Brady Campaign - Do you support it?

[PlayboyPenguin]

I will agree with most of what bullfrog said but I will strongly disagree with the idea that children have the right to arm themselves with firearms for self defense.

Defending a child is the responsibility of the parent.

Children do not possess the required decision making skills to know when or when not to use deadly force. They just simply do not.

As for a day when kids could buy firearms...I remember when we could buy a rifle and even then you had to have a parent with you. I never remember a time when a 12 year old could walk into a gunshop and buy a handgun.

I even asked a gun dealer friend this question once and he said that is a falsehood. There may not have been a set law against it but that was because one was not needed because gun dealers would never even consider it back then. He is 72 and been in the business since he started working for his dad 58 years ago.

 

[BullfrogKen]

PlayboyPenguin said: Children do not possess the required decision making skills to know when or when not to use deadly force. They just simply do not.

But, we let them drive. And even . . . . Big GASP, get birth control and have an abortion without parental involvement. Big dichotomy.

PlayboyPenguin said: There may not have been a set law against it but that was because one was not needed because gun dealers would never even consider it back then.

Exactly. The shop owner knew the customer, and his family. If Dad said, my boy's ready, sell him that .22 revolver sir, there were states that permitted it and shops that did it. Also, there were a lot of places that turned away those they didn't think ought to have one because of his reputation of behavior. The nanny state taking it all over removes individual responsibility.


It used to be a non-issue. The are people who can remember how gun transactions took place before this current generation of hysteria.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

Bullfrog,

I am going to need some help finding where it has been legal to sell handguns to minors. Most info I am finding is saying it has never been legal. Some things I am finding are referring to a date of 1938 as when it became officially illegal.

I know people are always talking about how it was legal when they were young and there were no issues with it but I cannot find where it was ever legal for children to buy handguns. Unless the people are talking pre-1938 which would make them nearly 80 to be able to remember that.

I have also never seen any gun related studies pre-1938 on which to base my opinion.

If anyone has this info please pass it on to me. I like to have the facts before I form a hard opinion.

 

[evan price]

Well, first, let me say I have no intention of voting in this poll, because it serves no purpose and is a waste of bandwidth, IMHO.
However my opinion on this is pretty obvious- NO.

Now, The Brady campaign is something I can understand. Most of us can. What happened to Sarah Brady, or more particularly, her HUSBAND, during the assassination attempt on President Reagan was a tragedy in every sense of the word. I feel for her; I wish that that crime had not happened; and I understand her need for vengeance and to "right wrongs" she perceives had wrecked her life.

Unfortunately I also believe that her past tragedies in no way excuse her for creating more tragedies, unrest, disappointment, divisiveness, and ultimately hatred in some, to pursue her idealistic dreams. A world without guns would be great! If it was 100% without guns. Or knives. Or sticks. Or empty bottles, or people with large physical stature or strength... if the world were truly equal.

But let's be realistic. This is not going to ever happen. The weak will be preyed upon by the strong. If the weapon of choice is a pallet slat with a nail in it (until we ban boards with nails, will we ever be safe???) then we need a bigger board, with a bigger nail.

Basically, what I am saying is, I do not hate Sarah Brady. I don't pity her either. I wish she would just shut up and go away. She and her cronies have made a pile of money by standing over the crippled body of her husband and waving his bloody shirt in our faces.

Enough, already. You suffered, unfairly. Life is unfair. Grow stronger from it and put your talents to use doing something about the real problem, which is not gun ownership.

If you really want to save lives, Sarah Brady, then why don't you start a National Campaign to Stop Automotive Violence? More people die every year in the US from cars than guns. There's your enemy. We don't need stricter enforcement of existing laws about automobile ownership, we need Car Control.

My $.02, and worth every penny.

 

[Eleven Mike]

Well, first, let me say I have no intention of voting in this poll, because it serves no purpose and is a waste of bandwidth, IMHO.
However my opinion on this is pretty obvious- NO.

