Defense Fund.

I quote:

...In the wake of the McDonald v. City of Chicago decision, I feel I must speak out and stand with the

Brady Center, as I know my late husband Ted Kennedy would have done.....That's why I'm writing to ask you to join me in making a

generous, tax-deductible gift to the Brady Center's Gun Law Defense Fund today.

Well, that's what you'd expect, naturally. Here's where the "something left unsaid" comes in:


They do not help pay judgements against the various cities and states when they lose. The punitive damages, legal fees, and court

costs get paid by the taxpayers of the various polities who lose against the SAF, NRA, or what have you. So only are they not

helping the cause they ostensibly support, they are providing a living for pro-RKBA lawyers.


For that matter, I've yet to see one gun control advocate publicly state here at DU that they helped some city or state

with legal costs incurred while defending a gun control law in court.



All hat and no cattle, iow.

[Warren Stupidity]

1. Do you apply the same standard to the litigation efforts of the NRA?

[friendly_iconoclast]

2. If the NRA (or SAF, GOA, JFPFO, etc.) loses, they pay. Not citizens at large....

...who may or may not support the efforts of their 'defenders'.

[lawodevolution]

4. Hard to find an NRA case in which they side with the government,

They almost are always sided with the people against the government which is normal when you fight for liberty and civil rights

[jancantor]

6. and when the NRA wins,

citizens win by having their freedoms expanded.

[old mark]

3. Brady and similar groups are money raisers for their own ends...at least the

non political sections of the NRA provide valuable services - nationwide safety and training programs and educational materials and magazines.

Anti's just take your money and ask for more, spread fear and lies in return.
And give ALL Democrats the anti-gun taint, costing us many votes.


mark

[lawodevolution]

5. No surprise there, gun control groups pocket the donations of their members and

Use your tax money to try and take your rights away from you using lies, manipulation and deception as the rational. They also have been known to be angry about the 1st amendment protections that give someone like me a voice in the debate.

[Hoyt]

7. Does the Brady Campaign sue cities and states that often?

I realize they have tried to block legislation allowing guns in national parks, but I have contributed to that. I don't think we need those in a 'non-well regulated militias" carrying guns any ole place they want to in public.

I'm sure they file amicus briefs from time to time, but every lobbying group in the world does that and they don't pay the legal expenses of the winning side.

Glad there are groups like Brady that believe we are better off without everyone carrying a gun in public places.

[DissedByBush]

8. The Brady Bunch gets cities to pass unconstitutional laws

Then of course the cities get sued and lose.

[Hoyt]

9. Never seen a city pass a law against a well regulated militia.

That would be against the law. I don't think prohibiting folks from carrying guns into a nursery school, public park, etc., is unconstitutional.

[PavePusher]

10. You seem to have poor reading comprehension.

"...keep and bear..."

"individual right"

I know you've seen those phrases before, but by all means, keep playing the disingenuous fool...

[spin]

12. Why?

You must think that because you pass a law people will obey it.

Seriously, imagine that you were emotional disturbed or legally insane and you decided to shoot up a school or a park and had access to a firearm. Would a "no guns" sign stop you?

In fact, you might be attracted to such sites because you could use them as a shooting gallery knowing that no law abiding citizen would have a firearm to resist you.

[Hoyt]

14. I guess you are going save us from the maniac in the park because you are packing. Get real.

Individual packers who want to be our police, judges and juries are the most dangerous toters in my opinion.

We don't need toters in public parks. If they are afraid to enter without a gun, let them stay home. We'll be better for it.

[friendly_iconoclast]

16. He might save himself from "the maniac in the park"- and that's all that matters.

As someone else already said to you, when you can offer a reliable and convenient service that can tell when a gun will be necessary,

your opinion of others' 'need' for a gun will be relevant.


For that matter, you haven't yet demonstrated a 'need' to post political opinions online. But here you are, speaking freely...

[Hoyt]

18. Even at the expense of others?

[X_Digger]

19. Please demonstrate this happenning.

I assume you're scaremongering the 'innocent bystander' canard.

What are the statistics? What is the rate per 100,000 permit holders 'innocent bystanders killed'?

Barring that..

Surely there should be at least one case for you to present, right?

[Hoyt]

21. The rate will increase the more who pack in public.

Well, I suppose the rate per 100K permit holders won't change, but the rate per 100K innocent citizens will.

[X_Digger]

23. Can't find one example? Look harder.. If you're right, there should be at least one..

There are about 6 million people with concealed carry / CHL / LTCF / CCW permits.

Surely with those six million, you can find one example of an innocent bystander being killed by a licensee defending themselves, right?

[friendly_iconoclast]

24. FAIL. The rate should have gone up already- there are far more people with CCW licenses.

In any case, that's not what he asked you. Hint:

"It's bound to happen Real Soon Now" doesn't count...

[Pavulon]

37. Just like crime went down in dc with the ban. bottom line is this is done, 2 supreme cases

mean you have a much better chance of overturning roe v wade or brown vs board. Your opinion is not upheld by the numbers.