But haranguing Sarah Brady (who's probably not reading this thread) with your obvious opinion, while actually preaching to the choir is worth your precious bandwidth?

I didn't vote either.

 

[benEzra]

bclark1,

The Brady Campaign supports "gun rights for hunters who ONLY own hunting guns that we approve of." That's their definition of reasonable gun ownership. There are a few (very few) gun owners who fit that category.

The problem with your friend's view is that

(1) he thinks most gun owners are hunters and such who only own guns the Bradyites approve of, whereas only 1 in 5 gun owners nationally hunts (there are between 2 and 3 times as many handgun owners as hunters, for example); and

(2) he has fallen for a load of crap about the FiveSeven (with civilian ammo, it will NOT penetrate any vest that is rated to stop .357 magnum), assault weapons (any civilian gun holding more than 6 or 10 rounds, or any civilian rifle or shotgun with a handgrip that sticks out), etc. etc. etc.

 

[pharmer]

It is interesting that 1% of the general public is actively psychotic and completely disconnected from reality and the same percentage voted yes on a gun board Joe

 

[thumbody]

I will agree with most of what bullfrog said but I will strongly disagree with the idea that children have the right to arm themselves with firearms for self defense.

Defending a child is the responsibility of the parent.

Children do not possess the required decision making skills to know when or when not to use deadly force. They just simply do not.

Penguin I believe this family believes you're wrong.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/poe/poe1.html
There have been many incidences of young people arming themselves and protecting themselves and/or others some of these stories have been shared on this forum
Here is one
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=227831

 

[Green Lantern]

My wife is from South Africa. She is a legal, resident alien, on the long path to citizenship, in a country she loves. She is training diligently to handle firearms effectively and responsibly, with the intention of getting her CCW soon.

Please explain to me why she shouldn't own a gun?

*opens mouth, removes foot*

People like your wife were not exactly what I had in mind there, even though they do meet the definition of "non-citizen." But in her case, she did come here LEGALLY and is in the process of becoming a citizen. Which should count for something.

Just curious (I should be more informed on this), but just how long does/will it take for her to gain full citizenship?

Ok, ok...how's about I improve it:

"I used to agree with all 3 restrictions, and still do for anyone not in the country legally!"

Penguin - I can see what you're saying to a point, however - age does NOT equal maturity!

If in a gunfight and given a choice, I'd pick one of these "kids" that have defended their families to watch my back, over an IANSA-brainwashed "adult" that wets his pants at the mere sight of an "evil" gun!

 

[Justin]

LISTEN UP.

I just wasted a not insignificant amount of time excising a lot of off-topic idiocy from this discussion. (God knows it certainly wasn't ribaldry.)

For those of you who took part in the discussion, you might consider how your so-called contributions to the discussion reflect on both you and on THR. If you're still unsure, take a quick perusal of THR's Code of Conduct, which I'll note you all agreed to when you signed up here.

Ponder on it for a bit, and consider what topics are appropriate for THR.

Ok, back to the discussion.

 

[Cosmoline]

Children do not possess the required decision making skills to know when or when not to use deadly force. They just simply do not.

What about the son who just shot an intruder to defend his mom? Did you see that article? Children shouldn't have the full rights of an adult to be armed in public, but that doesn't mean they can't be trained and prepared to defend the household.

 

[buzz_knox]

Now, The Brady campaign is something I can understand. Most of us can. What happened to Sarah Brady, or more particularly, her HUSBAND, during the assassination attempt on President Reagan was a tragedy in every sense of the word. I feel for her; I wish that that crime had not happened; and I understand her need for vengeance and to "right wrongs" she perceives had wrecked her life.

Sarah Brady didn't turn anti as a result of the shooting. In an interview (in the early 90s when the movement needed a boost and to make herself more credible), she said she decided to work to limit access to firearms after a child gained access to a weapon someone had left in a vehicle. As stated above, She uses her husband's wound as a bloody shirt to wave, just as Cindy Sheehan uses her son's death.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

just as Cindy Sheehan uses her son's death.