[friendly_iconoclast]

22. We've already had the "everyone carrying" canard this evening.

Now we've got the "CCW holder shoots an innocent bystander" one.

The gun control canard trifecta is in play!

[RSillsbee]

34. At who's expensive

would you have disarmed me? You still haven't answered that question you know

[spin]

25. No, I might not save you from an attack ...

in fact I would be hesitant to intervene unless I knew exactly what was happening. For example, you might be a drug dealer being arrested by an undercover cop.

I carry to protect myself and my family. I have no fear of entering a public park. In fact, I seriously believe and hope that I will never have a reason to use my legal concealed weapon for self defense.

I also realize that there is very very little chance of my winning the lotto in my lifetime. Still, I buy one ticket for every draw. I have absolutely NO CHANCE of winning the lotto without a ticket.

I've shot handguns on a regular basis for 40 + years. I invested the time and money necessary to get a Concealed Weapons License. It's easy for me to carry. I just grab my S&W Model 642 .38+P revolver and drop it and its holster into my front pants pocket and head off to where ever I'm going.

On the slim chance that I need a firearm, I have one. It's better than wishing that I wouldn't have left it at home.

As far as the danger that people with legally concealed weapons present, I suggest you look at Florida's monthly summary on concealed carry.

In the time frame from October 1, 1987 to October 31, 2010, Florida issued 1,871,589 concealed weapons permits of which 767,739 are currently valid. Only 168 permits have been revoked in this 23 year time frame for a crime committed after the license was issued.
Ref: http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/cw_monthly.html

Do you seriously believe that making carrying firearms in park illegal will stop some person who is a criminal or has serious mental problems from using a gun to kill someone? Do you really believe that such a person intent on killing someone in the park would notice the sign and say, "Damn, this park is a gun free zone. I'll have to take my gun back to the car and leave?"

[friendly_iconoclast]

13. The Supreme Court seems to disagree with your definition of 'unconstitutional'.

But that's cool- it's a free country. But that leaves a question or three:


How much have you contributed to help defend gun control laws that you feel are Constitutionally sound, but are under legal

attack from the NRA, SAF, et al.? And if the Bradys are on the losing side (which they are more and more), do you help

pay the costs of the locality whose laws are determined to be unconstitutional.


Will you contribute to the Gun Control Defense Fund, and if so, how much?




Like I said in the OP, there doesn't seem to be a lot of people actually putting their money where their mouths are

when it comes to gun control orgs. There are a few large donors like George Soros and the Joyce Foundation, but little else.


Contrast that with the pro-RKBA orgs, who have vigorous fund raising drives for their legal funds. It's almost as if

gun control is nowhere near as popular as its supporters would have us believe.

That, or they're a bunch of cheapskates....

[Hoyt]

15. They just haven't had the right case yet. The SC allowed slavery, discrimination, and worse.

[friendly_iconoclast]

17. And what might "the right case" entail? Do tell..... eom

[Hoyt]

20. Whether any ole soul who can shoot a paper target can/should pack in public.

Watching a video, shooting a paper target that looks like a "bad man," passing a background check that Dahmer could have aced, buying the latest technology in weapons and load, etc., does not make one qualified to pack in public. Again, just my opinion.

[friendly_iconoclast]

26. Your concerns should be reflected in a higher crime rate amongst CCW holders....

...if they were valid. Instead, those CCW permits holders stubbornly refuse to conform to your prejudices and continue to be

overwhelmingly law abiding.

[spin]

27. I can find many examples of trained police misusing their weapons ...

but such incidents are rare for those who legally carry concealed.

Police work in a different environment. They actually attempt to apprehend criminals.

A person carrying concealed is not a cop. His job is not to catch criminals. If he is attacked or he finds himself in a situation where someone else is being attacked by a criminal, he may use his weapon in self defense or defense of the person under serious attack.

Usually such situations occur at extremely close range (five to fifteen feet) and many people who carry concealed practice shooting far more often than the police who qualify on a yearly or biyearly basis.

If you are comparing cops to people carrying concealed, you are definitely comparing apples to oranges.

[Hoyt]

30. You'd find examples among toters too if the situations they fear actually happened.

Law enforcers actually run into situations -- in fact, they get sent to them. Most toters -- recognizing some are cowboys -- hardly ever run into the situations they fear. So the fear is either irrational, or they just use it to rationalize toting a deadly weapon in public.

Personally, I do not want non-LEOs "defending" me. They are not the police . . . . . or judge and jury. Nor are they trained to handle such situations.

[one-eyed fat man]

31. Like these guys?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=347925&mesg_id=347925

CCW holders are not a police auxiliary and most state laws on defending someone OTHER than yourself impose a higher standard. As it stands, I have absolutely no legal imperative to come to your aid should you be assaulted, maimed, attacked or run over by a runaway Greyhound bus.

Insofar as the police deter by their presence, they are very, very good. Criminals take great pains not to commit a crime in front of them. Unfortunately, the corollary is that you can pretty much bet your life (and you are) that they won't be there at the moment you actually need them.