I find this comment offensive. If you have never lost a child to war you should get down on your knees and give thanks that you haven't and then beg forgiveness for that comment.

 

[Justin]

Careful, PP. Sitting on a horse that high's liable to give you a nosebleed.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

Careful, PP. Sitting on a horse that high's liable to give you a nosebleed.

No high horse here (at least I like to think not). I come from a military family that has lost loved ones to war and I find that comment offensive.

I do not think stating so in anyway violates and conduct codes. I am not attacking anyone. I found problem with a statement. Not with a person. I do not think a bad statement makes for a bad person. I say offensive things all the time (just ask alot of people on here) and I think I am pretty neat.

I just think sometimes people latch onto comments like that and repeat them without any real reference to what they mean and how hurtful they can be to someone who has suffered such a loss.

 

[kikr]

Just like I don't support Sarah Brady having a CCW and trying to tell me I'm not responsible for one.

The brady bunch is about responsibility. They are essentially saying that the average American citizen is not capable of maintaining responsible gun ownership.

 

[buzz_knox]

You can be as offended as you want. It doesn't stop the statement from being true. Sheehan was a professional protestor before her son went into the military and his death provided her a soapbox to carry on her work. She's used the "celebrity" she's obtained to rage not only against the war (understandable) but also for her pet causes, such as (until her handlers reined her in) Israel's "evil" treatment of the Palestinians.

 

[Cosmoline]

Exactly. It's not about the significance of losing a family member to war or violence. It's about USING THAT DEATH as a rank political tool. The libs are particularly good at it.

beg forgiveness for that comment

From SHEENAN!? You can't be serious.

 

[buzz_knox]

What was it that some of Clinton's former staff said? That they wished 9/11 had happened on their watch because it would have been their moment to shine and establish a legacy?

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

Sheehan was a professional protestor before her son went into the military and his death provided her a soapbox to carry on her work.

Could you please provide me the information on which you are basing this statement? I know that Rush, O'Reilly, and Hannity called her a "professional protester" (all on the same day after receiving their talking points) as part of their two word culture of slander. I have however never seen evidence of this and have seen two of the three back off this statement. I am just curious on what it is based.

And when I said beg forgiveness I am saying from every person who has lost a child to war. If you have not you have no right calling those emotions into question. One should never speak of something they know absolutely nothing.

 

[Eleven Mike]

Playboy, I don't care what she did before her son died. If in no other way than this, she is using his death to pretend she has more say on the Iraq war than others do. She is using her grief as a shield from any and all criticism.

She should spend the rest of her life on her face before other families of slain military personnel, begging their forgiveness. Especially to those families whose loved one's name has been used in her protests without so much as a by-your-leave.

 

[Cosmoline]

If Plan A is to defend Cidy Sheehan, might I suggest a Plan B.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

Cosmoline,

Would a picture of Rumsfeld with Saddam or Bush with the Bin Laden family or Cheney with Momar mean we cannot support our govt?

Not that I actually support her (I have never really listened to her) but I would never call her emotions involving the loss of her son into question and think doing so is in poor taste.

If she really feels strongly about losing her son to a war she feels is unjustified (a feeling I share) then she has every right to say what she thinks and to use the attention she receives to make her point.

How is that different than people like Rush and Hannity going out and spewing what they are told (whether they believe it or not) just for the cash.

I also hate people falling into the trap of the "two word" culture the neo-caons have tried to impose on people. Use you search engine on the words "professional protester" and her name and you will see that every right wing rag printed stories using that same phrase the same day and kept using it to this day. Talk about manuipulation.

 

[cbsbyte]

I voted on the fence. Not because I agree with the Brady group on most issues, I don't support most of their stance on RKBA. I do agree with them on some issues, for example background, mental health checks and limits on high capacity magazines.

 

[buzz_knox]

On second thought, forget it. Why give her the publicity?