"Call for a cop, call for an ambulance, and call for a pizza. See who shows up first." And unlike the police, the victim does not have to resolve the ambiguity of who is the bad guy.

You tell us when confronted with the threat of lethal violence, we should not resist, but simply give the attacker what he wants. If the crime under consideration is rape, there might be a little waffling on this point. How can anyone be so callous as to expect her to, with great dignity and poise, simply hand over the goods? The suggestion that a criminal who proffers lethal violence should be treated as if he has instituted a new social contract: "I will not hurt or kill you if you give me what I want," is stupid beyond belief!

Do you believe that you are forbidden to protect yourself because the police are better qualified to protect you, because they know what they are doing but you're a rank amateur? Put aside that this is equivalent to believing that only concert pianists may play the piano and only professional athletes may play sports. What exactly are these special qualities possessed only by the police and beyond the rest of us mere mortals?

[spin]

32. It doesn't take a lot of training to realize when someone ...

is being attacked in a manner that seriously threatens his life or his health.

Q. When can I use my handgun to protect myself?

A. Florida law justifies use of deadly force when you are:

* Trying to protect yourself or another person from death or serious bodily harm;
* Trying to prevent a forcible felony, such as rape, robbery, burglary or kidnapping.

Using or displaying a handgun in any other circumstances could result in your conviction for crimes such as improper exhibition of a firearm, manslaughter, or worse.
http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/weapons/self_defense.html

If I ever help someone in such a situation and they complain, I'll be sure to apologize.

[Straw Man]

28. Opinion

Watching a video, shooting a paper target that looks like a "bad man," passing a background check that Dahmer could have aced, buying the latest technology in weapons and load, etc., does not make one qualified to pack in public. Again, just my opinion.

And a spectacularly uninformed one, at that. For starters, how do you think police train? By shooting real bad guys? This may come as a shock to you, but they watch videos and shoot paper.

To continue, are you aware that Dahmer did not use a firearms in his crimes, and as a convicted sex offender would not even have been able to purchase a long gun, much less obtain a carry permit? I know that you just chose his name for hyperbolic effect, but it does reflect on your overall credibility.

May I ask exactly what would, in your opinion, qualify a non-military, non-LEO person to carry in public? If the answer is "Nothing," then we have nothing to discuss.

BTW, the term "toter" is ridiculously corny, and it reflects badly on those who use it. It makes them sound bigoted, ignorant, and smug.

[Hoyt]

29. Qualification to carry --Someone who sees that toting has it's place and it is not in 99% of public.

And, yes, I am "biased" against people toting in public. Further, I think open toting is even worse than concealed -- but they both are wrong. Yep, that's my opinion after 45+ years of being around guns -- hunting, target, collectible, antique, etc. -- and fanatics.

[spin]

33. How than do you explain the unusually low rate of problems involving firearms caused ...

by people who have concealed carry permits.

Florida publishes a Monthly Summary Report for Concealed carry.

The report covers a 23 year time frame from 10/1/87 to 10/31/10. During that period of time Florida issued 1,871,589 concealed weapons permits and currently 767,739 are valid. ONLY 168 LICENSES HAVE BEEN REVOKED FOR A CRIME COMMITTED IN WHICH A FIREARM WAS USED.

Ref: http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/cw_monthly.html

It really doesn't sound like the people who legally carry are dangerous. I have been around guns as long as you have and I can't remember that many shooters that I felt were fanatical about the sport. Most enjoyed shooting and trading or collecting firearms and were very responsible and reasoned individuals.

In fact as I think about it, I have seen a lot more people who were fanatical about golf than shooting and a good number of these golf fanatics were also regular shooters.

[Straw Man]

35. Qualification.

Qualification to carry --Someone who sees that toting has it's place and it is not in 99% of public.

So the qualification to carry is the desire not to carry? How perfectly Orwellian. And please enlighten us as to that 1% of "public" where it is appropriate to carry. Or is it just some kind of mystical wisdom that will come to me when I'm "qualified"?

[Pavulon]

39. Good thing your feelings' relevance stops with your wife.

CCW holders are FAR less likely to cause you a problem than the police or the criminals. Numbers back that.

[PavePusher]

41. So I ask you AGAIN to present credible evidence of your precognition.

And your continued insinuations are noted.

[Pavulon]

38. 2 ssbi checks, access to things far more lethal than a pistol

for many years and some asshole barney fife fuckhead in socal would deny me a pistol permit unless i get a lawyer to pay him a bribe?

Do I need a ranger tab? Where is the line for you before I can legally carry>

[oneshooter]

40. I really don't believe that he could pass the Texas CHL requirements. n/t

[DissedByBush]

36. I'll support gun control laws

When they support educating people on how to control their guns, thus gun control.

[friendly_iconoclast]

11. You lot just can't stay away from your pet fallacies, can you?

Glad there are groups like Brady that believe we are better off without everyone carrying a gun in public places.

Show me someone who supports "....everyone carrying a gun in public places" and I'll be happy to disagree with them myself.

No intervention from the Bradys will be necessary.